WORDS by Eugene Halliday
Transcription by Bob Hardy
[Recorded in Liverpool sometime between the late 1950’s – early 60’s]
[NOTE: This recording begins with a conversation between Eugene Halliday and a female member of the group. The subject of the conversation appears to be about written material brought by (some of?) those attending, and subsequently handed to Eugene Halliday.
He asks those attending, “Have you got your names on them?” etc. He says he will take them with him and, “Let you have them back next week,” adding, ”I’m sure they’re all works of genius!” …etc. … The following ‘transcription proper begins 1.00 minute into the recording]
We’ll talk about words. First we will take the word ‘word’.
There is a book, considered to be a very intelligent book, called ‘The Meaning Of Meaning’ by Ivor Richards (First published in 1923 - BH) . It is a very long book, which doesn’t start telling you the meaning of the first meaning.
But if you have the meaning of meaning, without defining the first meaning, it gives you a nice long book, but the problem is not strictly solved at the end of it.
We are going to say that ‘words’ are primarily sounds, and that the printed symbols that we use for these sounds have evolved from certain drawings of ideas. That the ideas were signified by sounds originally, and that the symbols have some relationship to the original sound.
For instance, the vowel ‘O” can only be formed by making your mouth in the form of an ‘O’. If you make your mouth in any shape other than round, it won’t make the sound ‘O’. So the sound ‘O’ has a written symbol, which merely represents the lips rounded. So that this divisible symbol corresponds with the physical position of the vocal organs during the production of that sound.
So it has a similar meaning to the rounded lips and if you get hold of the feeling that you have when you round your lips, and then speak through rounded lips, the sound that you hear will correspond with the visual impression given by the circle of the lips.
So we can say that the vowel ‘O’ is, both visually and sonically, correspondent.
Now some of the letters we might find rather less easy to observe.
Now let’s take another one, the vowel ‘I’. The Greeks don’t put a dot on it, and some Greek scholars that that non-Greek scholars who put a dot on it are ‘dotty’ and that it is quite unnecessary. But, in fact, the original letter is a dot, which is, in the Hebrew, simply a little squiggle with a tail on, which could be drawn as a spiral.
Now every dot, every jot of matter in the universe is really a force that has spiraled in and tightened itself. And from the point of view of economy, instead of drawing a spiraling force turning inwards, and finishing up tightly packed, we can just indicate the tightly packed bit as a dot - a jot, a jotter, and so on.
We can see then, that the Greeks might have had another reason for using a vertical line to represent it, namely a bit of dirt on the paper might be mistaken for the letter. But if you make a very definite mark, it is less likely that that could happen.
You know that some musicians play odd bits of dirt on the music and the conductors don’t like it. So it wasn’t a bad idea of the rational Greeks to turn the dot into a line to avoid reading bits of dirt on the paper. But really the letter is a dot. It’s the ‘jotter’ of the Greeks, the English word ‘jot’, the Hebrew ‘yod’ – where it’s simply using ‘D’ instead of ‘T’. Both dentrals, one voiced and one whispered; ‘D’ is voiced, ‘T’ is whispered.
Now like the ‘O’, (5.00) this little jot has a physical correspondence. When you want to pronounce the vowel ‘i’ as a ‘jitterbug’, the ‘jit’, the ‘i’, you actually hold your tongue in such a way that there is very, very, little space between the tongue and the palate. To pronounce a long ‘i’, which of course you wouldn’t find pronounced long in English, but you would in any other continental language. If you see the English letter ‘I’ in a continental word, it is pronounced ‘ee’ whereas our English letter ‘E’ in a continental word (French, Itialian, and so on) is pronounced ‘eh’ (Something like a good Yorkshire ‘aye’).
So this little dot is made by trying to make a little space as big as a dot between your tongue and your palate.
So just as you had the round lips for ‘O’, so you make a tiny little space for ‘i’.
Try to make a little short ‘i’ and you will feel that you are constricting yourself in the tongue, between the tongue and the palate.
Properly pronounced, this little sharp ‘I’ can be felt as a little tiny thing, which is why Christ referred to this jot, or tittle “…which shall not pass away till all be fulfilled.”
We can say that this is the smallest letter sounded, and just like a jot, or dot, signifies the littlest thing, so the vowel ‘i’ signifies a little thing. That is why it occurs in the word ‘little’.
If you say ‘lottle’ instead, it doesn’t sound quite right. If you say, “I have got a lottle pudding on my on my plate,” you get an image of a large dot. But if you say, “a little,” then the amount shrinks. So you can see an actual correspondence between the sound, the physical position of your vocal organs in making it, and the symbolic value of both.
Q: “Excuse me, can I interrupt you?”
Q: You can pronounce the ‘I’ in a different way so that it is long, and you get quite a gap there then between the tongue and the palate…. When you say ‘Lie’ (?)”
(Where is it?) …. Do you mean the symbol, this symbol pronounced as in the English ‘I’?
The English vowel ‘I’ is a diphthong, pronounced of the letter ‘ah’, which is written like this, which most English people would call ‘A’ and the letter ‘E’ or ‘Ae”, you see.
You see you must learn to distinguish between the vowels, as used in English, which are frequently diphthongs like ‘ai’ as in rain, and ‘ie’ as in ‘ride’, and so on, and pure continental vowels like Italian vowels.
