1979-1128-Values-Ohio-State-University

Return to list of all Recordings     See all Categories    Spreadsheet: Recordings-Source-List

Metadata repository: https://data.direct-mind.org/

Data Template

Title	1979-1128-Values-Ohio-State-University
Recorded date
Location	Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio
Number of tapes	J's version 2 @ 60 -- same for DM
Other recorders audible?	No
Alternate versions exist?
Source	J -- also DM
No. of MP3 files	four: 27 min, 31 min, 29 min, 24 min
Total time	1 hour 51 minutes
Transcription status	SH started Dec 31, 2012
Link to distribution copy	http://distribution.direct-mind.org/ (need password)
Link to PDF	http://distribution.direct-mind.org/ Or try http://selfdefinition.org/rose/
Published in what book?	no
Published on which website?	no
Remarks
Audio quality
Identifiable voices
URL at direct-mind.org	https://www.direct-mind.org/index.php/1979-1128-Values-Ohio-State-University
	For access to this wiki or the audio files please send an email to: editors@direct-mind.org
Revision timestamp	20150104004521

Notes

Four 30 minute tapes

Jaqua collection

File 1

Total time: 27:09

00:00 [starts mid-sentence] ... systems of thinking, that – would like for us to believe this. That we, perhaps by just thinking in a positive manner that we’re going to change all the events to the way we want it. People who – there are religious systems, or chanting systems that believe you can get anything you want by chanting. And if this were true, then, this means that there would be a factor for changing the machinery, the cosmic or planetary machinery.

00:31

Okay, the next one is that the individual needs to be reprogrammed or reconditioned. And this is predominantly Skinnerian, in my estimation. Skinnerian behaviorism. That if he’s doing something, if he’s too unhappy, if he’s got too much of a complaint, he’s out of tune, and you’ve got to condition him to proper social attunement.

And of course there’s another one, that the parents are to blame.

I noticed this; one of my convictions is – this is on the side [?] I can’t prove it, it’s still my conviction – that possibly out psychiatric-psychological system produces its own patients. But yet they point in all directions.

01:22

The reason I say they create their own patients is because these systems today are encouraging “experiential” living, which is like lighting a match to an explosive keg. And then when the keg goes off you wobble into the psychiatrist and he says, “Well, that was nothing but experience; don’t worry about it.” [but] You’ve only got half a head. Your mental faculty is impaired by the experience.

01:58

Then so somebody has to be blamed. That every professional has to somehow project the difficulty in another direction, if he can’t cure it.

Now when you get back to it, why are – I’ve been checking [?] a lot of books on these encounter groups and I find out that they were pretty much started by freelancers.

Aside – Can you through the second batch? Then when you get through, I want to count – just those four, the number of yes’es and the number of no’s, and the two different pickups.

02:49

I forgot what I was talking about.

Q. The encounter groups.

R. Yes. The encounter groups were started as a result of an inability of your clinical psychiatrist to solve the cases. In other words, the clinical psychologist [of choice ? ] his doctrine are rejected today, or at least partially rejected. And what happened – the public started to cure themselves, by getting together and various little non-professional supervision. [sentence]

And it’s my opinion then that these encounter groups were ultimately taken over by – well, there’s an outfit on the west coast, I think they called it, what was it, the Technical Group or Tactical Group? possibly T-group , ] They brought in a whole bunch of individual systems, took them into Stanford University, and oversaw the results.

04:08

Now they used every encounter system they could get ahold of – I have some notes here on that – the Marathon encounter, Fritz Perls, Gestalt, Harris’ system, I’m OK, you’re OK. They took all these and observed the way the groups worked. And there was a book written about it by several professors at Stanford, and they came up to the conclusion that although they were run by, or supervised by capable personnel, they were more or less not infallible; they were subject to questionable results.

I think of course that one of the reasons is that the therapist lays down a limited number of things that could be wrong. And I thing that there is [are] more than that limited number. I think this is where the difference lies.

