The "little I"

     The essence of Mr. Nyland's explanation about this practice, what attracted me and has held me, is expressed by his concept- he said it was Gurdjieff's concept- of the "little I."

     The basic explanation is this: In our present condition, as we find ourselves, we are not capable of real consciousness, which would be characterized by impartiality and simultaneity. Real consciousness is, however, potentially possible for us, but only by the creation, or it might be called uncovering, and development of something quite different from our present experience, something that can exist in our consciousness. Mr. Nyland called this "objective faculty" (another term of his) the "little I." Little because, as he said, "it is very small in the beginning, just one or two cells." And "I," because this is one's real individuality.

     This explanation accounted for my experience better than any theory that I had ever encountered, whether scientific, religious, philosophical, psychological or political. It explained why I was not happy and why I didn't know what to do with myself. It also revealed a path of infinite hope.

     L.S.D. had ignited my hope, but the flame was flickering and dying because there was no way to feed it. This practice showed a way.

     The theory of the "little I" was completely acceptable to me both intellectually and emotionally. It became my religion, I who had never had a religion. Because the "little I" has properties of God, and therefore faith in the "little I" is faith in God. It is no idol. The presence of the "little I" is God's presence. And God is present to us, in His omnipresence. What is more basic to religious faith than that? The "little  I" shows that the question of God's presence is NOT about God. It is one's own consciousness that is in question. Your consciousness is demonstrably false. You can demonstrate this for yourself by trying to experience real consciousness.

       Religious people should have the courage to examine the foundations of their faith. Faith in some doctrine or in the Bible as the Word of God is not above the question of idolatry. Only God is without impurity. Mr. Nyland said that the "little I" showed the real meaning of God's presence in the flesh on Earth, which Christians consider to have been embodied in Jesus Christ. Obviously, as the Muslims have pointed out, there are serious problems with calling any human being God. I do believe in the historical existence of Jesus Christ as a great teacher whose sayings ring true down the centuries and whose presence among us was proof of that great hope and faith that we all feel organically, the reason why we do continue to get up in the morning, or at least sometimes, in the case of the very depressed.

     But the "little I" must be PRESENT. That is the crucial point. It has to be present reality. As an idea, it is intellectually satisfying and it feeds one's spirit. Making efforts for the presence of the "little I" feeds one's spirit. But only the presence of impartiality (one can drop simultaneity, because presence includes simultaneity) can realize our hope.

     The dexterity to which I have referred is dexterity in experiencing the presence of the "little I," which is no longer little when it is present. It still requires effort. When the "little I" is present, the effort is effortless.

     This idea of the "little I" was exactly what drew me to this practice. It was radically different from anything that I had encountered elsewhere, and I knew that it must be right.

     My consciousness has been dominated by my thinking. Thinking has mediated everything, or at least has "gotten its fingers in the pie." I have had thoughts about every part of my conscious experience, even my subconscious experience has been associated with thoughts, also subconscious. I think that it has also been the same for you.

     I didn't ask to be this kind of person. It was just the way that I happened to develop. Until I experienced L.S.D., I didn't realize that my experience, my reality could be any other way. But our experience can be different. Reality- our reality- is much greater than our thought. Obviously we must live in awareness of reality, if we are to really live. Bur how to get to such awareness? An experience of L.S.D. doesn't make any lasting change in the habitual organization of our consciousness, it doesn't change the false foundation of our lives.

     I think that L.S.D. is one psychotropic drug that can be tremendously useful. It was for me. The explosion of interest in and exploration of L.S.D. that took place in the Sixties is evidence that "I'm not the only one." But obviously, there are great differences in both the short term and long term effects of L.S.D. on people. Investigators soon came to attribute these differences to differences in "set and setting," that is, to the surrounding physical and social environment, and to one's "mindset," that is, how one thinks about the L.S.D. experience.

     I didn't have a lot of preconceptions about what I would experience, and I had a favorable setting. Actually I must thank the wise guidance of my old friend Jim Burkard for that.

     At the time of the L.S.D. "trip," one's consciousness is dominated by a powerful experience. Still, one's preconceptions and thoughts about what is happening play an influential role. It was to my advantage that I had few or no preconceptions. My experience of L.S.D. was of a new world, except I knew it was the same world in which I lived all the time. It was quite obvious that I usually lived in unconsciousness or waking sleep. Fortunately I was not burdened with Gurdjieff's ideas at that time. I had no framework of thought into which to fit the L.S.D. experience. The very next day, I began feverishly trying to construct such a framework. I couldn't help it, because thought was basic to my consciousness. But I did realize that there was something sacred about this. I knew that awareness of reality was superior. Those who have experienced, know. I knew that my thought could not comprehend it. But I tried, with all my ingenuity and creativity of thought, to figure out a way to real consciousness. That was a futile and crazy-making endeavor, until I encountered Mr. Nyland's teaching.

     I haven't repeated Mr. Nyland's explanations about the "little I" in this blog. I could not explain it better or as well as he, so why try? If you want to hear about the "little I," Mr. Nyland's talks are the best source. You will have to invest a little effort to access them, but they are accessible.

     I have been telling you about aspects of the "little I" and I have been recommending simple efforts that you can make to experience those aspects. I have been trying to inspire you to get up and start walking in the right direction.

     Why bother? Why not just refer anyone who might be interested to Mr. Nyland's talks and to his groups?

     In the first place, people don't seem to "get it" sufficiently by those means, these days. While Mr. Nyland was alive, his groups were growing. Since his death, they are surviving. There are some newcomers and new adherents, but in general Mr. Nyland's groups, and the whole Gurdjieff movement, do not show promise of affecting the mainstream of our culture, in its flow down the drain. This is not acceptable. This teaching has the power to save Western civilization and human civilization.

     In the second place, I have had to suffer too much in my quest to realize the "little I." It has been too lonely and it has taken too long. I am not complaining. It has been well worth the journey. But it is a lonely quest, to be devoted to a most worthy aim that very few people can even understand. Being that kind of stranger sets a person up for great suffering. Better that we should share aims that are more understandable. Better that we should be able to share this practice much more widely. Better that we should be busy with efforts that we can understand. Then, we wouldn't have to suffer so much. Then, we could be on our way together. It is the responsibility of those of us who know to see that our aims and efforts continue to take us in the right direction. The "little I" shows the right direction.

