Arkashean Q&A Session -- 074
JO: When you say that patterns are steering currents, why do you not just call a pattern a steering current?
THERRY: Because there are divisions. You have to bear in mind that the best way to keep things straight is to follow the patterns of creation, which means you have levels to things.
THERRY: And to make it easier for communication, you want to be able to understand one pattern from another, or one level from another by the use of the symbol that you're using.
JO: Okay, so when you're talking about something that is Royal to the Earth experience as a Steering Current, you'd use the label Steering Current--
THERRY: You use the words Royal to Earth--
JO: Royal to Earth --an Earth-Royal Steering Current is what you'd use.
JO: When you're talking about a pattern in an individual, that is a steering Current that is Royal to the individual.
THERRY: That is correct.
JO: Yet, because it is a Steering Current on the level of the individual, we call it a Pattern?
JO: Okay, alright.
THERRY: But see, Patterns can be anywhere. You can have Patterns which are not necessarily Steering Currents.
JO: Such as?
THERRY: The pattern which you see in a snowflake.
JO: Oh, like in science.
THERRY: Right. So, therefore, you don't use the word Pattern, because there are a number of ways to use that word, and it would become confusing.
JO: The process of photosynthesis, is that a pattern?
JO: But you don't call it a pattern.
JO: Molecular structures is a pattern.
THERRY: That is correct.
JO: Alright, so now we're dealing just with individuals, and the level of--
THERRY: No, we're not. Right at the moment we're dealing with the proper use of language. In order to identify your parts, so as not to confuse one with another, you use specialized labels to mean specialized levels. Hence, the word Royal Steering Current, which means it's the very basic pattern of creation as it applies to that specific level; then you use the words Steering Currents, which are the basic games. And then you use the words games, then the word Roles, and then finally, the behaviors.
JO: Now, I thought a Steering Current could be described as forces that guide one's life?
THERRY: Hey, the wind is a Steering Current.
JULI: Right, so that could also--okay.
THERRY: So, you see you've got to be careful not to use your labels in such a way that they're so general that you don't get anything out of it. Remember, language is designed to limit, not to broaden.
JO: So, when you speak of patterns, do you first have to limit--
THERRY: When I'm speaking of Patterns, I'm speaking of just that, patterns; they don't apply to anything except creation. They are patterns. They are a collection of forces which do something.
JO: It seems that whenever we speak of patterns, we're discussing human behavior.
THERRY: Oh, really.
JO: I don't ever hear us talking about patterns regarding science.
THERRY: That's not true; we discuss that quite often.
JO: Well, now I'm confused, because now I don't know if we speak of patterns--that's very general right now.
THERRY: Exactly, and therefore, because the labels are so general, other than in an extremely general conversation, you can't do anything with your labels. You can't manipulate your data.
JO: Then, what are you supposed to do?
THERRY: Use labels which are more confining. There's a difference between the words patterns, and Royal Steering Current, Steering Current, game, illusion, role. Every single one of these things that I've mentioned are, in themselves, patterns. But, obviously they're more confining than strictly just the word patterns.
JO: When you mention an individual, and you say, tell me--
THERRY: Oh, that's a pattern too.
JO: And you say tell me the patterns in that individual.
JO: Now, oh--
THERRY: Oh, what? If I ask you for the patterns of an individual, obviously I want the Royal Steering Currents that guide that individual, I want the various Steering Currents that guide the individual, I want the individual's basic illusions, I want his games, I want his roles, and I want the behaviors.
JO: Now, if we say a Royal Steering Current for an individual is unrequited love, what is a Steering Current that falls under unrequited love?
THERRY Well, there are a number of possibilities.
THERRY: Rejection's one.
JO: But that wouldn't be a Royal Steering Current? Rejection wouldn't be a Royal Steering Current in this case?
THERRY: No, because the Chi in question is unrequited love. See, you're breaking your own limitations. You just said if we use the Royal Steering Current of unrequited love. Well, contained within unrequited love, what are the other patterns? So now, suddenly you're talking to me about something that has nothing to do with unrequited love. You're destroying your own damn limitations.
JO: No, I just--
THERRY: In short, stop flipping around all over the place. If you're going to talk about one subject, stay in that subject, and don't talk to me about something that's over in Japan or in Korea.
JO: No, I'm trying to understand why--
THERRY: No, no, no. Let's stick to language, okay?
JO: Alright, alright.