If we saw this in Italian, we would say ‘A” or ‘Ah’ - short ‘a’, long ‘ah’, and if we saw ‘a, e , i, o,, u‘, those would be the correct symbols used by phoneticians.
If you look at the ‘Phonetic Internationale’ symbols you will find these letters are pronounced; a, e, i, o, u. But in English, because the English are super diplomats, they won’t say much clearly if they can avoid it.
So when they see this sign they make a diphthong and they say ‘a-e’ (aye), and when they see this sign they say ‘ie’. And when they see this sign ‘o’ they say ‘o-u’, these two together, and when they see this on its own they say ‘E-u’ ‘E-oo’ .
So all the English equivalents are diphthongs. Because the English see things double, they are ‘D-plomats’ or ‘double faces’. …So we would expect English vowels to be obscure.
So for the purpose of phonetic scientific work we cannot afford to have one symbol with two other symbols hidden in it. So we will have use the pure forms of which we can take the Italian s the type ‘a, e, i, o, u’.
So in the English word ‘ride’, as pronounced by a Cockney – which is of course ‘raid’ - we have already an obscure situation. So when we said the long vowel ‘ee’ and then gave me the word ‘alive’, you are already turning ‘i’ into ‘I-e’. (10.00) So for the purpose of this word analysis you must learn to think phonetically, and when you see the symbols, to see them as ‘a-ah’, or ‘ahh’, short-long, ‘e-eh, i-e, o-oh, u-oo’.
Now an Englishman would not pronounce ‘oh’ like an Italian, he would say ‘O’ and the posher he was, the more diplomatic he was, the more this thing is an ‘O’.
So the posher he is, the less forthright he is, the more subtle his diplomacy, the more obscure his vowels, until finally you can’t tell one vowel from another.
All of which is very useful diplomatically, because there can be a row about what was really said. “Did you say we were gong for a ‘raid’ or a ‘ride’ …” You can’t tell, and this is very, very, useful.
But for our purpose - scientific reasons - we have to learn these symbols a, e, i, o, u.
Now, because of mental inertia you will find that, in spite of the fact that you know that you must do this to be scientific (keep one sound, one symbol) in fact when you look at a word you will unconsciously – inertically - start using the English.
So you must break this, otherwise you will never get the meaning of anything properly.
So we are saying that there is a relation, between the form visually, and the sound, and the significance.
Form – Sound – Significance. It’s obvious in the letter ‘O’ and it is obvious in the letter ‘E’. In the letter ‘u’ it does not look very obvious unless we make the drawing rather moe like this , or, throw it through the air.
If we take ‘O’ (which means a sphere) throw it through the air, it will tunnel its way through the air and create a partial vacuum behind it, and it will be the shape of a ‘U’.
So if you project ‘O’ from the back of your throat forward, and protrude your lips, it turns into, ‘U’
Ü is a favorite word in ‘chimpanzee’ (only a chimp can say it) and it corresponds with the ‘u’ in the English word ‘u-want’.
You see, there are two ‘U’s’ in ‘want’ because ‘u’ means ‘urge’.
Push out your lips, you ‘Ü-uant’ it and it’s the tendency of the tissues themselves to go towards the object, and causes the lips to be pro-truded. It’s ‘u-want it’, ‘oo-want’.
So, when you push the lips out, you produce the sign of the letter ‘U’, from the front of your mouth to the back of the mouth like that, and you are shooting it out (…) written on its side. And it means ‘push’, ‘drive’ ‘urge’, ‘oorge’, and so on, and the thicker it is the more belly centered it is. And you notice in the more urgeful people – the less refined people – that the vowel ‘U’ is a good, thick, one.
So that you will find the word ‘cut’ is a quite primitive sounding word, and the people who say ‘cut’ instead of ‘cat’ are more likely to cut you, than the other fellows, they are more urgeful.
We see that the English word, in the Northern version of it, in the wilds of Yorkshire and places, where they are not inhibited, they say ‘luv’. But if they don’t really feel urgeful about it, and they start being intellectual about it, they say ‘love’. And if they’ve no intellect about it they say ‘lav’ … and get washed
I have never heard anybody say ‘lev’ for it except at a certain meeting were there was a very, very, posh lady speaking, and she had long ago given it up.
Now these vowel changes actually spontaneously occur when the significance held in the mind occurs.
We will now go back to the word ‘word’.
We have seen that the vowels mean something and here is something for you to work out. That ‘i’ means a little dot, the tiniest particle, the jot or tickle. The vowel ‘o’ , means a sphere. I’ll do a perspective version of it for you now. That is a sphere. (15.00) This ‘o’ is the ‘o’ in Lucifer … in the ‘o-um’ … this covers everything.
If we put a circle with a dot in the middle, we have written in simultaneous form instead of serial form, either a shout of gained power or a complaint for the loss of it.
The shout of gained power is from little to big which is called ‘i-o’ which is the oldest name we have got of God, and the reverse reading of it - which is called ‘Hebraica reading’ after those reversing gentlemen - is called, with the hand on the side of the head and the head tilted, like ‘oi’. It means diminishing in power.
So we see in the combination of two letters, immediately the suggestion of an increase in ’i-o’, and a loss, ‘oi’. Don’t forget to put your hand on the side of your head when you do it, otherwise they will know that you are a foreigner.