     This practice is real psychology and real religion. If you believe in either, it offers you a road of development. In making efforts to experience the presence of the "little I," or any aspect of the "little I," one makes this practice actual. It becomes more than just a theory or a faith. It becomes conscious experience. If one practices correctly, the "little I" begins to become reality in one's life, when it is present.

     It must be present. Faith is very valuable, and good theory is also valuable. Making efforts to realize faith and verify theory is even more valuable, but the "little I" must be present. Only then is this faith justified and this theory confirmed.

     I have not been able to experience enough presence of the "little I" in the first forty years of my practice. I have not yet had sufficient dexterity. Now, I do.

     I have suffered a great deal because of my aim and wish to realize something in my life that I was not yet able to realize, and others close to me have also suffered. I lost Sheila and she lost her life. Sometimes I could fall to my knees in grief, despair and self-hatred. But life must be accepted as it is present. Reality must be accepted. In impartiality there is an infinite vista of possibility, present now.

     I wish that I could have explained this practice to Sheila so that she could have understood it. It would have saved her life and our life. If I had been able to be present more, it would have saved our life. I am present now and life is. I wish that Sheila were present in body. She is present in spirit. I must live for us both. Sheila's suicide forced me to learn more dexterity- walk, or die. So I have learned to walk. It is a gift of our love. I have tried to explain to you what I was not yet able to explain to her well enough so that she could "get it." I hope that you can use it.

Dexterity

     The practice of awareness of reality is the process of learning a certain dexterity, dexterity in experiencing awareness of reality. Awareness of reality is an experience of consciousness that is characterized by simultaneity- that is, it is now, it is present- and impartiality, which means that it is whole, not partial.

     Simultaneity is an elusive quality, but it can be understood and experienced relatively easily, and when you experience it, you know it. Our thought is storytelling. If we are telling stories about our experience in the present moment, of course we are always a little behind. This is the quality of our thought that this criterion of simultaneity highlights. We want to experience an awareness that is not thinking. Why? Because our thinking is not good enough. That is not to say that it is no good, but our thinking does not touch reality. The motivation that drives this practice is that one feels, sometimes to the marrow of one's bones, that one has not been responding appropriately to reality. My conscience reproaches me, and I know it is right. I wish with all my heart to live in peace with my conscience. But how? I must live in awareness of reality. Living in stupidity, I continue to make stupid mistakes. In unconsciousness, that can never end.

     Awareness of reality must be present. Only then, can this practice fulfill its promise. This practice can and does give me hope. It keeps my faith and love alive. It has given me great insight. But life is real only then, when I am present. Of course it is theoretically real at all times. The question is whether I experience my reality, whole and present. I can only count on responding appropriately to reality if I am aware of reality.

     If it isn't simultaneous, it isn't awareness, it's thinking. Thinking is good, but not good enough for God's kingdom to ever come on my Earth.

     Mr. Nyland said that impartiality is easier to understand than simultaneity. I think that it is easier to understand simultaneity. Impartiality suggests that we must be aware of the whole of reality, simultaneously.  That kind of consciousness can be imagined as an attribute of God, but it is really impossible for me to imagine it for myself. Yet it is obviously necessary for awareness of reality to be not partial. Partial awareness is what I have already. It is good, but not good enough. I don't require impartial awareness of the whole universe, like God, but I require impartial awareness of MY whole universe. Actually, I don't require even that, but I do require that when my awareness of reality exists, when I am actually present, that my awareness should have the quality of impartiality. It means that my consciousness regards my present with utter openness, an openness that can receive anything that could possibly exist in my universe with the same unconditional positive regard. Mr. Nyland used to say, "no liking or disliking." It doesn't go far enough. Impartiality means that my consciousness, at that moment, is aware of my present as God would view any aspect, any time or place, any person, even me, of His universe.

     The practice of awareness of reality is the development of dexterity in experiencing impartial, simultaneous awareness of reality. The dexterity is what we lack, in the beginning. After 40 years, like a rather delayed child learning to walk, I have progressed. I can actually stand and even take a few shaky steps. It is a great accomplishment, but relative to actually living in awareness of reality, it's not much use as yet. My dexterity needs to develop further before I can eat that pie with ice cream on top, the satisfaction in life that is obviously accessible if one could live in awareness of reality. A little awareness now and then is not yet of that much practical use.

     I have held out for the development of this dexterity. I have not devoted myself to seeking satisfaction wholeheartedly or scientifically. I have not tried with all my intelligence to avoid pain. I have seen the need to develop this dexterity. It was smart of me, regardless of who calls me a fool, including myself. I am not a fool for realizing my foolishness and realizing that, first of all, my consciousness must be corrected. That is the right way. This is what Mr. Nyland taught.

     But it must be present. Presence has a meaning for me now that this word could not have had 40 years ago. All my efforts are associated with this word, the sum total of my real dexterity. When I was informed, a month ago, that in addition to the three core qualities articulated by Carl Rogers with which I have been familiar for years, and which have guided my counseling practice, he had also articulated a fourth, presence, it was a revelation. Obviously Rogers was quite right to add presence. Presence is instantaneous and also something that I do. That is really the same as saying that it is a dexterity.

     I have been in certain habits regarding the practice of awareness of reality. We all are creatures of habit. It is like a child learning to walk is in the habit of crawling. How do you go from a habit of crawling to walking?

     For me, presence is the key. I think it will unlock the Secret Garden.

     In presence I leave crawling behind. I mean by crawling, thinking. I still think, of course, but when I am present, I am not immersed in thought. Life is real then, when I am present. Other people are real, my feelings are real.

     I have an anxiety in entering this new world of presence. Is it impartial? Because impartiality is my God. In presence, I have no time to assure myself that my awareness is impartial. I don't stop to think. In presence, I trust my dexterity.

     I do not trust myself. In God, I trust. According to the Uncertainty Principle, you can never be sure what the present holds, until you open it. Is God inside? Did I really get God for Christmas? It was promised, but until I am present, it must remain uncertain.