THERRY: If you're talking to me about the Royal Steering Current called unrequited love, don't talk to me about something that has nothing to do with unrequited love.
JO: We were talking about rejection. That has a lot to do with unrequited love!
THERRY: Fine! But that doesn't change the fact that I don't want you to talk to me about anything that has nothing to do with unrequited love. Remember, the category is, Royal Steering Current, Steering Current, Illusions, Games, Roles, and Behaviors, okay?
THERRY: All of these subdivisions, go, or are a part of which make up a Royal Steering Current. Don't sit there and give me another Chi when we're talking about one specific Chi. Keep your mind trained to stay within boundaries. Stop flipping around all over the place like static electricity. Keep your thoughts centered.
JO: Can you give me an example, then, of what you just said?
THERRY: Which was that?
JO: Royal Steering Currents, Steering Currents, games, etc., etc.
THERRY: Okay, let's take the Chi, or the Royal Steering Current of unrequited love. Okay, the Royal Steering Current is unrequited love;
THERRY: The Steering Currents would be war, power games, sibling rivalry, stuff like that. Then the games would be power game--
JO: A specific type of power game.
THERRY: Yea, it could be a specific type of interaction between two people. An illusion would be the individual's point of view, the individual's history; I mean, what is his history, what is his culture, what is his religion, what is whatever. And the role, of course, would be the behaviors that he elects to commit in order to fulfill his own desires and his own purpose. Then, of course the matrix within which he must behave, such as his society or his subculture, that becomes a Steering Current as well.
The stage upon which he must play his games, that's a Steering Current. If an individual comes from Panama, they're going to behave and think differently than if an individual comes from China or from South Korea.
JO: Some games can become Steering Currents for other games, is that true?
JO: That's where I get confused, because they're all so interconnected--
THERRY: Yes, it's a fabric --
JO: --that I don't keep my divisions clear.
THERRY: No kidding. And that's what I've been yelling at you about these past four or five years. Start controlling your thinking process. Stop thinking like static electricity. You jump from subject to subject to subject with no seeming connection between them all. Here we're talking about rutabagas, and suddenly you're talking to me about China. What the hell has China got to do with rutabagas?
JO: I didn't see it that way. So, when you observe an individual, you look for the patterns within that individual--
THERRY: Yes, which automatically means there are seven categories; and those are only possibilities; they're not what binds my illusion to--in other words, that's not what pigeonholes him. They're just guides, they're tools to use for understanding. They're not tools to use to make judgments with. Cause if you know he comes from California, then you know automatically he comes from the United States, and, therefore, he's going to have certain possibilities, `cause people from California behave differently than people from Alabama.
THERRY: So, again, knowing those Steering Currents, or that matrix upon which he plays his games, that gives you a lot of information, and it automatically wipes out a lot of possibilities. If he comes from the inner city of Chicago, well then, you don't expect that he's going to be a farmer; so therefore, you don't expect that he's going to play farming games, and hence, all of that, more or less, is pushed aside.
JO: Now, say you're interacting with an individual who, for instance, you find out that his parents are divorced. There's any number of possibilities that are--
THERRY: No, they're very finite.
JO: They are?
JO: And what are they?
THERRY: The only finites there is the unrequited love game--
JO: That would be evident, do you think, in the case of divorced parents?
THERRY: Un-solidified or unstable interactive states would be there; and, depending on if he's an only child or not, sibling rivalry would go into there. Definitely the power game would be there, and so would the pawn game, and that's all.
JO: All of those different patterns could fall under an individual that had nothing to do with divorced parents, right?
THERRY: That is correct. Because there are many versions to those same steering currents. It all depends on the stage upon which the game is being played. Cause obviously, religion has a big effect on the game, or the lack of it, or specific... what religion takes, and if it's the whole family's the same religion, or is it crossing religious lines. All of that stuff makes a big difference. If it's Jew against Christian, you're going to have a very special type of interactive skills, or if it's you know--
JO: And these are all possibilities, nothing's written in stone, basically.
THERRY: Correct. These are simply guideposts to help you understand the possibilities of what you're dealing with. Remember, all of these categories are designed to help you understand; they're not designed to help you pigeonhole the person, 'cause when you start pigeonholing, now you're using prejudice as your tool, and you don't want that; you want understanding as your tool.
JO: People are multi-faceted, and there's so much to each individual--
JO: --that to say," Oh, that person's just stuck in machismo, or that person's just stuck in--
THERRY: That's prejudice.