These two are very, very, obvious and we said that the meaning of ‘oo’, is, the nearest thing we can get for it is ‘urge’, and the ‘u’ in ‘luv’.
Notice that when we try to define a single letter, we have to use a word that contains that letter, and the rest of the letters in that same word are added to that primary concept.
So if we take the word ‘urge’ (‘ur’, ‘geh’) we have a power going along (its slightly phallic at the moment, going the (l)ong way), a word, or the initial letter of a word, means ‘to differentiate’, therefore a power differentiating, and then the old form for earth ‘ge’ – which you see in ‘geometry’, or ‘geh-ometry’
‘Ge’ is in good Yorkshire gama, all gathered up, blocked solid, solid blockd, . You pronounce it as a voice at the back of your mouth by blocking it, ‘G’, and when you say ‘G’ you feel as if you have ‘got to’. The ‘eh’ at the end really means field
We have now got going power ‘urge’, and yet the whole meaning of that word is expressed there in the first letter as a ‘going power’. ‘U’ – there we are. There, a bit of French for you, is ‘va’ – ‘he goes’ – and Sanskrit ‘Vah-yU’, the ‘go-er’ or ‘air’, the name of the air spirit ‘Va-yU’. This part ‘u’ already means ‘power going’, and the rest of it means the affirming of that power.
Now ‘V’ and ‘U’ are the same letter, they differ only in the amount of effort that you use to plan some… . So there is only one letter in the Hebrew used for ‘V’ and ‘U’. It is a long letter called ‘vov’ and by Sephardic posh Jews. ‘WA’ , which the devil said ‘VOV’.
It originally is quite simply a drawing of a male genital organ, and symbolized ‘push power’.
Differentiation is an added concept, and the gama’d-up earth and the field thereof are all added to this primary one of ‘power-going-somewhere.’
So to explain ‘U’ we have to use another word ‘urge’ and then cross off all the other parts. It is simply the ‘going-power’. It is the same ‘oo’ in the word ‘power’, only in ‘power’ it is turned into ‘Oh’. It is the second letter. But in the French of the same thing it is retained … there it is … you see that ‘pouvoir’ – ‘to see power’ … there’s the going part again …the place of the going-power. And because the French are rationalists, they don’t think there is any power unless you can see it, formally. So to them – pouvoir - you must see that ‘pou’, because they are rationalists.
Now lets go back to the word ‘word’ again and see what it means. Which is two ‘U’s’ called a double-u (w), which means ‘power stressed’. The ancients used to just simply repeat a word to stress it. If they wanted you to go (20.00) and keep going, they didn’t say, “Go, and keep going,” they just said, Go. go, go, go, go, go,” which sounds a bit Welsh.
This double power is simply power intensified, so it’s really going ‘with effect’. Then it creates a sphere. Then it differentiates inside that sphere by vibrating, and then cuts itself off from the surrounding.
So we have (“Do you have a pen?”) we have this pushing power going along like this , these are the pushings, and it turns around and makes an ‘O’ … ‘o’ ‘o’ ‘o’ … and then it goes inside here, rotates, and it is going ‘rrrrrrrrrrrrrrd’. You see. …This is why the word ‘word’ means what it says.
It means ‘a power that is going along, ensphere-ing itself, driving itself in, vibrating and shaking mightily, and then dividing itself by its own vibrations’. … There’s the original Adam that the apple had to be given to, and it was also the apple that was given to Adam.
This ‘d’ function means the ‘D’-viding function, and it occurs spontaneously if the amount of energy put into a thing is so great that it disrupts the form.
So ‘worrrd’ means ‘a power, self-ensphere-ing, self-differentiating, self-dividing’. So it means ‘the very, very, principle of a power that can order’.
Now let me see, if we take ‘Uoo’ Rrrr’ ‘UR’ we get a primary going and a differentiation. This is the primitive word that you find was the name of the place where Abraham used to live, ‘Ur of the Chaldea’s ‘ it is the word which later is going to change from ‘Ur’ to ‘Or’ in the hands of intellectuals, and become ‘Orrr’ in ‘origin’.
The prefix ‘u-r’ in German means ‘primitive’ or ‘ancient’: so ‘Ur’+ any given thing - ‘Urmensch’ - a ‘primitive man’; ursache’ – a primitive thing
So this ‘Ur’ means ’primitive’ because it has not got a sharp dot in it. It hasn’t crystallized itself and defined itself adequately. If we then put an ‘S’ on the end, you can see already the root of ‘Ursa’ – ‘bear’, the great shaggy bear. This is the same bear that a certain star is called after. It is ‘The Bear’, the still point, the apparent still-point round which the star masses appear to rotate. It is ‘the bearer’ and it is also a pun on the shaggy primary energy that has not been compacted to a sharp point.
So this ‘Urs’ and ‘Ors’ - which is the Italian version of it you see - ‘Orsi’ bears, those shaggy animals. You know that baby bears traditionally are born with no shape in them, and their mothers have to lick them into shape, so they symbolize ‘primary shaggy energy’.
So this ‘Ur’ concept is the power differentiating, the original power differentiating. And the difference between ‘Ur’ and ‘Or’ is that, in ‘Ur’ the power has not yet closed itself, and in ‘Or’ as in ‘origin’ it has closed itself.