     The question is, is it sustainable. I think it is sustainable. It feels sustainable. I have to walk. A friend of mine used the phrase, "to walk your talk," a few years ago. It is a little variant on the popular saying about walking the walk versus talking the talk. It was always a little irritating to me. Talking is an expression of thought. Walking occurs in reality, as does talking. Walking is one thing, talking is another. My walking doesn't have to conform to my thoughts or to my speech. But if I want to tell you about how I walk, I had best be aware of reality, if I want to speak the truth.

     Now I am present, and now I remain present, and is it sustainable? My thinking is crawling, and I am back on my knees, and maybe I want to crawl for awhile, because I am in the habit, but now I am back on my feet. It is something I can do now, to walk, to remain present. I can do it. I return to crawling. I ask myself, is this walking O.K.? Is it really impartial, am I forgetting my God, the love and hope that has sustained me on this long crawl through the Valley of Death? So I return to my thinking, but now I stand again. Presence shows me that I can do it now. You know how it is with children. Once they learn to walk, they don't crawl much anymore. Walking is better.

     Presence is not merely alertness or mindfulness, not for me, because I have developed dexterity in awareness of reality. Without that dexterity, presence must mean alertness or mindfulness. If you have not that dexterity, practicing alertness or mindfulness will not necessarily take you in the right direction, and it will definitely not keep you in the right direction.

     Presence reminds me that I can walk. I don't need to worry about being motivated. My pain motivates me. But walking is a pleasure. I really don't need to keep my pain anymore. I have not wished to lose my pain until I learned to live in awareness of reality. I have known that this was the right way:

     "The good man, in his dim strivings, remains indeed conscious of the right way."

     And so God pardoned even Faust, who was so foolish as to sell his soul to the devil, in his eagerness to grab for pie with ice cream on top. But I wish to walk in consciousness of the right way, as a human being should walk. I will be present, in all things, in writing, in relationships, alone and with others. It is for me to do. God does not walk for me, but God made me to walk, and I know that He rejoices, I know that my mother and father, my beloved, all those with whom my love goes forever rejoice to see me present in awareness of reality. The spiritual world can see it. As for my fellow beings here on Earth, I must be present in my communication. "All flesh shall see it together." That is impartiality, present in the flesh.

     Merry Christmas to all, and to all, a new dawn, present for us all.

Impartiality

     We find ourselves where we are. That includes where we are in reality, and also where we are in our consciousness. I wish to be conscious of reality, the reality of this body, mind and feelings, also my whole reality, the universe as experienced by me, other people, present in body or in spirit, my relationship with the Earth, with all that is.

     It includes my thoughts, but awareness is not thinking. Of course I think, in fact I love to think, I am good at it, I have a real interest in psychology and a number of other topics. But I am really seriously interested in psychology. My interest there goes beyond mere thought. My psychology is really my life.

     The ultimate conclusion of all my psychological thinking is that I must wake up to reality, right now. Then, when I make this effort, my thinking just goes on, like all of my physical processes just go on. My attention is on my living as a whole, simultaneously with life of my real I.

     One must learn this dexterity. It takes a lot of practice. What is the motivation?

     The motivation is really our pain, emotional pain. We all experience emotional pain, and sometimes a great deal of it. It can drive people to suicide, although that is a profoundly stupid response to emotional pain. Sometimes one sees no way out. It can also drive people to what used to be called madness. Obviously we seek a way out of emotional pain. That is a principle of life, any organism does the same. It is simple enough if one sees a way out. If not, we often resort to distraction, maybe facilitated by drugs or alcohol. It can be a good strategy. We can easily be excessively focused on our pain. If one gets one's mind off it for a bit perspective is restored, one realizes that there is much more to my life than only my pain. But when the emotional pain is chronic, a need of ours that is not being met, it returns, maybe in full force. Relief by distraction may become more difficult. The required dose of drugs and alcohol may increase. One can easily spend so much time under the influence that one's possibility of actually getting needs met and thereby eliminating the cause of the pain is seriously impaired, and substance abuse can cause even more pain by damaging our relationships, finances and health, until it becomes substance dependance.

     Acceptance is the better way. Obviously I don't mean acceptance that I must remain in pain (in Spain,   mainly on the plain.) Of course I don't accept that, neither would a flea or a cockroach. Even a plant must hope for better on some level. I am talking about acceptance of reality as is, not a feeling of acceptance but an experience of acceptance. Of course I am responsible to respond to reality. That is my life, I respond continuously. If I am in pain, maybe great emotional pain, that is definitely telling me that I am not responding to reality correctly. I have to have hope that it could be better. Somehow, it must be possible for me to respond differently. At the moment, I don't know how.

     In acceptance of my present, I accept my pain, I accept the reality that is causing my pain, and I accept my hope, faith and determination that I will move on, out of pain and toward paradise. I accept it all, impartially. This is not possible in my thought.

     Impartiality means that I have an experience in my consciousness in which reality is accepted, at that moment, as is. I cannot be impartial in my thought, but it is possible for me to experience impartial awareness in my consciousness. It is not thought. It is a higher functioning of my consciousness, a capacity that I do have, and so do you, but which is not automatically developed by our life in our culture. It must be developed by one's own will and one's own efforts. This work cannot proceed in isolation. We must make a culture of awareness of reality.

     I call it a higher functioning, not to evoke or express a certain pernicious form of egoism which is a huge trap for those who set out on this path. Exactly because the understanding of the need for real acceptance is rare in our culture, and the realization that acceptance of reality is only possible by means of a different kind of mental capacity from thinking is even much rarer-rarity squared, one might say: there is a very human, very understandable tendency for groups, and this is a group enterprise, there is a culture of this kind of practice, there is a tremendous history of human beings who have pursued this kind of quest, the way of life and of reconnection, one comes into contact, somehow, with this culture, and you are coming in contact with it right now; but there is a tendency for groups pursuing this kind of aim, in a culture that doesn't recognize the necessity and the value of it, to adopt a certain defensive egoism, that we who are "seekers of the truth" are actually superior, more enlightened, more developed, more chosen than our fellows. This is a disastrous attitude, even if it is understandable. It tends to paralyze relationships even within such groups, as everyone who has been seriously involved with this kind of practice knows.