05:14

Getting back to these things of the systems, the blame is placed sometimes on a segment of society. This is a whipping boy – that this party is, he’s got a psychosis because he grew up in the wrong part of town, or he was born of the wrong race, and therefore the rest of society persecuted him, and consequently he’s not to blame. Or she, being a woman, is not to blame; because she was born a woman and men created her as she is. So this is a passing the buck from the person themselves to society.

06:00

And of course the last one is that the psychiatrist or therapist says nothing, and just takes it as an accident, like a surgeon says, “Here’s a person’s got injured and we got to do what we can to heal them, and we’re not going to guess at who’s to blame or what the cause of it is.

06:20

And again as I say, if there’s any other attitudes, well, you can let me know. But I, the thing I come up with is, there’s a tremendous big factor in the human family, besides this little circle of parents, neighbors, events, geographic location. And that is that’s it very possible that many of us have an individual destiny.

06:57

This is the feeling that I’ve had for quite some time. That – I’ve heard stories of, well, to give you an example, a person went through a certain thing because they had to purged by some way of a misconception they had. have? Where do they get the misconception? Well, it may have been genetic. It may have been acquired.

There’s another school of thought that says, “Well, it was karma.” It goes clear back – as I said, why not [?] to the grandparents. Or, did this guy do something before.

Now, to the scientist this may seem [to be] reaching way out, to be illogical. But – the only thing I’m trying to point out is: How can we get away with thinking that nobody else is here but us. If we created this thing, we starved/started? this thing called society, and if we are capable of managing and manipulating every little cog in the machinery, as though nothing else is here but people, and [that] people created people. Just because we can’t see the start. And I’m not saying there is anything here but people – but isn’t it possible, something started somewhere, and that there was an architectural design?

08:25

And if this is true, why isn’t this fellow blamed, this architect? Why isn’t there some blame put in that direction? And if you start to put the blame in that direction, won’t that give us a new insight into possibly things that happened to us? Instead of blaming the neighbor, we wait maybe four or five months and find out that the adversity that hit us, somehow was for our own good.

08:50

Now I read a, I read various books on psychology – I have a hard time reading them because I get rather upset, when I start to read them, because of their terminology, the loose ay they handle such things as the mind. I read one place where the fellow said the mind is the collective response to the environment. In other words, he didn’t know what the mind was, so the best thing is not saying too much. So it’s just what’s [whatever is] reacting to the environment

09:25

possible source – marathon groups: http://yalom.com/tapencountercontent.html

I read a definition of reality in this same, i think it was the same book that they had the case histories of the encounter [groups] in them. And this psychiatrist says, “We can accept reality – is [as?] that which proves itself pleasant in the long run.

09:46

In other words a state [?] – supposing it’s a, pot as opposed to booze. Booze can prove itself pleasant in the immediate future, but unpleasant in the long term, looking at the liver and the arteries, the blood pressure, etc. But pot may not have the same long-range unpleasantness. I think you can apply that to a lot of other things, such as sex habits. But they’re all defined as the writer or the author sees fit. But the main thing is that this is not reality.

10:31

Do we ever think about reality? What is reality? My estimation is that we’re avoiding, possibly, the greatest set of values – you talk about values [the title of the talk] – and we are equating ourselves with sheep and goats – at the same time demanding that those sheep and goats assume responsibility.

10:57

In other words [that] we are flesh bodies, our mind is a collective reaction to that flesh body, and there is no spirit, nothing inside. And again, I’m not preaching; I’m not saying that I’m advising some doctrine. I’m saying, how can we afford, under this brave new thinking process, to dump out ten thousand years of previous psychiatric practice? Ten thousand years, and we redefine the words and redefine the terms – and fail miserably. Because that’s exactly what we’re doing. We’re failing miserable.

11:40

Aside: Have you finished that up? [gathering questionnaires] I don’t know what’s going to become of this, it’s just a shot in the dark with this, but this has basically to do with a concept [advise?] and seeing if a person can remember them from one paper to another, and also [if he will] change his mind from one paper to another. I have [?] them ready. That take care of that. Tore it [?] [laughter]

12:07 looking at papers

12:24

Q. You complain about the definition of mind; would you give us a better one?

R. Well, yes. I think I could. See, I’m a dualist. Now I’m not asking you to agree with me. I believe there’s a body, and another. And I believe that this “other” is also – it inhabits, it reaches into, if you want to call it that, another dimension. This is another mistake that I think we make: we think that there are no other dimensions – except those that Flash Gordon is penetrating, or might penetrate.

