Will 21st century therapy be quantum, metaphysical or simply logic? (No. 45 Order)

Will 21st century therapy be quantum, metaphysical or simply logic? (No. 45 Order)

The more we advance towards the solution, the more it seems to elude us! Indeed, we need to relax a little facing what we need to address and resolve… In fact we have a mighty luck thanks to the possibilities that can manifest…

What if we put stalls in our stables?

We’ll have now to deal with some special possibilities: the “domains” of the manifestation, commonly regarded as the “substances”, that will enable “possibilities that define” (essences) to have a manifestation at different levels.

But you know some of them already: the physical world, the intermediate world (mental or psychological), the spiritual world, the world of Divine Ideas, among others.

The first two are usually characterized by the fact that we can consider individual and seemingly distinct and unrelated things i.e. “formal”, having a “form”, the following two by the fact that you can only find in them universal entities, informal, formless.

It is not very convincing for a spirit that sees himself as “individual” and considers his considerations themselves as the prototype of the unit, since he even uses them to count! In other words, one can as well “consider” (i.e. “identify”, “gadgets” like God, or His Verb) which would almost be equivalent to elements of the physical world, and the choice of the visibility criterion does not help us either, as the “physical” wind cannot be seen, but can push a boat by its sails….

I’ll take the risk to tell you what is the base of my consideration to unravel the spiritual from the psychic. The first is the field of WHAT “builds” us as spirits, and the second is the field where we can intervene. As human spirits, we would be at the interface of these two areas in a “plane” that would be exclusive to us. But is not an image of God who wants!!!

In fact an interesting topology is the one inherited from the scholastic, with a nuance. In their vocabulary they spoke of generation rather than production, but I have to bring my grain of sand!

So, according to them: the spiritual is that which is not produced but which produces, the psychic, which is produced and can produce and the physical, which is produced and no longer produces anything! The first level is a little too close of the creation ex nihilo and I propose an alternative: the spiritual consists in what we cannot perceive but from which we can perceive the effects!

From the stables to the maze…

I have cited two “sub-worlds” inside the intermediary world, which is so dense that the traditions unanimously advise not to venture within.

It is what is represented by the Daedalus which Ariane´s Thread was needed to get out of. The pretentious Icarus thought he could do without it, because he thought himself superior to other men and able to fly, which he did, and, carried away by his pride, forgot the advice of his father and approached the Sun, a light to which he was not entitled, which melted his wings, and brought him to drown in the sea.

This labyrinth also hosted a bull-headed monster, the Minotaur, which only Theseus, who had the humility to accept the help of the little Ariane, managed to find, kill, and get out of this inextricable maze.

Another representation of this area is the perilous voyage across oceans, full of dangers and monsters, which should lead to the bank of another country (remember Homer), which seems appropriate for an “intermediate” world!

A gift! Find where we leave for the navigation and where we are going to?

The exploration of this area is the best way to get lost, at all points of view, especially spiritually. And this exploration is often represented as seeking fabulous “powers”, the kind of sorcerers’, the kind of practices we mentioned.

Let us not forget that we are factories making distinctions: our considerations, each of which appears to be independent, so that we use them to number. But I ramble… and I am using repetitions like a teacher who hopes to be better understood…

Really keep in mind that we are able to consider myriads of points on any segment while the latter is not formed of points but of distances, even undetermined. It is the same for the continuity of the worlds we are talking about. One can consider anything he wants without this world being “made of” what is considered.

The fashionable paradigm and the one of Blavatsky…

For example, the modern view of the intermediary world believes that we can see a “plane” for the mind, a psychological “plane”, an emotional “plane”, a sentimental “plane”. Other consideration systems (such as Blavatsky’s, who claims to draw it from the Vedas) will see an “etheric” plane, an “astral plane” (emotional), a “mental” (thoughts) one, a “causal” (archetypes) one, a “Buddhist plane” (bliss) one, and an “atmic plane” (Divine).

Each of these planes is providing its appropriate “body”, which is hardly likely when you have to design a “divine body”! If this plane is really divine, i.e. informal, it’s a bit contradictory to the “form” which is precisely the signature of a “body”…

In fact you can consider all the planes or bodies you want, because nothing constrains our considerations, not even the truth: a lie can perfectly be “seen” (considered).

So do what you want, but give them a meaningful name, so that you can convince your interlocutors of the reality of your plans, because if you can talk of their names, they are necessarily “real”.