     A person must understand that I am, I exist. This is true for each person. I experience reality, my reality. I must respond to life as experienced by me. I experience emotional pain at times, sometimes great pain. There is no particular place for egoism in any of that. What person could not say the same? It's the truth. I do not wish to be in pain. It is not an exclusive club. I see that conscious acceptance of reality is the right response to emotional pain. Well, not everybody sees that, and I am convinced that it is right, so I can get egotistical about that. As I say, it is defensive.

     In addition to the strategy of distraction from emotional pain, there are, in every culture, diagnoses for why one is experiencing pain and prescriptions for replacing pain with satisfaction. There is a prescribed cultural way of life. In a healthy culture, most people are following the cultural prescription more or less successfully. Our culture is showing clear signs of deterioration. The norm is not experience of intense emotional pain, although we do accept that bereavement, for example, will cause great pain. One is supposed to get over it. Many other life experiences obviously produce great emotional pain. We prefer not to think about it. To an extent, the culturally prescribed way of life represents a strategy of distraction from our pain, although it also represents a strategy for getting our needs met and thereby experiencing satisfaction rather than pain. What about the pain of death, of those we love, including animals, of our own inevitable death? No cultural prescription can really address that pain.

     I really have a problem with the formulation that "life is suffering." My life, at times, is suffering, but I do not accept that it has to be like that. I wish to accept my life as is in order to respond correctly to my life, so that I don't HAVE to suffer. And I am sure that this is possible. I have tasted paradise as a result of practicing awareness of reality, but I sure don't live there, as yet.

     This defensive egoism is a mental dam against the cultural prescriptions- for example, just make money, just be sociable, just find ways of having good sex, go shopping, buy a wide screen T.V., a smartphone, be interested in politics, etc. I want to practice awareness of reality. It takes time, effort, attention. I can't join wholeheartedly in the cultural life way because I need to pursue this aim. It is hard to explain it to others, except the group in which I learned the practice, they understand. When I am in pain, maybe great pain, I hear the song of the cultural prescriptions. Have I not heard it my whole life? No, I feel that I must seek first the kingdom of Heaven, and I have faith that then all else can be added unto me, because with God, all things are possible.

     This is what I really want to say. There is a certain necessary and inevitable attitude toward impartial awareness. It is the attitude that necessitates the concept of God. People don't understand this. What is holy? Truth is holy. That which is, is holy. Not partial truth, our thinking is not holy. Impartial awareness of reality must be understood emotionally. In that understanding one knows what God means, love of God, remorse and repentance before God, and the wish to take that most light yoke of which Jesus spoke. When I understand impartiality, I do pray that God's kingdom may come on Earth as in Heaven, and of course that my trespasses may be forgiven, really by me, that I can forgive myself for the horrible stupidity that has caused such pain to me and to others associating with me. But I must work for God's kingdom to come on my Earth, that is the yoke. As to not leading us into temptation and delivering us from evil, I think that is really putting too much on God. It is up to me to be open to awareness of reality. It is the higher power of impartial and simultaneous consciousness, pure consciousness. I am just a reflection of the universe. As the universe has reflected me, so do I wish to reflect back, in gratitude. It is why we were given consciousness, the one talent that is death to hide. And in reflecting reality as is, I will respond to reality, not to my partial thoughts, which are not stupid so long as my awareness is at home. It isn't that my thoughts are stupid. But they sure are partial. "Don't believe everything you think." I do believe my awareness of reality. It is my God. God is omnipresent, present now. But I must pay attention to God, that is my Work. My culture didn't teach me about this, but I was fortunate enough to come in contact with a subculture that knew about it.

     So what about all the immense emotional pain that crashes down on me sometimes these days, the pain of wrong living, stupidity in relationships, stupid expenditure of my time? The past must be accepted. It is, as is. My good wishes and good intentions were as they were, and are as they are. My laziness also was and is, as is. It has always been possible for me to master my laziness when I have seen how to work, and so is it possible now. It has also always been possible for me to master my fear, nd so is it possible now. It is presence that I have lacked. Why, why has it taken me so long? I have set out on this road many, many times and found myself again, not working, lost, in pain and again returned to the way and set out again, with the same result. It must continue, it can't stop. I have learned that it is not helpful to try to be a hero. I need to work for paradise. That is my task at all times and at every moment. Presence is required at every moment. I must work for that, and now I know how to work.

     But I must be realistic. My presence is still in very early stages of development. It is like a small child just learning to walk. I have learned to stand and sometimes I can actually take a few steps. I am not as yet able to take the "Long Walk" to freedom, but yet in developing my presence I am actually starting on that walk, as those who made that heroic trek really started it when they learned to walk. I am not able to remain present for long. I get lost in relationships, I get lost in my thought. But I need to return and persist, as a small child does. It doesn't take them long to go from taking a few shaky steps to running around all over the place, once they get that far.

     It has taken me a hell of a long time to get this far. It wouldn't have to take nearly so long if we had a real culture, even a real subculture of consciousness. We must make it. It has nothing to do with egoism. Reality produced me, reality is my higher power. I wish to conform to reality. There is no other way of life. Egoism is the way of death.

     Impartiality calls to my love for this whole gift of life. It is the bridegroom. I do not accept every part of life. I do not accept the Nazis, for instance. Them, I will fight, "on the beaches and in the landing fields." No, I will never surrender. I would charge with Pickett, for life, but that is not demanded of me. It is demanded that I work, again and again, for real, impartial presence. It is the whole of life that I love. To that I say Yes without reservation. Yes, I will follow you, my Lord, and when this body dies I will follow you still. "Now, and at the hour of our death." Amen.

The Practice of Presence

     That professional training that I experienced in Brattleboro two weeks ago was a powerful learning experience. It has inspired my last four posts, and also this one.

     Carl Rogers was a psychologist and a great counselor, I think. I didn't know him personally. I can personally attest that he was a great theorist of counseling.