JO: Oh, okay. Right.
THERRY: Not only that; a person can be playing more than one version of the same game, depending on the different steering currents that are being involved.
JO: Can you give an example?
THERRY: Well, let's say the war game. Well, the war game that would be played under the Royal Steering Current unrequited love, would be different from the war game that would be played under the Royal Steering Current called power trip. But yet if both of those R.S.C. were involved in the creation of an individual, they would both be present, and you would have to be careful to be able to decipher which is which. 'Cause they both have different causes, and they expect different effects. Remember, the ultimate purpose of unrequited love is to get the person to come back to you so you can have him or her again. But the power trip, on the other hand, the ultimate purpose there is to destroy him, get him out of the way so that he becomes your slave, or that he no longer holds the power to control the future. Those are totally drastically different cause and effect relationships. But yet, the war game is the tool that is being used for both of them.
JO: Can I bring up an individual?
THERRY: Not on tape. Can you see the relationship of where I just spoke?
JO: Playing the war game because of power as opposed to playing the war game because of unrequited love. The results are very different.
THERRY: Right. Can you see that?
JO: I think so.
THERRY: Look at the film Lion in Winter. Can you see they were all playing war games?
THERRY: Can you see that the war game she was playing was different from the war games the children were playing, and it was different from the war games that the King was playing?
THERRY: That's an example. She wanted the king to come back to her.
JO: She had unrequited love; she did not want to destroy him.
THERRY: But the war game is that she tried to hurt and to thwart him as much as possible so that he would never achieve. The children, on the other hand, beside warring with one another for sibling rivalry, wanted to war with one another for succession to the king.
JO: They had the power desire.
THERRY: Right, the power game was there. He, on the other hand, was playing the war game to try and free himself from both the influence of the sons and the influence of the wife so he could play the other woman game.
JO: He wanted to be left in peace with--
THERRY: With the other woman.
JO: But he had trapped himself.
THERRY: Exactly. So, it is the war game in all three circumstances, but the war game was being played different, because there was a different cause and effect relationship towards the goals of the R.S.C. involved. The goals of the RSC called unrequited love was to get the king to go back to her and to get her sons to love her. The goals of the unrequited love called sibling rivalry, rather, the goals of the RSC sibling rivalry was to achieve dominance over the siblings.
JO: Now, you just said the RSC of sibling rivalry; I thought that the Chi in this case is unrequited love.
THERRY: No, there's more than one in there. Remember, we're talking about a specific film.
JO: So, there's several Chi, depending on what group or individual--
THERRY: Yes, because there's seldom only one RSC that's involved in any specific individual. But you have to be able to mentally understand to be able to separate the various proponents of each part. So for the queen, in that film, the basic was unrequited love. For the kids it was sibling rivalry and the power game, so there was two of them. The king it was the power game and the other woman game, so there was two there too. But the queen it was strictly unrequited love. So even though there were two RSC, actually in the king there was more than two, but we're only going to speak of two, ah, the purpose for the RSC was different in all three situations between the king, the queen, and the children. The purpose for the RSC was different. The queen wanted the king to come back, and wanted the children to love her. That was the purpose of that RSC. The sons wanted to gain dominance, and wanted to believe that they were loved and respected by their respective parents, but they were too busy warring against one another for kingship.
THERRY: The king on the other hand, wanted to be free of them both so he could pursue being king, and pursue his relationship with the other woman. But obviously, he couldn't because of his history.
THERRY: So can you see that all three purposes were related to the RSC. So that's the basic matrix. Now you enter the second level which is the steering currents themselves, one of which was the war game. Now the war game in each of those three sets of conditions is being played differently because the cause and effect relationship to the original purpose is different.
JO: Would that fall under each one has different goals?
THERRY: Each one has different goals, and it has different set of rules.
THERRY: Cause remember, all of the different games, be it the war game, or whatever, all of the different steering currents, still have to, in some way, attempt to achieve the original purpose.
JO: If the queen goes to war, her reasons for war are to get back at the king--
THERRY: No, to get the king back, not to get back at the king, but--
JO: Doesn't she also want to hurt him?
THERRY: No, that's just part of the game, but the purpose for the war is to get him back. To hurt him so that he will come back to her so that the hurt will stop. It's illogical but nonetheless that's the purpose of unrequited love.
JO: The sons have the same thing.