Think still to this fabulous scam of modern math: “countable infinity”! That nobody noticed, except René Guénon, who denounced its fallacy? And who can understand what Guénon said? Having been talking about it occasionally, for over 40 years I can tell you that NOBODY notices the vertical imbecility of this notion, and as I have already spoken of it here, and I probably have not convinced you, I let you get by with what Guénon says of it, and/or what the Holy Spirit can teach you, if you know how to hear Him or simply to listen to Him. Finally, when I say no one it is nasty for the 7 who got it, although I’m very talkative!

So what do these seven represent compared to the amount of those I pissed with my stories…

The advice of the Greatest Master: Moheïddine Ibn ‘Arabi

From my side I will be inspired by Ibn Arabi rather than Blavatsky (nobody is perfect !!!) and I noted with him that there are several sources of thoughts, especially those from our consciousness, and those from our mind (he considers a few others, which I do not need here!). This allows me to talk about things more easily observable by anyone, which is not the case of these multiple “bodies”.

Remember that this Muslim was not an Arab but an Andalusian Spanish of Arabic origin, and has also been dubbed the “Son of Plato”!

And it’ll be enough for me for the rest of my presentation.

Nevertheless let’s make a devious detour by Aristotle which I am madly in love with! This nutcase wanted to help us classify our considerations by encouraging us to use “categories” that are only additional considerations as free as others (finally a thing without VAT!). No surprise: those who have believed him can hardly find precise limits to their “classes”. The best known example is the virus that we cannot determine where to class, because like minerals they may crystallize, or as a form of life, rather as a plant, their mobility being granted by their environment, which leads to make them a “special additional category”.

But even in a field where it seems to be applicable (libraries), classification is not simple. By Author in alphabetical order (in English or in any language one chooses, because that order depends of it), but what about collective books? Thinking of classifying by genre? I let you enjoy yourself! Remember that there is always the salvific category of “miscellaneous”, “defined” by the fact we do not know how what it contains can be classified…

The thanksgiving of reflection

Okay, let us go back a bit to our subject…

So we have in our Principle possibilities defining “things” (essences) and others defining manifestation levels (substances)! And you notice that we have just established two categories, which should force us to consider a divine Essence and a divine Substance, for example!

Which some have not hesitated to do and, from which others have inferred a lot of fabulous things…

You should know that there are so-called “psychotic calculators” that cannot help but rationalize, constantly, and have just forgotten to think about thinking itself.

Yet it would have been an opportunity to “examine” their exclusive tool.

What I will do, knowing that if you are one of those creatures infected by morbid reflection, you will not even see the following paragraphs for the mind prefers the death of his spirit to its own suicide.

Let us therefore deal with recoverable cases… In fact, this examination is not very difficult because the word “reflection” artfully applies to both an optical phenomenon and a mental capacity (which betrays the divine source of languages), both having many analogies.

So, let’s look at ourselves in a mirror. You notice that the reflection of large objects like your body, also appears to have a volume. Yet you know that this is fake! If you look at a photo, one of the privileged domains of psychotic calculators, as well as graphic arts in general, you will get the same impression of perspective and yet you know that the picture or the drawing is flat!

And if the photo has the advantage of representing what we see of what is photographed and which can justify the appearance of perspective, a drawing is not even obliged to represent any physical reality for us to be able to see some “depth”!

The word is out: the depth of a reflection is completely virtual.

That’s why the analysis and reflection intoxicated believe they can dig and reach the discernment and the purpose that an examination allows.

The “depth” of their ratiocinations is zero, like the one of a flat image.

And as they never noticed the ambiguous characteristic of considerations, they think to overcome this lack of depth by multiplying imaginary considerations.

So I will content myself with things I have the weakness to believe indisputable, like those I mentioned.

Incidentally, these reflections in the mirrors have another feature. The head of your reflection is the reflection of your head, upwards for both, but the image in front of you has a left hand that reflects your right hand!!!

So not only this reflection gives you an illusion of knowledge, but it also deceives you inexplicably by reversing one of two directions without knowing why this is the one over the other, check it by lengthening yourself down… or closing one eye

So you can probably deduct more things in the vision of your reflection than from a direct vision, which is an echo of the loss in the intermediate world which I mentioned earlier, because your mind is precisely the door of this world, a door that everyone, or almost, opens with delight.

Because the penalties in this field are much less painful, it is believed, than those experienced in the physical world. An arm can break in one of your dreams, your arms will always be there when you wake up.

So sick rationalists are looking at the mirror of their mind instead of what it reflects: it is a choice!

But that’s not mine. And to sacrifice to their idiosyncrasies by showing that I can do it too, I would add to our physical domain the sub domain of reflections, “gadgets” that have the appearance of volumes without being such…

But why don’t you wait until the next episode?


View all posts by