     My reason for wanting to become a professional counselor was that thanks to my practice of awareness of reality, I had reached a deeper understanding of my own psychological reality- the only psychological reality that a human being can know- than formerly. In other words, I had grown, and I had developed a faith founded on actual experience, that reality can be completely acceptable to me. Please don't misunderstand this. I am not God, nor am I as indifferent as a stone. Of course I have a reaction and a response to reality as experienced by me. I don't mean by "accept" that I am indifferent, or that I am going to just sit by, perhaps in full lotus, practicing non-attachment, while the world in general and my individual life in particular, goes to hell. No, I am attached to reality. I am both a fighter and a lover. Acceptance of reality also means acceptance of the reality of my own needs, and of my responsibility to get them met. By acceptance, I mean openness to that which is. If you haven't artificially  removed yourself from your obligation to respond by tying your legs into a pretzel and committing yourself to immobility, you will respond automatically. If you are accepting of reality at that moment, you will also respond consciously.

     I felt that I had something very valuable to offer in counseling, namely, my example of acceptance of reality. Rogers' understanding of counseling is congruent- he may have invented that very expressive term- with this kind of motivation for providing counseling service.

     Counseling, for a professional, is a job, a professional service to be provided according to ethical standards. It is important work, justifying and demanding good or even the best effort on the part of the counselor. I have a little saying about my work, uttered jokingly, but it really is no joke: "nothing but the best." Counseling demands nothing less than my best. It is that important. Obviously, to have such a profession is a great blessing.

     As Rogers pointed out in his later work, counseling, done well, requires real presence on the part of the counselor. Presence is contagious. If one person, either one, is truly present in a relationship between two people, both are likely to become present. and if one remains present, both are likely to remain present.

     Actually, the responsibility of counseling within our present mental illness system, while on the one hand it calls the counselor to be present in the counseling relationship, also creates an obstacle to remaining present in the relationship. Because the client is assumed, in general, to have something wrong with them, some sort of "mental disorder," if not actually full-fledged illness, the counselor feels an added responsibility not to injure the client, and perhaps even to direct and lead the client like a child. The client is assumed to be more vulnerable than the counselor. This is a preconception that ethics demand us to maintain, and it interferes with remaining present. Also, in this mental illness system, the counseling or therapy relationship exists to assist in meeting the emotional needs of the client. The counselor's emotional needs must be subordinated. This also tends to draw the counselor away from full presence.

     In a true mental health system the assumption that the client is more vulnerable than the counselor would be eliminated. The counselor would be able to descend from the pinnacle or pedestal of responsibility to protect, nurture and "baby" the client and could just counsel, as if counseling a king. In counseling a king, one would be aware of one's own vulnerability. One would have strong incentives and inclinations to be present in that relationship, not only to protect the king, and thereby the realm, but also to protect one's own head. It would be dangerous to counsel a king. "Termination" might have a whole different dimension than at present.

     What I learned in Brattleboro was that Rogers' core principles are not merely a guide for my professional practice. Rogers articulated the principles of human relationship, the way it ought to be. It is actually easier to remain present in my non-professional relationships, in which I am responsible to be aware of my own emotional needs and am entirely free and responsible to seek emotional satisfaction in my relationships. In counseling, within the mental illness system, there are strict ethical limitations on that freedom. Remaining present in a professional counseling relationship is hard work, for that reason. It is really much easier in my other relationships, where there is everything in it for me personally, all the satisfaction to be potentially gained from loving, genuine, more or less intimate relationships with our own kind.

     The real independent variable is presence. Rogers, as far as I know, did not address presence independent of relationships. We are not always in relation with others, except spiritually. There is not a specific need for presence in a spiritual relationship.

     When I am alone, Robinson Crusoe for the moment, where is my attention? Often it is on my thinking, because I like to think. That is why writing is a good thing for me to do. Sometimes it is on my feelings, sometimes on my behavior or on my sensory perceptions.

     When I am alone, I have the option of practicing awareness of reality. One has to learn about this option, how to exercise it and why one would want to. It is an invaluable help to me in coping with my life when alone. It is a good response to emotional or even physical pain, including the pain of loneliness. Human relationship can cure that pain, but only if it meets the core conditions, including presence on my part. In any case, when I am alone, I am not in relationship at the moment, even though I may be next moment. In practicing awareness of reality I am getting myself in good shape to be present in my relationships. If I am simply indulging in my thought and my feelings, I am tending toward laziness, and presence is active. I think that there is a value for me in active thinking, such as I write about. That is a focus of my attention that is acceptable to me. Idle thinking, or letting my mind wander, isn't so good. It tends to be a waste of energy, and my state of consciousness deteriorates.

     Sometimes, when one is alone, one wishes to become active as a distraction from unpleasant thoughts and feelings. Awareness of reality is an at-traction, to reality. My thoughts are partial. In awareness I am on intimate terms with my present reality as a whole, impartial and simultaneous. I am truly accepting my present, when I am aware. I am opening my present. I don't know what's inside. The present is unknown. The Uncertainty Principle is experienced, in awareness. I wake up. I haven't seen this moment before.

     The practice of awareness of reality is an activity. It is incompatible with laziness because it is an optional activity. With rare exceptions, such as a car accident or maybe an L.S.D. trip, conditions of life do not force us into awareness. We have to make the effort by our own free will, and in that moment, we are not lazy.

     The presence of which Rogers speaks is not the full presence of awareness. It is what Mr. Nyland used to call alertness. Alertness is a necessary, but not sufficient condition for awareness. It is also a necessary, but not sufficient condition for completely satisfying relationships with our fellow human beings.

     We must be on intimate terms with our own reality in order to be truly intimate with others. There is no substitute for awareness. We must learn to practice this when we are alone and when we are in relationship. It is the only way to paradise.

     Some Christians believe that faith in Jesus Christ as our savior is the only way to paradise. This is awfully passive. Jesus is supposed to do it all for me. I am just supposed to wait for pie in the sky by and by.

     I think that Jesus told us the truth about this in his parable about the talent. It was given to be used and invested. Burying it and waiting for paradise is not recommended in that parable, if you happen to be familiar with it. In fact, Jesus states plainly that this strategy is the direct road to "outer darkness."

     In my personal imagination, even the most oblivious of us sinners will see the error of burying our talent at the very last moment and repent wholeheartedly, returning at the end like the prodigal son. But as Cat Stevens said, "you'll find out what's in store. So why not take a look now?" Get yours now with ice cream on top.

