Volume 4, Issue 1, page 5

ZU,aiy to. Ile, io, falaue By WILL ROTH
'Aims' °Met ~a Escape ~tomn
ANT TO take a big jump in tone? Want
to increase your self-determinism?
Want to be happier? The answer is
simple. What is the "catch"? The
"catch" is also simple. It depends on
what you are willing to do.

One of the most exasperating aspects of
"isms" and "ologies", aside from our own
preconceptions (fixed ideas) and prejudices,
is the terminology used. Seems like every
time some "prophet" or "authority" cooks up
a new technique, or has a stomach cramp, he
just naturally burgeons with special words
or alphabetical jargon as if he were the
Federal Government. Ordinary language just
isn't for him, he says, or at least it
won't do the job as satisfactorily as his
special terminology. It is possibly just a
satisfactory way of making one an authority, but, in any case, it is all too common
to be uncommon.

So, let's see if we can't be just plain
and common as all-get-out for a change.

The important thing here is relationship. Relationship has to do in every case
with location. Both location and relationship have to do with beingness. Knowledge
has to do with relationships. Relationships
also imply that there must be differences
and separateness. Further, for communication there must be relationship. Please
notice that this is all a special concept.
Every one of the italicized items has to do
with space. There is a "hereness" and a
"thereness".

There may be something "above" space,
but it isn't "provable".

What does all this have to do with the
"mind"? Well, concept-wise, when we have
one aspect of relationship, we also are inferring all the other aspects. Thus, there
is a separateness between one thought and
another. There is a separateness between
one attitude and another. Our thoughts or
attitudes are separate from us, though they
have a relationship to us. Note that location is implied here, too.

Any meaning, any value, any emotion is
only clear when it has a separateness from
other comparable meanings, values, and emotions. There must be a difference.

Interestingly enough, few people are
aware that meanings, values, and emotions
are learned things. Even attitudes fall in
this category.

To be learned, they must have a separateness from us. The difficulty quite possibly comes about because we seldom really
look at the action of learning. And it is
an action.

When we learn something, we make it "so"
for us. Thus, it is an original creation
for each person, even though others already
have "learned" it. That which we "make so",
however, has a separateness from that which
others have made so for them. This would
seem to be apparent, but that, being separate, it is also different, is not quite so
readily apparent.

The action of learning takes in other
meanings, such as making decisions, considerations, postulations, "beliefs", "facts",
and "intentions". The operating and observable personality pattern of any person
could be said to be the totality of what he
has learned.

Therefore, the important data here is
that A HUMAN BEING "IS" OPERATING IN TERMS
OF THAT WHICH HE HAS "MADE SO" FOR HIM.
FURTHER, THAT REALITY TO HIM IS AS HE HAS
"MADE IT SO".

The error, here, occurs, when one is unaware of the fact, or skips over the fact,
that his "learning" amounts to what he has
"made so" in a unique and original fashion
for himself.

The common condition or attitude is "I
did not make it so". The corollary is "Something (or somebody) else made it so". This
leads to "I can find out", and "somebody
(or something) can tell me (do it for me)".
This erroneously puts the cause factor "out
there", instead of it being a "hereness"
and dependent on what we "make so".

It is probably wise here to stress that
the application is to "thinkingness" and
mental/emotional conditions.

It is remarkable how many persons "resist" the concept that they are responsible
for their own learning and that the learning consists of what they have "made so"
for themselves. Common sense would indicate
that it would be impossible for somebody or
something other than ourselves to create
our own fixed ideas, attitudes, or-viewpoints. There is no way that these could be
crow-barred into our thinkingness. We had
to provide our own meanings, emotions, and
purposes. We may have "made it so" either
what is called "naturally" or "unnaturally",
but we, and only we, did it or could do it.

Supposing one is aware that he is operating in terms of what he has "made so";
then of what value is this?
Remember, knowledge has to do with relaticnship, and relationship implies separateness and difference in location, and
that all this is basically a spatial concept.

When one is thinking of oneself, one is
thinking of a relationship. The "self" one
thinks of has a "thereness" to it. It is a
sort of "pictured" self; a "something"
which stands for oneself. It is never actually oneself, of course. The "self" which
is thus pictured is a "something" which the
person has "made so".

Usually, when a person is engaged in
some type of mental or emotional improvement activity, he is quite dissatisfied
with his "self" as it appears to be to him,
which is, though "unknown" to him, as he
has "made it so". He generally feels (and
can get lots of agreement m this) that he
is the "victim" of an unfortunate childhood
and other "bad" past experiences. As long
as he feels that something else other than