THERRY: From a different purpose. Their purpose is dominance. Remember, their RSC is sibling rivalry. So, their purpose is to become superior, become the number one by their parents.
JO: And that will resolve unrequited love in their eyes.
THERRY: That would resolve unrequited love, exactly. But, obviously, only one can win.
JO: So the power game comes into it in the war. They have to fight one another to get dominance.
THERRY: Exactly. But, nonetheless, that whole war game is designed or must serve the original purpose of the RSC which is different for all three. So while all three are playing the same game, it's different. The rules are different, the relationship for the cause and effects are different, and the outcomes are different, but it's still the same game. And, if you take it one step lower, the queen was playing unrequited love for the king, and she was playing unrequited love for the sons. But yet, while it's the same unrequited love theme, it was being played different for both of them. And the difference was, she was still using the sons as pawns to get the king.
JO: Right. Sometimes she'd want to get them for themselves, other times she'd use them to get to him.
THERRY: Right. That's how the same game for the same purpose in the same person can be done more in more than one form, and however different their forms, they interact with each other, because it is a fabric. When she gained the power, she sold it, because she thought she could get the king back. But she ended up losing everything.
JO: She was right back where she started.
THERRY: Simply because of a very basic law: love cannot be won. You can't fight for love and expect to win.
JO: Nor can you buy it.
THERRY: Exactly. There is no logic in fighting for peace. It is a very basic law, but mankind hasn't learned that yet .Anyway, that's an example of the fabric of the various steering currents and the levels of it.
JO: It's interesting because it certainly makes television viewing very different.
THERRY: Exactly; it becomes a magic box.
JO: Viewing it and trying to figure out what each individual wants, what their basic--what their goals are on a very general level to a more specific level.
THERRY: Exactly. If you follow that hierarchy of levels which we were speaking of, now it becomes a magic mirror. It helps you understand yourself as you interact with others around you as they interact with the immediate surroundings as it interacts with the subculture as it interacts with the state culture as it interacts with the country culture as it interacts with the world culture, etc., etc., etc.
Then it's the same thing along the social lines, along the individual lines, along the group lines, along the spiritual lines, along the religious it's one big fabric.
JO: It seems to me a Royal Steering Current of unrequited love is present in almost everybody, in some form or another.
JO: I say this because I have yet to meet somebody who has come from a very stable home situation, and that is usually where it stems from.
THERRY: There's no such thing as a happy childhood.
JO: Right. I'm looking at my family, and trying to see the patterns within them; unrequited love is big amongst the three children; I think my father had it from his family --
JO: And I'm not sure about my mother, but I believe she had it too.
THERRY: She had it from hers. But there's other steering currents that are equally as important. The elitism.
JO: Snobbery is a sub --
THERRY: Snobbery is just one small game of elitism.
JO: Okay. That was a big one in the family. I know there was sibling rivalry which brought about wars --
THERRY: Well, they all play the war game; it's just different forms of the war game. You had unrequited love, you had elitism, sibling rivalry.
JO: I don't know if you label something such as Alcoholism a pattern--that is a game an individual plays?
THERRY: That is a game.
JO: Now, that would stem from unrequited love?
THERRY: Not necessarily. It could go under all three. Remember, games can go under most of the RSC, but within each they would be played differently.
JO: Because of what the original purpose is?
JO: And, they're all interconnected; the web exists there as it does everywhere else, right?
THERRY: Yes, that is correct. Thus if alcoholism came from unrequited love, and if it came from elitism, and if it came from sibling rivalry all at the same time, then you could see how confusing it would be for the individual who is playing the game; hence half the time they really don't know what they're doing.
JO: What does greed fall under?
THERRY: Greed is one of the games. For instance, that game could fall under power trip, elitism, prejudice. It's one of the games of war, one of the proponents of war.
JO: Is elitism the --
THERRY: That's a Royal Steering Current.
JO: Could you say elitism is the Chi from which prejudice springs?
THERRY: It's not limited to that. Prejudice can be a game that is played in war, it can be played under elitism, and it can be played under power trip. And obviously it would be played differently in all three.
JO: When we watched that teenage TV show, and the pattern within that show, one of the patterns was elitism --
THERRY: Yea, that was a basic one.
JO: And, under elitism you had snobbery.
JO: And under snobbery you had alienation--would that fall under snobbery?
JO: And under alienation you have the rejection that comes from being alienated.
JO: But yet it doesn't necessarily fall in that line.
