Rita on moods, the moment and the unconscious

Moods and the moment

From DeMarco, Frank. Rita's World Vol 2: A View from the Non-Physical (Kindle Location 1220). Rainbow Ridge Books. Kindle Edition

(Q) [Louisa's question: "Where do autonomous thoughts or moods that suddenly inject themselves into our consciousness come from? Are they from beyond 3D, the guys or our collective unconscious which I assume includes the guides and guys but to what purpose?  What does Rita think?"]

(A)  One easy way to think of it is to remember that you experience yourself as an individual but are actually a functioning community. What you are thinking of as autonomous thoughts or moods do not spring up out of nothing.  They are the interaction of some part of you with ...

Perhaps we need to start with the reminder that you are in 3D, and therefore are under the tutelage of the ever-moving present moment.  That is theprime distinction of 3D reality, from which all other distinctions proceed, and (I am tempted to say, "therefore") from which all benefits to be derived from the experience proceed.

This present moment, in all its overwhelming continuing impact, presents you with "external" conditions.  You must meet them as best you can, and they are the onlyconditions you can meet.  You can't deal with last Tuesday's experience (though you may have to deal with present consequences of not having dealt with them then) and you can't deal with next Tuesday's, even if you are able to anticipate them.

Well, each present moment evokes or mobilizes or stirs certain elements within you.  They come to the fore, and to you it looks like they bring with them autonomous thoughts or moods.  In fact, you very likely see the thought or the mood and do not see the accompanying strands of your being that produced and responded to them, in reaction to the "external" events of the ever-living, ever-moving present moment.

Now, look again at Louisa's second sentence.  Can you see how many unnecessary postulates society - even psychologically sophisticated society - posits in attempting to understand something that is actually quite simple, when grasped by the right handle?  And by the way, don't forget, I know this first-hand.  I was a Jungian myself.  But a change in postulates gradually produces a change in the conditions one sees as reality and those one sees as illusions.

No need to postulate things coming from non-3D - and in any case, what would that mean?  No need to consider them as coming from the collective unconscious - and what would thatmean?  If it means from the one mind we all share, it is tautology.  If it envisions that collective unconscious as a separate thing, it is mistaking a word for the reality.  If it takes The Guys Upstairs - or me - as something acting separately from the individual instead of smoothly withit by necessity, it is a mistake of something internal for something seemingly external.

The unconscious

(Q) [Louisa's second question: "I love Frank's quote from Jung regarding making the unconscious conscious but what does that really mean to an individual?  Do we have a personal unconscious?  What makes some people open to these autonomous voices? Sanford used Satan the challenger to Christ in the desert as an example and said this voice was also Christ's voice. I would like to understand where these forces emanate from and do they touch only some or all of us?"]

(A)  You must understand, Jung was a great pioneer; he was not a map-maker of established certainties.  By that I mean, his maps were provisional, and he never said otherwise.  So, Jungian concepts may be easily made into obstacles if taken too far or "believed in" rather than lived.

(A different "voice") If I may have a word - 

(Q)  Of course, although I know this won't do my credibility any good.  It has always been a great honor, Dr. Jung.

(Dr. Jung) When I said, "personal unconscious" or "collective unconscious" I was trying to stretch people's awareness - and my own, no less - from the 19th century rationalism we had grown up with.

That is a mentality very far removed from those of you who were born 50, 75, 90 years after 1875! So, my own efforts to break a path, which I may say took all the strength I had, were provisional, as all human thought must be.  Collective unconscious, personal unconscious, meant different things then because the other end of the relationship - the mentality of the reader - was quite different. You must not think that any two people can read the same book, any more than any two people can have the same conversation that either can have with another.  So, my books are changing before your eyes.  So must my work.  If you would do as I did, study the living evidence before you, not merely the formalized understandings - dogmas, really - that result from making a provisional statement for one age into a definitive statement for all ages.  Such procedure is quite unscientific, no matter the credentials of those who proceed in that way.

(Q)  Thank you.  More?

(Dr. Jung) Not at the moment, and of course I am available for others, only let them have serious intent and willingness to re-examine what they think they know, and what they think I knew.

(Q) And this of course brings us back to the question of who can speak with authority of the thoughts of those no longer in the body.

(A) No one.  The thoughts will speak for themselves, good or ill.  Stupid or ignorant words will not gain impact by being credited to Jung.  And one's self-importance that might like to be associated with Jung in so easy a manner, will soon meet a rebuke that will be remembered!  In such matters, it is of prime importance to remember to be the servant of the truth, and not the attempted master.

(Q)  I try to keep it always in mind.  Again, thank you.  Miss Rita?

(A)  That's enough for today.  Let me add merely that if you will look back at Louisa's second question and rephrase it, recognizing that these autonomous voices are only seemingly autonomous, and that the source is always within yourself if only by resonance, everything changes - or, anyway, appears to.