Description of the Psychic World




Description of the Psychic World (20 hrs), 1954




Description of the Psychic World (20 hrs), 1954





In this course of lessons we are entering upon a description of the psychic world, as well as a description of one's own psychic nature.  I believe that it is in order for us to have a clear understanding of how to operate and function in the psychic world, because that is the level the average person functions on more than on any other.

Those of you who are conversant with modern psychology and advanced psychiatric procedures and practices know that those in that profession label the unknown realm of consciousness "the unconscious."  In our School we set up a referent for the label "the unconscious," by describing how we thingify;  that is, the process of thingification.  This is the basis for the use of the word "unconscious."  Our literature is replete with a description of this process.  In our work in semantics on conscious abstracting we have thoroughly and effectively covered how the neural system cannot function fast enough with its afferent-efferent arcs to register the intervals between the frequency impulses.  As a result, the frequencies registered are grouped together like a continuous stream.  Out of the 'failure,' or better stated, out of the inability of the neural system - the sense receptors, sense faculties - to function fast enough for the afferent-efferent responses to register the intervals between impingements, the impressions are grouped together.  When we apply this to seeing, an image or picture is formed, then the image or picture is identified with that from which the original wave-frequency is reflected.  Therefore, we look upon a dynamic process as static, as an 'object,' a 'thing.' 

In this unconscious identification of images in the psychic-consciousness with the original dynamic process from which wave-frequency is received, we give values to 'objects,' and 'things' - and then react according to the quality of the values given - until there is an enormous edifice built up through the complexities of thingifying.  The Buddhists called it "samskara";  the Hindus, "maya," the ancient occultists, "the Veil of Isis."  The Christian Scientists called it plain illusion, but with this difference:  they identified the illusion with the dynamic process and denied both;  thus denying the Reality.  Through this identification of illusion with the dynamic process, they tried to find some 'other' world - a 'spiritual world' - to take the place of this 'material world.'  The struggle to get away from the 'material world' in order to be 'spiritual' is ancient.  They did not know that 'material' and 'spiritual' are just polar opposite words, and that they were 'objectifying' - reifying - words in order to arrive at the Truth.  This imposed a terrific contradiction to that which we call life-facts, which means the way we actually function.

This point, briefly reviewed, is one of the most difficult premises in our School for beginners to grasp and understand.  This fundamental point is one that sets us aside from all metaphysical (or metaphysling) fraternities.  Once one understands the abstracting process and can see this world as a dynamic energy system, occultism and mysticism disappear;  because both are a sort of flight from 'materiality' to 'spirituality.'  In our School we have no 'materiality' to get away from and no 'spirituality' to get into.  We try to see this world as it is in itself, and that puts us on a factual basis.

That which is beyond question, beyond debate, that is axiomatic and self-evident we call the Power-to-be-conscious.  There is a Power-to-be-conscious before one can be conscious of maya or illusion or a Veil of Isis, or even of Reality.  This allows of no debate;  it is a pivotal point of the teaching of our School.  A priori there must be a Power-to-be-conscious before you can discuss that of which you are conscious;  this is irrefutable.  Anyone can deny that there is a God and a beginning, or that God created the earth and the heavens and the sun and stars;  but we say -"With what Power do you deny?"  There must be a Power before there can be a denial.  No matter how faithful an atheist one might be, with what Power does one create the concept that we call atheism?