We can see that if we get the correct significance for every single letter that we can pronounce, we can see why any given word in any language means what it means, because in each language the emotional need of expression approximates the organs of speech into certain relations. And then the sound, conditioned by those emotionally determined approximations (25.00) of the organs, comes out and is the expressed sound equivalent of the predetermined emotion.
So we have in the word, a mode of emotional analysis; psychological analysis; and a chemical analysis too.
So that when we come to define a word, we will have to repeat what we have said before about definition. The definition is the ‘fin-ing’ or the ‘indication of the limits’, to fin, the end of things, the limiting factor of things.
To define therefore is to circumscribe. The essence of definition is to circumscription.
And we have to here disagree with most of the published logicians who have said that we define things in the Universe. And we insist that we define nothing in the Universe. That everything is already adequately defined and that we are merely defining … all such definitional efforts by indicating the limits of the application of the term.
So if we say that the sound symbol ‘O’ shall be represented by a circle and we open the circle and say, “Let that represent ‘U’, the push.” Then straightaway we have merely indicated that we shall use these symbols, when given mental contents are present.
We are saying nothing whatever about the things in the Universe in themselves. We are asserting that we will apply these symbols to signify those things.
So we are ‘defining the limits of the application of the term’ or symbols. Having said that, we can carry on, and proceed to define the limits of the application of any word whatever.
Now let’s go back a minute to the vowels and see how the change of the vowels can change the significance of a word.
Supposing we take the sound ‘K’. I’m not using the English letter ‘C’ for the moment although there it is, a sharp pointed version, because it might be pronounced ‘S’ in English, because of their diplomatic capacity for switching things. We will use this sign that we would call ‘K’ to symbolize this back palatal, or guttural, content.
It is simply a closure. Observe that you can whisper it, you can say ‘k’, but you cann’t whisper a ‘G-ay’. To make ‘g’ out of ‘k’, you have to put tone on it.
So we then get a word, and we’ll say we get the word ‘Kad’. And we are seeing here a sign that means closure but it doesn’t mean gross material closure. It symbolizes intellectual closure, conceptual closure.
We have a sign here that means ‘absolute energy, non-closed’, the first letter of the alphabet. The one prior to ‘B’. And ‘B’ is the first letter you pronounce by closing your lips. So ‘B’ means ‘closure of the first order’. But the ‘Ah’ before it means ‘Absolute’, or ‘free, energy’.
Then we take ‘D’ , the very symbol of ‘D-vision’, and ‘division’ is simply ‘the vision of D’. And a ‘D-vine being’ is simply a being that can see the differences between things.
If you can see where one thing ends and another thing begins, then you have ‘divining power’. No matter in how small a way you can see this. So if you can see the ‘D-ference’ of things, then you have a divining capacity, and the divine being is, in mythology, simply a being who can see the differences, and the fool (poi-ol, polli etc) is simply the bloke who can’t see the differences because he is obsessed with the problem of primitive power.
So the divine being is the beings who ‘see that difference’.
Now when we change an ‘Ah’ onto an ‘Oh’ we could change intellectual process ‘cod’, which could mean ‘a fish’ (30.00) or it could mean ‘to pull somebodies leg.’; or the gross material equivalent, simply voicing the ‘K’ function turns it into ‘G’ and you get ‘God’.
Now this triad, if you remember the letter cadvos(?) cad in tea caddy, which means a little cad, actually means ‘closure, with some energy, and a division, force ’.
So ‘cad’, the ‘ca-d’ in the muscling department is a controller, a closer, of energy by division.
‘God’ would be the closure carried to the term of gross material. He has created the earth. He has really locked it up. He has circumscribed it. He has turned the free energy into the bound energy, and has made Macrocosmos. And again he has divided. He has divided the light from the darkness, and the water from the dry land, and so on.
‘God’ means therefore ‘that power which creates this earth, circumscribes it, and divides it’.
All the things in the earth that have been precipitated, each one has had ascribed to it its own field of activity, and each one is clearly demarked, so that they don’t overlap.
The being, or force, or intelligence that does this is called ‘God’, whereas the intellectual being doing the same thing merely in idea which is ‘cod’. And this ‘coddling somebody’ is an old reference to this fact.
Now you remember that, in the myth of ‘Cadmus’, the ‘mus’ at the end is like the ‘mouse’ and ‘Moses’, (you know, Moshe, Moses) which means ‘taken out of the water’. ‘M’ for cosmic substance, ‘S’ for ‘issue’. ‘Substantial power issue’. ‘Moses’ is taken out of the water. ‘Water’ means ‘materiality’.
That spirit which issues out of materiality and in a sense saves you from the material situation is ‘Moses’, and is ‘mus’; is the mouse.
Remember the mouse is a little animal that only comes if you are disorderly, to eat up the crumbs that should not be there. It is therefore sacred to the god Apollo. Apollo being the pi-law god who rationalizes everything and puts it into order, So the mouse is said to be sacred to Apollo because when he comes you know that Apollo is annoyed with you. Namely that you are not tidying the crumbs up properly.
Cad-mus is credited with the invention of the alphabet. He saves, from the material situation, the human race, by dividing the free energies and locking them up, each in their appropriate place.
Now you remember that in the myth, a dragon is killed and the teeth of the dragon are sown in the ground. And then they spring up in the form of warriors and they fight violently until there are only five left, and they would go on to kill each other only there the fight is stopped.