Ravings of a Madman

     Raising and settling questions is a positive process, good for a person's mental health. Science and philosophy are about this. Science is better at settling questions than philosophy is, I think. Religion is a little different. There are questions in religion, but they are assumed to have a primordial existence, to have existed from the beginning. The possible settling of those basic, organic questions is also assumed to be primordial. I think that science, philosophy and religion actually have a great deal in common. The role of doctrine, of human thought in religion is undeniable by anyone, except the most fanatical zealot, the kind of person who thinks you are going to hell or are fair game to be killed because you doubt some formulation to which he or she clings as God's word. My dear friends, one ought to get over that attitude. God does not speak in words. Reality is God's speech. "God of our fathers, whose almighty hand leads forth in beauty all the starry band of shining worlds in splendor through the skies.." I wish that the authors of such beautiful, even if sexist, expressions of gratitude for our existence would stay off the thrones and things like that.

     I don't want to get into psychology too much. It is a most deep subject. It's really all about psychology, by which I mean, the reality of our experience as individual human beings. Religion, art, science and philosophy are all psychological. Obviously religion exists because human beings exist. Religion is about reconnection, which is indeed a basic need that human beings tend to feel, a question that does come up for us, as if it were created with us. Animals don't have religion. Their connection is not in question. The connection of pre-linguistic children is not in question. Our connection is in question. It is a psychological issue.

     I think that the process of formulating questions that express our emotional confusion, questions that touch on our pain, is good for our mental health. We suffer. Animals also suffer. We can think, and we do think. We can think about our suffering, try to understand it in our thinking. It is obvious that we do this, and must do it, because we do suffer and because we do think. It is inevitable. The inevitable is God's will. The question for us is whether our will is congruent with the inevitable.

     It is said that we have a free will, although this is also disputed. I think that this formulation does refer, beyond question, to an experienced reality of our lives, namely, that we seem to have the power and responsibility of directing the voluntary muscles of our bodies, and less obviously but even more basically, of directing our attention. And we really don't know what to do with either. So there are a lot of questions. We are exposed to both satisfaction and punishment, that is, positive and negative reinforcement, as a result of the choices that we make from moment to moment in the use of our voluntary muscles and of our attention. Therefore there are questions of great practical significance for us, essential questions.

     For me there is an organic relationship between feeling and thinking. In my feeling I experience both my satisfaction and my non-satisfaction, my gratification and my pain. As yet, I do not experience continuous ecstasy. What the hell? In fact, I experience quite a lot of pain at times, sometimes excruciating pain. It is inevitable that I think about this most serious emotional reality of my life. This is practical thinking. It is inevitable, and it is my responsibility as a thinking, feeling living being, also known as a human being.

     The point is, and this point ought to be obvious to anybody, I don't care whether the body is male or female (I exempt children, those with profound mental retardation, and the demented) that we have choices to make, innumerable choices, from moment to moment, and it certainly seems to us, and I do mean you, God damn it, that our choices make a great difference, and probably all the difference, regarding whether we are experiencing and will experience gratification or agony. Obviously, our choices do not make a bit of difference regarding what we HAVE experienced. What's done is done. But the present is up for grabs. We are free. May freedom crash down on you like a thunderbolt.

     The edge of frustration in my tone comes from this: I happen to be aware that our freedom does not just apply to how we use our bodies. Our freedom in the direction of our attention is even more radical, and more basic. But we neglect that freedom, and in this case "we" refers more to you than to me. That is a difference between me and many of my readers, because I have "steeped" in the practice of awareness of reality for many years, and you probably haven't.

     It comes down to a question, and beyond question, to the present direction of one's attention, to presence. One might direct one's present attention to feelings. But, that is a partial focus, that leaves a lot of my reality unconscious, including my present behavior and including my thinking, which goes on constantly. A focus on thought is no less partial, despite the vanity of men. A focus on thought does not exclude feeling and behavior, but it weights the scales. The same is true of a focus on feeling. I certainly don't believe that there is any inherent, organic factor that mandates the direction of any human being's attention. It is not biologically determined. It is obvious to anyone smarter than a post that culture, transmitted via language and modeling, does direct our attention, and in fact leads it around by the nose, because we are very poor excuses for what a human being ought to be, or, to express a little of my patriotism, what an American ought to be. Jesus Christ! Please be present to us again in spirit, and instruct our excessive stupidity, because we in sore need of a refresher course.

     Whether we are focused more on our thoughts or more on our feelings, our poor behavior is generally as starved of our attention as a stepchild, which is certainly alarming, since we are behaving constantly with all effects on other beings of all forms, on the Earth, and on ourselves. Thinking is good and necessary. It does not deserve the contempt of women or men. It could be said that men think to solve women's problems. That is facetious. I can already hear the feminists barking at my heels, and they are quite a vicious pack. Men think to solve their own problems. Their success in doing so is evident for the world to see. That is called sarcasm, if you are unfamiliar with that kind of expression. At least we men haven't managed to completely destroy life on Earth yet, although it is hard to put any limit on the creativity of our stupidity. Certainly we have destroyed much, In fairness, we do something right occasionally. Women's track record is just as good, and no better. We are all one. A person is not born from the crotch of a tree, you know. It is not better to focus on either thought or feeling. Both are realities of our lives, and neither is the whole reality. Behavior cannot be neglected.

     This blog, of course, is an expression of some of my thoughts, of which I have many. I feel that I need to express these thoughts. I also, of course, feel continuously. This blog is also an expression of some of my feelings, a verbal expression. Communication is 97% nonverbal, but for readers of this blog who do not know me personally, it is 100% verbal. So you're missing 97% of me, should you happen to have the slightest curiosity. I am not merely a man of words. Not that my behavior is anything to write home about. I behave constantly, including the behavior of writing and typing this blog, to the neglect of other obligations. I am in relation with my fellow humans, oh boy and oh girl, also with you who read this, and I wish that relationship to express Rogers' core conditions. I am constantly in relationship with reality. I need to be present, impartially and simultaneously. It is the only way that I can experience and express the core conditions, on Earth as it is in Heaven. Presence requires direction of my attention to presence. It requires the will and it requires the skill.