THERRY: It's not linear, it's fabric; those are all interactive roles within that game.
JO: You know the movie Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? Of course you know it. That's a great example of game playing.
JO: Now, they don't give us much history of the people in that to really form the root of the game playing, do you think?
No, but they give you enough so that you could infer. Obviously they both come from elitist families; they both come from well-to-do families; they both come from educated families; they both come from families who themselves played games.
JO: Otherwise they wouldn't have learned to play so well.
THERRY: Exactly. She comes from an alcoholic family.
JO: Oh, her father's an alcoholic, right. I think that's stated at one point.
THERRY: I don't know if it is or not, but she drinks an awful lot.
JO: They both do.
THERRY: Not from the same way she does; she drinks from a dependency point, so that infers or implies that she got it from her folks.
JO: Whereas he's more escapism?
THERRY: Yes. So you have enough to infer, but those inferences you can't write in stone because, for instance, it's not necessarily proof that she did come from an alcoholic family. Perhaps it is something that is started with her. So you can't write the inferences in stone, but you can get a rough idea of what their history is, plus or minus all of the inaccuracies.
JO: Right. Cause they throw knives into each other constantly, yet it is very apparent that they both love one another--
THERRY: Right, and, therefore, you can see the unrequited love is there. The war game is there.
JO: That game, if it wasn't for you--
JO: That's a sub--that's a much more specific level.
THERRY: But it can be a RSC to that marriage.
JO: It can be?
THERRY: Sure. It's Royal to that marriage. Each becomes a co-creator of the games they play; each in turn becomes a supporting or a maintainer, or whatever it is today.
JO: When there's so many specifics involved, depending on an individual, you find something specific that will pertain to that individual, how then do you make general inferences about a whole society?
THERRY: You can't. There are rules governing the type of inferences and the scope of those inferences. For instance, you know, in this case, their marriage game is all-inclusive because it was rather easy for them to allow a third party into the games.
This other couple joined in; she dropped out of the game and stayed in the car drunker than a loot; passed out. He, on the other hand, continued playing the game with the original couple; up to and including he had sex with her. And then it wasn't until after the weekend was over that he realized that all of it was just a game.
JO: Right. The whole thing with the child that they never had, and they suggest that the guy killed his parents, and she starts telling him that it is actually true when he wanted to make believe it was just a book, and you never really know--
THERRY: Yea, and they had a make-believe funeral for the child.
JO: Right, when he kills her; he says I'm going to stop the game, and she says, no you can't, and he says I'm going to kill our son, and she's so trapped in it that she can't remove herself. And the third party starts looking on at them as if they're both crazy, cause from his view they are.
THERRY: But see, he thinks all of it is real.
JO: Right, until the very end.
THERRY: So, that's the all-inclusiveness of the game.
JO: Oh, I see, okay.
THERRY: Cause, if it's all-inclusive, it becomes reality, and anyone who wishes to join is part of reality. That simply adds flavor to the game.
JO: A lot of times when I watch different dramas, I look at it from an actor's viewpoint, and I think if I change my labels I'll be able to--
THERRY: better understand.
JO: Instead of saying, oh, that was his action, oh what was his motive there, his conflict here is such and such, those are actor terms, and if I start saying what's the pattern being viewed here, what game is he playing within this scene, what does he want from that individual, right? Would that be--
THERRY: No, not from the individual, from the game.
JO: Oh, what does he want to win from the game, basically?
THERRY: What are the rewards of the game. It's like nested loops.
JO: Nested loops? What are those?
THERRY: It's computerized terms, but it still applies. The Royal Steering Current has a purpose to be solved; each individualistic steering current has a purpose to be solved; each game has a purpose to be solved; each role has a purpose; and each behavior has a purpose. And they're not necessarily all the same purpose. Each level wants a reward that is specific to its level, and all the rewards don't have to necessarily be the same; some can be contradictory to one another; others can be supporting with one another, and that's the nature of the illusion.
JO: When individuals plan out their life script, can that be valid, can you say that?
JO: I'm talking about looking at a whole life in one picture, as opposed to an adult section in one picture, as opposed to a relationship in one picture, as opposed to a little momentary interaction--I mean you could go from a little moment to moment to a whole lifetime, and is there a game that applies to a whole lifetime, possibly?
JO: And then there are ones that are divided up--
THERRY: Each category is there. Each of the seven categories are there all the time. They just vary from moment to moment--
JO: And, depending on the individual, they could be prime throughout the entire life-
JO: They could be prime for just a minute.