This signifies, by the dragon, your ‘ur’, your primitive energy, which is wiggling about and would devour up every tiny little thing as fast as it came to be. And this dragon is simply your own primary energy, and when you knock it into the ground you force it into a physical body.
You have sown the dragon in there, and the teeth of the dragon are the inherences of its analytical possibilities. Teeth mean ‘analysis’. (That right …) You analyze your food better with than without. In fact I know a man who had no teeth and can crack Brazils with his gums. He has been at it for 94 years they’re more like a bird’s beak now.
So this dragon killed, is simply your own primitive energy, forced into a gross body. And out of this gross body the analytical possibilities of the dragon - namely the dragon’s teeth - spring up as energies, which struggle and to manifest themselves. You see this in the way a child tries to walk by thrashing its legs and arms about first. There is no coordination, the energies fly out all at once. When they are coming out, then in the process of the development of this being (35.00) they fall into five orders, namely the five sense organs.
These are the remaining warriors and at this point of evolution or development, the fight is stopped by certain nuclear forces in it, who stop further development because it has gone far enough.
So this man, credited with the invention of the alphabet, is really a man who’s name says that he will save you from the material situation by dividing the energies in the situation, and locking each one up … in accordance with its character and form. So if we analyze that word we see that it actually means the function of control of a material situation by analysis, and the instrument if it is the alphabet.
We know that our alphabet is derived from a primitive alphabet, where the initial letters of sounds were used to signify certain animals and plants and so on and that each animal or plant had a definite symbolic value because it functioned in a certain way.
We can say, if we like, that a lion signifies courage, so that could use the drawing of a lion to represent that property. We can use the drawing of an arm to represent ‘power executive’. We can use the hand as the actual executive power in process of manipulation. In fact the ‘man’ in manipulation is the man’s hand.
So that in any word we deal with we can, in fact, say that we have an intensified power creating a zone, or sphere, of influence, which it differentiates and divides up from others.
Therefore by understanding the correct significance of every word. That is, the field in which we must apply it, and the limits of its application, we can, in fact, order our whole substantial being. … … … … … … … … .
Now, when we take the human being, and a human being is all really that human beings have to deal with, because of our basic rule ‘no being knows other than the modifications of it’s own substance’, and therefore a human being knows only the modifications of the human substance. When we look inside ourselves as human beings we find that we can split the body, functionally, at certain points; and wherever we find a division naturally we can say, “There is a natural division function.”
It is quite obvious that the head is separated from the rest of the body and removed away from it a bit by a nexus - a joining thing – and this removal has a function.
In the protopathic state of a single celled animal, there is no power to differentiate the action of the stimulus, so the stimulus rushes right through the whole thing, throwing all the being into the form of the stimulus, and the being loses its identity in being overcome by the energy of the stimulus.
Now that isn’t very efficient. We want to increase efficiency, so we take a little bit of it out and push it up on to a stalk, and we insulate it, put a hard bone on the outside so that you can’t get at it very well, and we put a tube up to it, and we make sure that not every stimulus gets to it, without control.
So in the head itself, which means ‘spirit eater’ – this ‘ead’ and ‘eat’ are the same, and this ‘ah-d’ root is the same as the ‘ed’ in ‘edible’ and ‘A-doni’ – the type of Lord in the Old Testament, He is really the serpent that eats everything up, and then punctuates it. (40.00) ‘Adoni’ means this ‘eating-up serpent’ He is the fellow that assimilates and digests experience. Therefore it is translated ‘Lord’ meaning ‘binder of order’.
In the head, - our ‘sprit eater’ - we find ideas. We see a … of this ‘I’ ‘dea’, This ‘dea’ is a goddess. Here is our little point - precision, here is a dividing function. Here is a very old form of Universal Earth - but not gross material - subtle earth. You see e-a-r-t-h, … this ‘ear’ is the name of an earth goddess, and that has gama’d up and grossly compacted, and is a soft diffused substance through cosmos.
‘Idea’ means ‘ by point division to formulate this substance’. So ‘i-dea’ is the Greek word, which in Latin we translate ‘form’. ‘Form’ is Latin; ‘idea’ is the Greek. The Saxon equivalent is ‘shape’ which means ‘spirit pushing itself onto a point’. So formulation by division is the concept of the Greek mind, because the Greek mind was rational, logical, analytical.
In the ‘spirit eater’ therefore there are formal, dividing, activities of that field energy which is the absolute substance.
Now when we come down to the bottom, we find that forces which have made their way into the body through food and are broken down in there, before their illumination at the level of idea, they are simply energy packets which are pushing about. They don’t know where they want to go; they know only that they are going. So we say the urge-level is blind.
That blind urge is just pushing out, doesn’t know where to go, and will rush about in any environment, and in a closed environment it will bounce off the walls of its enclosure. Imagine now a closed environment, and we insert a bit of primary urge into it, a food bit of food jumps in. And as soon as it is in, it rushes straight across there, hits the wall and is reflected off. The angle at which it hits that point causes it, by the incidence reflection law, to come over and strike another one, and it does this, and keeps going round, flying round inside.
Every time it bangs its head, or the part it bangs which later becomes its head - because the thing that becomes a head only becomes so, because it has been banged. - every time it bangs, there, it has a contraction, which is the point of pain. Remember ‘pain’ is ‘point of refusal’ ‘p-a-i-n’, and it means ‘ain’ (‘ain’ – point of refusal) that the energy flying inside has hit an obstruction. At that moment it contracts.