Presence

     Presence is one of Rogers' core conditions for human relationship, so that we can relate to others as human beings obviously should relate, "on Earth as it is in Heaven." But presence isn't just a condition of relationship, or rather, it is a condition of our relationship not only with other people, but also with each and every aspect of reality, the whole of which I call God, because it is our creator, our destination and where we are now, because it is sacred, profound, infinite, and loved in every atom of our physical being, and by all that is: "Praise God, from whom all blessings flow; praise Him, all creatures here below; praise Him above, ye heavenly host.." That expresses the feeling. The last line, about Father, Son and Holy Ghost is awfully heady and reeks with doctrine if not dogma.

     When I speak of encountering the spirit of Carl Rogers, I am talking about my experience with a certain professional training last weekend. I am talking about something else also, something greater, but not separate from that experience which I really did have. At one point in that experience, referring to my own pain of relating to others in a social environment where the core conditions do not exist perfectly- although paradise can be touched at moments- and often the core principles are more or less violated, trampled underfoot in our stupidity; I said, expressing my feeling, "I could be on my knees on the floor." That is the classic posture of relationship with God also. What drives us to our knees, what inner command? It is love. "And when you're feeling sad and blue, you know love's made a fool of you." Love did not make me a fool. I have been that, because of my poor excuse for presence. Our love shows us, at times, what a fool we have been.

     The practice of awareness of reality is exactly about presence, of course. It is more precise, more sophisticated, more realistic and practical about this than Rogers was. But Rogers was focused on human relationships, specifically "helping relationships." This practice focuses on the individual's relation with reality. It is obvious that our relation with others can be no better than our relation with reality. I also believe that our relation with others can be no worse than our relation with reality. It is said that love will find a way. Indeed so, but not without presence. "Seek ye first the kingdom of Heaven, and all else will be added unto you." In presence, I relate to reality correctly wherever I exist, in whatever conditions, even at the moment of death or whatever I might imagine to be the afterlife. I think that it is quite obvious that the imagination of those who are sure there is no afterlife will be falsified by their experience. We live in infinity, and while we exist, reality exists for us. We are either present, or unconscious. Corpses are unconscious, like rocks. We all experience unconsciousness every night, in sleep. The universe continues to exist, but we are unconscious, although we might dream. We know that we will sleep again tonight, and we might even look forward to that surrender of consciousness. And we know that our life here will end in death, that this amazing body of ours will turn into something like a rock, life having departed. But our actual experience, now and eternally is of presence. But am I really present? Life is real only then, when I am. So I continue on my way, seeking the kingdom of Heaven. Of course I am seeking Heaven on Earth. Earth happens to be where I live at the moment. And I am not on a deserted island like Robinson Crusoe either, thank God. I am here with my fellows, oh boy and oh girl. As someone once said, we are not born from the crotch of a tree. We are so profoundly social, for instance all our thinking, which we may experience as an individual, isolated, even alienated attribute of ourselves- Descartes is translated as considering it our essential attribute, "I am a thinking thing"- is cultural, it is received from other people, from Mommy and Daddy, brother and sister, old friends, people maybe no longer remembered consciously, but whose presence is still felt in our lives. Our culture, our thinking, our use of language is associated for each of us with those persons from whom our culture was received. Know thyself, for God's sake. Wake up. Get real. Be present to yourself. Be present to me. May God help me to follow that road myself.

     In reality, for me, my feelings in relation to another person with whom I am in relationship at a given moment shift very rapidly, very, very sensitively, not only in reaction to every single nuance of their behavior, including their speech, but also, for good and for ill, in relation to my own past associations which are constantly being touched and tickled from moment to moment. Jung's idea of the "feeling-toned complex" has relevance to understanding this. We all have complexes. It is how our memory is organized, associations with definite emotional tints.

     The fallacy of psychoanalysis is that it ignores the crucial need for presence, the sine qua non of growth for us. I can analyze my reactions at a particular moment, and indeed can gain insight into my complexes. But that insight won't eliminate my complexes. To have an emotional history is to have complexes. I wish to own my complexes. In a sense, I am proud of them. They are not really wounds, even the most painful. They are the sure proof that I am a veteran, a grizzled veteran of the human encounter, still on my feet, and in fact, in real truth, untouched. In presence I am innocent, virgin, presence is the Garden of Eden. In simultaneous acceptance of reality, my associations are accepted simultaneously for whatever they are. It is my present from God.

     I touch that kind of presence and I work for it, but I don't stay there. To stay with that requires that I keep my full attention on presence. I am getting better at that. It divides automatically, that is a reality of my experience. As long as I can continue to be single-minded about remaining present, the automatic divisions of my attention are simply accepted. But when my attention is focused otherwise, I usually am no longer fully present. Sometimes a full, nothing held back focus of attention on some activity can bring me to full presence automatically. I have experienced this in Gurdjieff movements and in a car accident, and in a variety of other activities. It is a momentary experience. To sustain impartial and simultaneous presence, I have to make the necessary undivided effort with will and skill.

     In interactions with others that are not superficial, I am paying attention to the other's communication and to how I am expressing myself. This is how it has to be if I am to have intimate, important relationships with my brothers and sisters. But it usually takes me away from full presence, although there are moments. I notice particularly that if I am talking about presence with someone, I may automatically experience full presence. Sometimes when I notice that I am fully present for a moment in a relationship, I try to maintain that presence. That is a highly advanced skill. In conversation with someone else who is sincerely interested in presence, it can be very easy. It was almost possible in sexual intimacy with my beloved, who "didn't get it" as yet about presence, but who understood love deeply.

     My beloved "didn't get" presence. That was her expression. I didn't call it presence or awareness of reality then, I called it Gurdjieff. I grabbed for intimacy with her, because she was so very lovely. I tried to explain this practice to her, at first so that she would know me, later because it was more and more obvious that she needed it, and we could be together in eternity in this practice.

     The Buddhists, I think- and not being one, I don't pretend to really know- are barking up the wrong tree to an extent. Maybe if you actually climb that tree, it gets you to paradise just the same. I have chosen to climb Mr. Nyland's tree, which he said was Gurdjieff's, and he ought to know. I haven't gotten to paradise yet, but I'm absolutely convinced that I'm on the right track. Anyway, to me there is a sense in Buddhism as if we lived in a monastery, which of course we don't and which I would never accept.

     Some day... "One bright morning when this life is over, I'll fly away. To that home on God's celestial shore, I'll fly away. I'll fly away in glory, I'll fly away in the morning.."