JO: It could change back and forth and back and forth.
THERRY: Yup, an example of that would be the used-to-be housewife as the Royal Steering Current (RSC) of housewife or primary caretaker for the family. They play the wife game, they play the chauffeur game, the cook game, the maid game, the housekeeping game; they're all different. The mother game, the sex-goddess game, the trollop game, the sex pattie game, the judge and jury game, the arbitrator game.
JO: You could go on and on.
THERRY: Right, but all of them are knitted together and are a part of that individual's personality and that individual's role within the illusion. Be it the friendship game, the marriage game, the business game, the power trip, whatever. It's one big fabric. And it takes a regular Solomon to be able to find the borders.
THERRY: Well, hey, it's the only wise man that I know. All the others are just playing at it.
JO: Sophycles. He was wise. I guess I basically want to be able to read people better.
THERRY: Give it time. As you practice the way we've been telling you to do, it will come, but it will come with time. But the big big thing is to keep your mouth shut. Never, never, never, never, never, regardless of the set of circumstances, ever let anybody know that you understand them. If you ever ever let people know that you understand them on these levels, you will do nothing but harm for that individual. What's more, that individual will stop using you as a channel for growth.
JO: Now how is that different from, say you're interacting with an individual, and they're telling you their problems, and you say, oh, I understand what you're going through. Is that not healthy to do?
THERRY: No, that's okay, 'cause you're not telling them that you know them. In short, the thing that you must never do is sit and tell them about themselves. And if they sit and tell you little innuendo lies, you must never tell them that that's not right. You must accept their lies as though you thought it was true. Never burst their illusions. It's okay for them to elect to burst them, and it's okay for them to think that you can burst their illusions, if they accept that; but you must never prove it. You must never show your abilities.
JO: You sure burst my illusions, remember?
THERRY: Well, you asked for it, but otherwise than that, I would have never done it.
JO: Maybe there's lots that you haven't burst yet, for all I know.
THERRY: The point is, when you're in a specialized relationship, such as we were in, then I knew what I was doing, but it's not the thing to do with other people.
JO: Remember I did it with what's her name up in New York, and I got slapped in the face.
THERRY: Yea. You just must never burst other people's illusions.
JO: What if you're dealing with an individual--say I'm dealing with a man. Say a guy comes here and he wants to study with you, and he's got a real machismo problem, I mean big time. Now, it's not my purpose to turn around and say, you know, you're playing your stupid macho games, get it out of here; I don't want to see it.
JO: However, what if his macho games are interfering, or inflicting pain on me in some way or another?
THERRY: That you can handle.
JO: I'd have to think of a specific. Maybe he's flirting with me in a certain way, maybe he's treating me like, 'oh, she's just a female', that's part of a macho game a lot of times, right? The woman's lesser than the man.
JO: Now, I don't have to turn around and tell him I know his whole scene.
THERRY: You don't have to interact with him at all. Now, if he is in fact playing that game, at some point in time he's going to say, " hey, get me this", at which point you turn around very quietly and say," who the fuck do you think I am--go get it yourself."
JO: Now, I haven't burst his illusion of being macho.
THERRY: Correct, you've simply put him in his place, and there's nothing wrong with that, within Arkashea, of course.
JO: Right, you don't go out in the world and do it.
JO: And I certainly don't do anything with people that you don't basically give the ok to.
JO: Like, there was an instance when I went running, when Ron and I went running, and I remember that there was a power thing going on, I think part of machismo. I sensed it from the very beginning, but there was no point for me to say anything, and he ended up getting himself sick--
JO: Now, his own illusions, in some case, were burst for him by himself.
JO: And, of course he was very embarrassed about it and came up to me later, and said, you know, I guess I wasn't in as good shape as I thought I was, and all. But, I guess, a lot of times an individual's lessons are going to come around for them on their own; they will almost set it up for themselves, right?
THERRY: Correct. Life has a way of kicking us in the ass when we think we're too big for our britches.
JO: Yeeaa, yeeaa, I've been kicked quite a number of times; my butt's black and blue (laughter) Is it helpful to watch dramas, and try to apply people that one knows in real life?
THERRY: To try to understand them, not to try to pigeonhole them. The whole purpose to all of this is to understand, forgive, and love.
JO: A lot of times Hollywood dramas do not hold true to life.