It is literally contracted by the impact itself, and the contraction is a contradiction on the energy of the urge, and that contraction is the same thing as the generation of an idea.
This means that every single idea we have got into our head is really a point of pain.
You can then see why the Buddhists, who are good psychologists, said that the mind is the organ of fear, because it contains nothing in it except the records of all the painful situations…. … … … …
If we look at the logic of the matter we can see that if the energy were to travel without meeting an obstacle at all it would never make anything whatever, because ‘make’ (MAK) means, ‘substance – ‘M’; energy – ‘Ah’; ‘K’ – stopped, inhibited. ‘MA-K’. This substantial energy has been stopped. So if it doesn’t get stopped, it doesn’t ‘make’. It is an eternal search, with no object. There is no object until you en-sphere. The ‘ob’ in object means a sphere.
So imagine this energy coursing infinitely and eternally (45.00) meeting nothing, meeting no obstacle, therefore it can never contract. It has no ground for it. It’s not going to meet an opposition, and therefore it will be simply an awareness – because power is sentiency – of a ‘searching without any finding’.
You notice that Jacob Boheme’s description of this is ‘ a searching with no finding’. It is an eternal coursing, that comes to no end. It is a search.
Now consequently, if we are to be of any value whatsoever we must rotate some of this power to create an obstacle. And as soon as we rotate a power we have made an obstacle both inside and out.
Now as soon as this rotation gets up speed, an energy from outside is reflected off it, and therefore it is opaque to outside beings.
And at the same time, if there is any energy left inside, it reflects off the inside of the wall and it is opaque to energies on the inside trying to get out.
When Christ said, “When you have done your work, you shall go no more out,” he is referring to a certain application of this. And when it is said that God spewed out of his mouth certain elements, again a reference is made to this fact.
At every point where the energy hits against the obstacle on the inside, the energy is constricted a little bit, and is moved in that constriction towards the level that we refer to when we use the word ‘idea’.
Now, prior to the induction of this flying energy we can talk about the general protopathic feeling level of a unific being. It is simply feeling, field awareness. ‘Feeling’ is ‘field awareness’.
And as soon as the energy is inserted into it and, in entering, breaking the barrier, the surrounding wall, it loses a bit of energy as it crosses that, and is therefore slowed down. When it hits the wall on the other side it may not have sufficient energy to break right through. If it hasn’t, it is reflected again. And again it loses a little bit of energy.
Every time it does this, just as gas losing energy contracts, liquefies, and then solidifies. So this energy, which was primary ‘Ur’ energy, coming in – is progressively contracted and finally finishes up creating a circle of contracted energy. This contracted energy is what you mean by an ‘idea’.
This ‘idea’ therefore is simply the compacted self-objectification of a series of painful incidents.
You can see that if you were omnipotent you wouldn’t bother to think, because you could command all your desires to be fulfilled immediately. And if, in fact, you come up against situations where you are in a constriction, and your energy is reduced by the impact, you contract progressively more and more, and you are driven to formulate your position.
But the evidence for the idea in you is the same as the evidence for a loss of field consciousness.
As you contract onto the idea, you are losing field awareness of your whole being. This means that if you concentrate on an empirically derived idea - that is, on an idea coming from your five senses - you are automatically, and by so doing, reducing your general awareness of your whole being, in fact robbing yourself of the whole general field awareness which you need, to understand the very thing you are looking at.
So if you isolate a single idea clearly in your mind so that you cannot feel it, because you are so concentrated on it, at that moment it becomes meaningless.
It doesn’t matter what the idea is, as soon as you isolate it by contracting it, so that it goes out of relation with the rest of your being, its clarity is the same thing as its utter meaninglessness.
So that if you come to the level of being of a true Bertrand ‘Gristle’, then you will find that you cannot understand the meaning for your own propositions. They are very, very, clear, but they don’t mean anything.
So that if you drive yourself to ideological clarity (50.00), like a left-wing theorist does – like a thorough-going Marxist is a materialist who believes in little jots of matter – at the moment you isolate a jot of matter, you immediately fail to see any significance whatsoever in it.
The only way you can get your significance back is to posit the dot and then withdraw from it and regain the field consciousness which generated it, and then you see that is the objectification, functionally, of a need that sprang in feeling.
And this field awareness is what we mean by ‘femaleness’; but the idea is what we mean by ‘maleness’.
So that you can see that the procession from the field state (female) to a formed contracted idea state (male) is really a progressive loss of feeling power, in the attempt to gain clarity of idea.
This means that the being that forgets its field awareness, whilst it is pursuing idea, will become what it believes to be a male – that is to say – ‘ideologically formed’. But in losing its field awareness, the thing that it knows will have no meaning, and therefore the mere male losing the female side of himself – his feeling side – has lost all significance.
And this is why Christ says, “The proper state of man after death – when he has realized himself – is the state of a hermaphrodite.” A male hermaphrodite, because he has taken his field consciousness, and involved it in a situation, and formulated at its center, but he has retained the field awareness.
In the ‘Tao-Te-King’ you get the same thing stated, ‘He who can become a man (idea) and yet remains a woman (the generative field of the idea) has finished his work.