     But we live in eternity now. I'm getting mine now with ice cream on top. Some day, in eternity, I will become so dexterous in maintaining my attention on presence, impartial and simultaneous, so pure of will to make love in the Garden of Eden with all God's present, not partial, that even intimacy will become automatic. But I'm not there yet. Someday, in eternity. It's a destination. Buddhahood is a destination. The Bodhisattva path is a journey. It's really the same, and yet not the same. We live in duality and we live in God. Intimacy with others is an adventure. Intimacy with ourselves is also an adventure. Your mission, should you choose to accept it.

     At the present time, completely human as we are, maybe the best working compromise is to leave space for silence in our relationships, so that we can continually touch base with God.

     I just want to throw in one more personal note. Brattleboro is a lovely little town in every respect. Maybe I shouldn't say that. A few years ago there was an organization of Oregonians known as the Blaine Society, I think because they aimed to encourage people to move to Maine by spreading the impression that Oregon is a dreary place where it rains all the time.

     Anyway, I was out for a little walk, and there is a wonderful spot with a bridge over a stream which obviously can become a roaring torrent at times. There is a huge treetrunk that has been washed to that spot by some flood. It was right there the last time I was in Brattleboro, a year and a half ago. It couldn't go much further in any case, because it wouldn't fit under the next bridge.

     I like to linger at that spot. The village has grown up around that stream, and next to the river into which it merges just a bit further on. I happened to notice a building actually rising out of the water, which obviously runs much higher and fiercer at times. It is an old building, and it is a brick building, not with a visible foundation of massive stones. The bricks rise out of the water. I wondered, how can it endure, how can bricks and mortar encounter this stream? But obviously they can, because they do, and obviously those who constructed that building knew that it would be able to sustain that encounter.

     And then I wondered, how did they ever build it. Obviously the mortar would have had to set and cure, before its encounter with the stream. Of course, they must have employed a cofferdam.

     I also have employed a cofferdam in my relationships with others, because I have recognized the necessity of building my presence to a certain point before I could expose myself to the continuous flow of intimacy. It was not because of a wish to keep people at arm's length, nor even out of fear. It takes time to learn how to direct one's attention properly. I'm still learning, but at least I have learned how to return, again and again, to the right way. I can even do that now in an intimate relationship. Before, intimacy tended to wash my presence away, but now I have built something sufficiently that I no longer need the cofferdam. Now I can take the risk of encountering my brothers and sisters, which I have longed for, such hunger, such pain of estrangement. I had to build my presence. Grabbing for intimacy prematurely hasn't worked. It is a miracle that I have survived my attempts, it is a miracle that my complexes can be accepted at times. My beloved did not survive. Today is actually the fourth anniversary of the last morning I spent with her, actually right now. She is present to me in spirit. Lord, if I had been there, my sister would not have died. But we all die, and our spirit does survive and is present to those who love us. I wish that she were present in the flesh, pie with ice cream on top. But God is present, and so are you, and so am I. She is present in spirit, she will always be present to me in spirit. She threw away her chance for pie with ice cream. That was a tragic mistake, a stupid mistake, such as I also make all the time when I am not present. For her and for all souls, I will live with all my might.

Celebrating a Comment

     Oh boy and oh girl, a real comment! Thank you Garnet, from the bottom of my heart. Questions would be even better, but it is wonderful to know that at least someone that I don't know personally finds it worthwhile to read these communications.

     This blog is a way of taking the first step in what could become a more or less intimate relationship with any or all of my readers. Of course, with some of my readers it is not the first step, because we have a more or less intimate relationship already.

     Somebody always has to take the first step "across the great divide." It is risky, but the intimacy for which we hunger is a prize worth that risk, at least for me and at this time in my life. "Nothing ventured, nothing gained." Obviously if one's last venture in human relationship has led to excruciating punishment, one may be very, very shy about taking the first step, or responding to someone else's overture. It is equally risky either way. It is really not so easy to say who is penetrated and who is penetrating. Human beings are in more or less intimate relationship. The quest for empathic understanding is fraught with risk for both, and the prize of intimacy, I think, is greatly desired by all humankind.

     I have the courage to take the first step, as you see. I have great skill in protecting myself, so it isn't stupid for me. For me, it would be stupid not to take the first step. Still, it is risky. Writing, of course, is intellectual communication, more or less. Poetry and fiction are less. It is still verbal. 97% of communication is nonverbal. That is the deficiency of the Internet as a vehicle of communication.

     Like many men, I am, as it were, right handed, dexterous, with thought. Women, in my experience, tend to be dexterous with feelings. It isn't a hard and fast distinction based on physical sex. Let's say, it's a thought that I have, but a thought that I believe many people could agree with.

     I am not apologizing at all for being a man. I am not guilty, and neither do I feel that I have been cheated at all. I don't get to have a vagina, periods, or give birth, but it is also an extraordinary, miraculous experience to have the equipment and capabilities that I do have. And viva la difference.

     Traditionally, it is considered appropriate that a man should be forward in relationship, whether with man or woman. The rules are in flux. In any case, for me and I think for any real person, that forwardness, that intrusion into someone else's personal space, is not any kind of evidence of invulnerability. The "man of steel," Superman, doesn't exist. A man of steel is dead, or more accurately, never lived. I am present enough to be aware of my vulnerability.

     One risk is indifference. The other may not even care that I have entered her, or his, personal space. That is potentially crushing, but I can deal. The other may be uncomfortable with my presence, may not like it, may reject me. I can deal, I am skilled in protecting myself in relationship. But it seems to me that the only response that I would really desire to my forwardness would be a question- not rejection clothed in the form of a question, but a real question. Then my interest is whetted, it doesn't wither. Potentially I am being invited to penetrate further, if I can present satisfactory credentials, if my intentions are proven, thus far, to be good, loving and stimulating, if I am showing genuine kindness of human kind. It is also a two way street. Maybe I hesitate to penetrate further just now. Penetration does carry commitment, emotional commitment. Only a fool can fail to learn this, or more precisely, only a fool is capable of denying it, the kind of fool who tells himself that he is a man of steel. Enjoy your stroll down suicide road, stupid. It might be that I just don't have time to become more deeply intimate with someone right now. Still, I do not wish to pretend indifference. We are all neighbors here.