13:08

but I believe that the mind is our contact with the mind dimension. Now I have pretty strong reasons for making that statement. But as far as proving it, tat might be something else. But I maintain of course that this too is the immortal aspect of man. In other words, it survives in the form of awareness. I don’t like o state that the, every synapses survives the decay at death; but I’m quite sure that there’s an awareness that does. And I equate this with the ability of the mind.

13:54

Q. Would this be the soul of the person?

R. Well, yes. I think of course that, when you get back to the Greek idea of the soul, and let’s say the Zen idea of the soul, they are two different things. There’s such a thing as we’ve encountered in occult investigation, an astral body, and there are quite a few people today who – well, as opposed to say thirty years ago – who are taking interest in it, and who even profess to be able to travel this way, where they’ve checked each other, where somebody would do something to prove he had travelled astrally. There was a book written on it by Robert Monroe.

14:65

Monroe was a successful businessman and had no profit in writing the book. I don’t think he made any money off of it anyhow; not many people read that sort of material. But he was a fairly wealthy man, who had this ability. So he decided to sit down and tell about it. And Herewood Carrington and Sylvan Muldoon also wrote books on astral projection.

15:10

Now this is what I think the Greeks referred to as the soul. When you get into theology and esoteric philosophy there’s quite a clutter of definitions. For instance, the spirit and the soul are not the same [?? ???] a spiritualist, for instance, considered there’s an astral [world?] and then there’s a higher spiritual world, and that sort of thing.

15:38

But I don’t care to identify them. I’m just saying that the idea of a soul means a replica. My idea is that, I see no need for a replica., or a ghost, identical to the person. This may exist. In fact, in present Greek tradition – I talked to a fellow who just came over from Greece. His father died. And I said, “Why didn’t you try to get back home?” And he said, “He’ll come to me. He’ll travel the earth for two years.” And that’s the soul that ceases? ?? exist, and that he would enter into another experience, or something of that sort.

16:23

But if you want to get some additional literature on this, get the Tibetan Book of the Dead. The Tibetans for centuries believed that the soul after death found itself in a similar vehicle, believing that it was in a human body. And this was the equivalent of the Christian purgatory that you hear about, where they refuse to give up the idea that they were dead, so to speak. So they held onto this form, believing in it. And it [this] caused another hell, similar to this one.

And the transcendence of that, of course, was finding a unparticularized, undifferentiated form, and keeping the mind still active – meaning awareness, not the memory mind or let’s say the philosophical or thinking-cogitating mind, but still a tremendous awareness.

17:29

So these are the different grades. And incidentally, I don’t think – you talk about the human mind – and I don’t think that everyone has the same type of mind. [?] See? some of us, they would like to pin everybody down as just being reactive people. And I think this is very true, that the majority of people are just reactive people. They are just you might say responding to stimuli. I maintain that you don’t have to be stuck in that groove?? That we can reach our awareness.

18:05

And again, the proof of that is not in me saying it. The proof is in getting there behind it, and then looking back on what you’ve achieved. In other words, there’s no sense in saying you’re going someplace after death. This is foolishness. You have to make the trip. Then you get a better perspective of what the mind is, after death.

18:27

And I think of course, again, you take the cases of Kübler-Ross and Raymond Moody They wrote case histories of life after life, or life after death. These, if you want to take them, almost 99 percent of them are all cases of people who had never transcended the form-type of immortality.

18:55

Now those aren’t the only cases on record. In Readers Digest, I think it was October 1974, there was a case of a man who dropped dead of a heart attack. http://tatfoundation.org/forum2003-12.htm#5

19:07

File 2

Total time 30:38

File 3

Total Time 29:22

File 4

Total time 23:46