Now the pursuit of the idea frequently results in progressive contractions of consciousness and the loss of the feeling. And this puts the man out of relation with the woman in himself, and therefore out of relation with the woman outside of himself.
And if he goes outside of the relation of feeling in himself, significance ceases for him, and he dries up.
So that, to gain the hermaphroditic condition described by Christ: for every idea that you have, you should learn to walk backwards and rediscover the generating field state, causative of it .
If you don’t, then you will become very, very, clear, but you will be utterly out of relation with other beings.
Probably there is no greater clarity than the idea of a billiard ball, and of another billiard ball. Of a simple continuum of solid matter, if such were to exist. We know in fact it doesn’t, but it is a conceptual possibility.
If we place two ball bearings in a vacuum they have no relation whatever. We have to formulate their relation, and we can only do it by feeling, across the interspace between. Therefore we say that ‘meaning’ is the relation between; and the ‘mean’ is that which goes between.
All ‘mean’ is between two points, which are in themselves ‘meanings’ So if you destroy the feeling between things you are destroying the meaning, because meaning is actually field consciousness of the state between any two points.
The two points themselves, in so far as they’re conceived to be separated, have no relation, and if you remove the field awareness, then they are completely out of relation and therefore void of meaning. If you put back the field awareness you can then feel the contribution of each point, because it is vibrating, across the field.
And the way the vibration of point ‘A’ an point ‘B’ cross in the field, can only be experienced in the field. So their mutual affects on each other, their vibrational inter-relations in the field, can only be felt in the field, and therefore meaning is in the field, and nowhere else.
Now when we look at the word ‘mean’ we are looking at a series of symbols which mean: substance - the ‘M’; ‘Eh’ – the field; ‘Ah’ – the energy; and ‘N’ – the motion. So it says ‘substantial field energy moving’. (55.00)
So if you want meaning, you must increase the feeling of your substance. You must find inside your substance that there is motion ‘N’, energy ‘Ah’, field awareness – ‘Eh’, and ‘M’ - the substance.
So if you actually get hold of your hand and close it tightly, shut your eyes and feel the amount of contraction in it. You are not looking at it - so it is not visual form – you are feeling the amount of ‘Ah’ energy in ‘Eh the field, in the substance which you believe to be flesh but really it is universal substance, is moving in a certain manner.
And when you get hold of this substantial field awareness and the energy motion within it, you have got hold of ‘meaning’, and if you remove the substantial field energy motion from consciousness, you have destroyed ‘meaning’.
You can consider a point, and you can do a Euclidian trick on it, reduce it to a mere abstraction. You can define a Euclidian point as location without dimension, and then the thing ceases to exist completely. But you have the concept of a zone in which there is ‘no thing’, but there is location.
Now you bring an intellectual trick on yourself to do it, and in the process you are introducing a meaningless entity, because there is no feeling in an intellectual Euclidean point which has location and no dimensions.
Having no dimensions it has no substance. Also for geometrical considerations it is not a point of energy, it is merely a locus posited conceptually, so that the geometrical analysis destroyed of its feeling awareness becomes totally meaningless.
So the Parmeridian Sphere of the Universe as a geometrical proposition divorced from all substantial field energy motion, becomes static and therefore meaningless.
So we see that by moving the symbols about a bit within the words, we can force into consciousness certain concepts that we would not otherwise get at.
A word, split, discovers, like a split atom, energies within it, and these energies you gain every time you split a word.
In the head (the ‘spirit eater’) we have some ideas, which are forms. In the bottom level we have a primary urge which is crying because it is all ‘gama’d up’, and when the urge rises up and strikes its head against the wall, or where it strikes becomes its head - because it becomes negated. As it is striking and flying, the feeling state between the two, the points of impact and the points of translation of energy, is what we call ‘feeling’.
So the feeling mediates between the point of impact (the idea) and the point of translation (the urge).
So we can then divide up all the contents of consciousness in the human being, in these three manners. We must consider them as ‘form’, as ‘power, and as ‘field awareness of the relation between ‘form’ and ‘power’.
And then we have a word … ‘spine’ here.
Now you can see immediately the word ‘spin’ in it, and actually if it were not for spinning forces inside the developing being, the spine would never be laid. There are forces that move, and spin, and travel along, and they lay the spinal axis. They are actually rotating forces.
The spine is the zone of the spinning forces, similar to the apple diagram we did down below where the forces enter in and progressively divide.
Along this zone here where these forces rotate and these meet, there is built up a spin zone. That spin zone is the zone we call the spine, and it means ‘spinning field’, ‘spin field’. And along these spins are precipitated the calcium which becomes the bones of the spine.
So we see that a human being can be divided into these three levels of activity: power activity; form activity; and meaning - which is ‘field consciousness’ of relation (60.00) between power and idea. And these are coordinated on the spinner, or spine, that draws in these three levels of function together and weeds them, knits them together - the lines of force - and spinning them together therefore, produces a peculiar synthesis of idea and power in the field itself. Therefore the more central spinal consciousness you get, the more coordination power you’ve got.
Remember the diagram we did of ‘A Fall’ on one occasion. The man himself in the head, looking out on the world is hit by a stimulus which may have references sexual or appetite, and the consciousness then goes down here, and the actual descent from the head downwards is called ‘The Fall’.