THERRY: Obviously, but the patterns are still valid. Even though the pattern may be inappropriate for a specific outcome or a specific situation, doesn't change the fact that the patterns are valid.
THERRY: They're valid simply because they're transferable.
JO: You've spoken mainly of patterns that lead to negative behavior--
THERRY: Because the patterns which lead to positive behavior never causes problems.
JO: What's an example of a pattern that leads to positive behavior?
THERRY: Patterns that will leave you feeling contented with yourself. You'll feel good; you'll feel joy, you'll feel at peace.
JO: Right. Well, what's the pattern there?
THERRY: Obviously it's the satisfaction of inner needs. We never hardly speak of them simply because they're never a problem. People don't come here crying to be relieved from happiness, therefore we don't deal with it. (Laughter)
JO: I'm feeling too darn good; you've got to stop it.
THERRY: Right. You know, you laugh, but I have had students come here and tell me hey, you've got to help me because I have been feeling good for so long that I'm positive something bad's gonna come. Cause they were so used to feeling terrible, that they couldn't handle feeling all that good, I've had that.
THERRY: It's easy to handle it; I yell at them.
JO: Oh yea?
THERRY: Then I say, see, now you got your bad already, so now you can feel good because the bad already came. (Laughter) They laugh, see the absurdity of it, and then they just go on wondering when the bad's gonna come. I detect from the vibrations in your aura that you have counted yourself among some of those who have done that.
JO: Oh yea. (Mimics) Therry, something's wrong; you haven't yelled at me in a long time! Walking around with this really peaceful feeling--what's going on? (Laughter) I just want to better understand people.
THERRY: Which is good. You're going about it the correct way. First understand the nature of creation, and then learn to understand patterns and their cause-and-effect relationship. Then you will come automatically to understand yourself and other people.
JO: I don't know that I understand the nature of creation at all.
THERRY: Well, hey, it took God seven days, seven cycles. Should it take you less?
JO: More than seven days. I don't know how many days in a cycle. How many years in a cycle--
THERRY: Or how many years in a day?
JO: Yea, well, that too.
THERRY: Every time I hear that it reminds me of that little joke.
JO: What little joke?
THERRY: About man speaks to God, and he says, boy what a difference. Your minute must seem eternal to me. Your minute says a hundred billion billion billion zillion years. And God says, yep, that's right. He says, I guess time really doesn't mean anything to you, does it? He says, no, it doesn't. It doesn't for me either, says the man. I just do what I've got to do. And they're talking back and forth, things are pretty well, and the guy says, you know what I need? What? I need a lot of money. God says, oh, yeaa, in a minute. (Laughter)
JO: That's funny. I was just thinking of something I read in Psychology Today. An approach they called, I think, the paradoxical approach.
THERRY: Yea, the approach/avoidance.
JO: Well, maybe this was incorrect phrasing, then. They were using specifics such as patient comes to doctor and says, I can't seem to stop it, I have crying fits at least once a week. And the doctor says, increase it to three times a week. Man comes to doctor and says, I can't maintain an erection. I make love with my wife and it doesn't work. The doctor says, don't worry about having an erection at all; just leave it the way it is, just forget about it. Etc., etc.
JO: They say that many times this will work--
THERRY: Yea, it will work. It removes the urgency of it.
JO: That's exactly what they said. Now, how do you know when to apply that and when not to?
THERRY: Well, you have to know what the illusions are.
JO: See, I know you did this with Susan once, cause she said, I called him up saying I was really worried about an illness; I was freaking out, and you said, better go to a doctor, get to that doctor, you might need an operation. And she said wait a minute. She said in her mind she turned around so fast and said, there's nothing wrong with me; I'm not going to any doctor. And she was all better.
JO: Now, I was talking to Mel about this, and she said, " oh golly, well I go to him and I listen, and if he tells me to go to the doctor I go.
THERRY: Yea, you have to be careful to--
JO: Now you wouldn't play it with her like you might play it with someone else because their illusions are different.
THERRY: Exactly. So, you have to understand the laws of their illusions. That's why a little knowledge is very dangerous.
JO: I guess a lot of the psychologists can make big mistakes.
THERRY: Also, some people when they come to me they cry, and I sit and give them my shoulder, and I pat them on the head, whatever; other people, they cry and I say hey, shut the ducken waterworks.
JO: Gee, I wonder who those people are! (Laughter)
THERRY: Again, you've got to know when.
