Magical Approach Session Twelve

Session Twelve: Inserting New Ideas into the World

September 22, 1980

We have been dealing with the magical approach, and let me gently remind the two of you that I said that you must be willing to change all the way from the old system of orientation to the new, if you want the new approach to work fully for you in your lives.  That will, as it happens, include your approach to [current problems with your publisher] Prentice-Hall, of course.

As I said before, also, when faced with the difficulty, the conventional, rational approach tells you to look at the problem, examine it thoroughly, project it into the future, and imagine its dire consequences – and so, faced with the idea of a disclaimer (for Mass Events), that is what you did to some extent, the two of you.  You saw the disclaimer as fact, imagined it in your minds on the pages of our books, projected all of that onto future books, and for fine good measure you both imagined this famous disclaimer published in editions of all the books as well.

This is an excellent example of what not to do.

Indeed, you both began to pull out of that yourselves.  You did at least question the approach.  In the meantime, of course, your nervous systems reacted to the implied threat against your work, a threat that now existed in the past, present, and future.

You are protected.  Your work is protected.  When you realize that, you act out of confidence.  You did indeed catch yourselves.  Ruburt mentioned those concerns, but not with the same kind of feelings that we would have, say, [last] Saturday – and when you realize that you are protected, your own intellects can be reassured enough through experience so that they do not feel the need to solve problems with the rational approach in instances where that approach is not feasible.

In the deepest of terms, it was not reasonable to nearly assume that a disclaimer, if used, would therefore be retroactively and then continuously used.  It was not a conclusion based upon fact, but a conclusion based upon a reason that applied to one probability only, one series of probable acts – or based upon the probable act of a disclaimer being used to begin with.  So again, what we are dealing with is an overall lesson in the way in which the reasoning mind has been taught to react.  These are really instances where the intellect has been trained to use only a portion of its abilities, to zoom in on the most pessimistic of any given series of probable actions – and then treat those as if they were facts.

And let me add, I covered your flank in the book, but do not forget that you in your ways, and that corporate entity, do indeed share an educational intent.

I will, of course, have more to say that will hopefully allow you to use your intellects in a clear fashion, to better your performances.  You are quite right, again, to say that “There are elements in this situation – or in any given situation – impossible for my intellect to know”, so the intellect can take that fact into consideration.  Otherwise, you expect it to make deductions while denying it the comfort it should have, of knowing that its deductions need not be made on its own knowledge alone, but on the intuition’s vast magical bank of information – from which, in larger terms, all of the intellect’s information must spring.  So, I think you are both finally trying to use a new approach in that direction.

Note:  Seth was right

Seth was right.  It never happened: For all of our worries, those in charge of Prentice-Hall did not decide to use disclaimers or responsibility in any of Jane’s other books.