The lowest point of consciousness of a balanced man never goes below his diaphragm. He is quite happy to allow the urge to come up here, to meet it with the idea and to resolve the relation of idea and urge across here. The un-fallen man didn’t have an part more southerly in his body than his diaphragm.
And this diaphragm parts the body in the middle and what is below is called ‘The Hell’. And down below at the diaphragm level are all sorts of horrible chemical processes, ‘hellish processes’. You know what it’s like in a schoolboy’s laboratory when they are making horrible noises and horrible stinks all day long. Well this is what goes on below the diaphragm level. So the whole of the chemical processes below the diaphragm are better unconscious.
If you were to descend into that level - you can do it as an exercise if you like, and when you have done it you will be glad to come back again – you will hear, smell, and taste, and feel, the most horrible, hellish, activities where atoms are being split and all sorts of bangs are occurring. Terrible smells of chemical releases are going on all the time. And out of these, out of this hellish force below the diaphragm, are released the energies which, when they climb up, become ideas and clarity.
And experienced here - where the air meets the blood in the lungs - generate the field forces which become the process of thought.
So ‘The Fall’ is always a fall downwards, down the spinal column. And the front part of your body is furnished with soft stuff for sensual experiences, and the back part not so much.
So when the fall occurs downwards, because of the fact that the nerves in the spine move forwards as they go down, so the fall is down and forwards, in your appetite and sexual departments.
To pick yourself up therefore you have to take yourself back and up.
So every time you pull your consciousness up from below, upwards and backwards, between your shoulder blades and up to the head … you have gained in control power.
Whereas if you deliberately identify will your field, drag it out of your head and pull it down below the diaphragm and push it well forward, and sit on it and keep it there, then you begin to feel that you are degenerating, and something is going to go on that will not be the essence of control.
Now you can do these exercise yourself to see that it really does happen.
If it doesn’t you will have to write a special book yourself and I would like to read it. If it does you can count yourself as pretty human, because it actually does go on in all humans.
So, very shortly, we will say that the ‘word’ is ‘a mode of ordering power’. ‘W’ is the power, and we’re going to order power. ‘Word’ means ‘mode of ordering power’.
That the definition of the word is an indication of the limits of the application – which is not a definition of a thing, external – it is the implication of the limits of its application. And that the meaning of anything whatever can only be discovered by becoming field conscious, and discovering the power, ‘Uo’, (65.00) which precipitated something to a closure - ‘Oh’, and then in that, contracted to ‘E’, and thus became idea.
And therefore, every idea, if you disperse it through the field, will become a feeling, and disclose an original urge, which generated the idea.
So that when you start to analyze an idea and break it down, you are discovering further ideas. But when you start feeling round an idea, you are discovering the field that generated it. And when you come to the ‘U’ level - the first push of it - you have discovered what is called the motive behind the idea. The ‘U’ is the motive behind the ‘E’.
So that ‘J’, the ‘J-O -E’ the ‘I’ (J and I are the same letter in the Hebrew … ) sign is ‘I’ and ‘J’ you affirm the …… …..and Jew, ‘ee’ ‘u’, ending with ‘e-u’ in ‘subject who sees things’ simply means that point of power which is aware of anything.
So if you say ‘U – I’ (this sounds a terribly English diphthong in it) and you aspirate it, Y, that’s a question.
Why are these things, ‘w-h-y”, you reverse it if you want the reply – ‘affirm spiritual power’. That’s ‘y-h-w’, which translated in the Bible is called Jehovah. So ‘Jehovah’ simply means ‘the affirming spiritual power’.
So if you want to know the ‘why’ of anything, you are merely asking a psychological question about the affirmative spiritual power that brought it into being. And if you want to know ‘how’, you are concerned with the spiritual field closure of the power, and therefore with a mechanical proposition.
So we say that the word ‘how’ refers to the mechanics, the mode of doing it; and ‘why’ refers to the psychological motive at the back of it, which is always the affirmation of some spiritual power … …
It’s ten o’clock …
Q. “You’re saying there’s always pain associated with the formation of an idea?”
Q. “But what about the ideas which are pleasurable?”
The idea of pleasure is the same as the idea of a hammer that you stop hitting yourself with. …
You don’t have an idea associated with pleasure, prior to having the pleasure taken off you. It is not formulated as an idea. … The child doesn’t formulate its pleasure fluxes, his ideas, until mummy whips the thing out of his lips. Then the formulation begins, but not before.
Q: “But you can have an idea of sexual activity which indicates pleasure to you.. That has never been satisfied.”
You can’t have an idea of it unless it’s not been pleasurable. You had a bit of pleasure, and then it ceased. There if some obstacle somewhere. … This causes a formulation of the idea.
You haven’t got an idea of a pleasure unless you have this pleasure interfered with. It’s the interference that sharpens it, and contracts it, and makes it into an idea …. ‘P-lay-sure’ - that playing out of a thing … is not formulating as idea. You have no clear idea whatsoever about pleasure …
Q: “No. Not a clear idea.”
No. Because you haven’t been contracted. The only things we have clear ideas about are pains.
Q: “You have an idea never the less though.”
It’s only an idea that has arisen from a pain encroaching on the brain. It says so far, the pleasure ceases. … It’s the pain that has defined the limit of the pleasure. Not the pleasure which has defined its own limit. …
As a good exercise for you, try to define pleasure. (69.38). FIN