JO: Right. Well, then you also are able to read in to all aspects of the individual, and know the whole history of the individual--
JO: Your average psychologist can't even come anywhere near that.
THERRY: Yea. Doesn't change what I'm saying.
THERRY: Hence, as you learn more, you're number one, number one directive is non-interference. Keep your mouth shut. Other people must never know that you know them.
JO: You've stressed that a few times; have I said anything to anybody lately I shouldn't have said?
JO: Like what?
THERRY: When I'm ready to talk about it, I will. For now, it's harmless. Doesn't matter for now.
JO: I could turn it off, then you could tell me.
THERRY: No. Tape's got nothing to do-if I wanted to talk about it now, I'd talk about it on the tape. For now it's harmless, so I'm letting it go. I'm just giving you warnings.
JO: Wouldn't it be helpful if I knew the situation and the individual so that I could see where I made even a harmless error?
THERRY: Except that it would rob you from the opportunity of learning yourself.
JO: Wouldn't I still be able to learn myself and prevent possible danger to the individual in the future?
THERRY: It would have a different long-term effect. I have my own ways of teaching.
JO: You say it was harmless, though?
THERRY: In this instance, yes.
JO: Was it a letter written, or an interaction verbally?
THERRY: If I wanted to tell you, I would have already, wouldn't I have.
JO: I'm just trying a few other little angles here.
THERRY: Yes, I understand. A little bit of conversion here and there, cajoling, whatever.
JO: Now I'm worried that I don't know when I'm doing it if I do something like that.
THERRY: In that case, what I'm doing has had its affect.
JO: Has had its affect?
THERRY: The warning that I gave you put you on guard. So it doesn't matter all that much what has been done in the past, as much as now you'll be aware of what you do in the future.
JO: We hope.
THERRY: Hope, hope, right.
JO: All right. Well, I'm going to be thinking about this for a while.
THERRY: Very interesting (accent)
THERRY: Perhaps that was my purpose. What better way to get your attention then sealing it with drama.
JO: Oh, cut it out! (Laughter) You know, I was watching that TV show last night, that Passion and Paradise; it wasn't very good. However, the leading man was very attractive. And I was watching the interaction between him and the young woman. When they first meet, they go through the courtship routine, and he was good. They obviously cast him in these roles a lot because he's very dark and handsome, and he's got a certain suave, flirtatious quality.
Um, and I realized I used to love that game of flirtation, without wanting anything else to come after it. But the flirtation was a lot of fun, and I don't know what makes it so much fun. What is it that makes something like that fun?
THERRY: Playing with other people. It's called tease.
JO: I wasn't the only one teasing; it was both sides.
THERRY: Oh, I'm sure that made it okay.
JO: I see people flirting with one another all the time.
THERRY: I'm sure that makes it okay.
JO: I'm saying it doesn't seem to be necessarily a negative thing.
THERRY: Who said it was?
JO: Well, you're implying that when I'm saying --I'm defending it, and you're saying," oh, and that makes it okay", implying that it's really not okay.
THERRY: You're trying to tell me that when you started the conversation you were not thinking about the negative aspects of flirting?
JO: I was thinking about what comes after flirting--getting caught up in other games that you didn't want to get caught up in.
THERRY: So, why did you suddenly switch it around? A little defense here and there?
JO: I was gonna just protect myself some.
THERRY: Yea, yea, yea, yea.
JO: Look, I can't have perfect thoughts all the time.
THERRY: Why not? I do. (Laughter)
JO: Yea, yea, yea. Why don't we turn this thing off.
THERRY: Why, are you finished?
JO: Alright, you won't tell me the individual that I had this situation with regarding saying something that possibly is letting them know I know all about them. Can you give me an example? We could take a fictional character--
THERRY: I don't want to talk about it at all.
JO: Why not?
THERRY: `Cause I don't want to interfere with the outcome of what I've got planned.
JO: Oh, come on! What's the out --(laughter)
THERRY: That was fun.
JO: I mean, I'm laughing about it, but you've stated over and over that it's very serious, and it's not something you play with--
THERRY: So, stop playing with it.
JO: Well, I'm thinking about it, and you're making cracks, so you got me chuckling too.
THERRY: Oh, okay, I won't talk.
JO: Well, I'll turn this off.
THERRY: No, no, no, leave it on. Just change the subject. You know what?
THERRY: It's getting close to breakfast time for me.
JO: Well, why don't we turn this off, and I'll get you some food.