Lee Flynn
2011-06-21 13:04:35 UTC
**217. I submit (I'm using Jack's language in this section,
because it always had a special meaning for you. So did Jack.)
Your confusion of sex and statistics is an interesting example
of this whole issue. Note that night you spent in the scent of
roses doing a complex factorial analysis of covariance. Its a
funny story to others, because they see a different kind of
level confusion than the one you yourself were making. You
might recall that YOU wanted that design, and Jack opposed it.
One of the real reasons why that evening was so exhilarating
was because it represented a "battle of intellects", (both
good ones, by the way), each communicating exceptionally
clearly but on opposite sides. The sexual aspects were
naturally touched off in both of you, because of the sex and
aggression confusion. ~ Urtext
Hi all,
This series of excerpts from the Urtext of ACIM
will feature those portions that specifically reference
the thoughts, reactions and relationships between and
among the three who produced ACIM: the Course's scribe,
her dedicated assistant, and the Author who dictated the
material.
Note:
"HS" refers to Helen Schucman, whose shorthand notes
document the rapid inner dictation that produced the
unedited manuscript (Urtext) of ACIM. The early portion of
her notes also capture her own thoughts and questions, as
well as the Voice's answers, in bracketed asides that reveal
a secondary layer of ongoing personal instruction
and encouragement for the scribes, even as the Voice
pressed on with dictation of the Course material.
"B." refers to Bill Thetford, who regularly typed out Helen's
shorthand notes as she read them aloud, and whose later
role included editing the resultant Urtext manuscript into
the edition of the Course originally prepared for publication.
The Urtext of ACIM was publicly unavailable for the first
25 years of the Course's publication, and though never
intended for public scrutiny, its recent discovery unveils
this rich, embedded, 'second layer' of material that essentially
documents, in intimate detail, the entire scribal process.
As the literary and spiritual mastery of ACIM continues to
draw wider attention due to its public domain status,
its greater scrutiny will include naturally lead to various
attempts to account for how the material was produced, and
even to theories that suggest Helen's complicity in some order
of hoax or subterfuge. Given the indisputable fact of the
Urtext's early registration with the U.S. copyright office,
any such theory must account, as well, for the existence of
this very private and personal 'second layer' of scribal material.
~ Lee
** Paragraphs that include '2nd layer' material will usually
include an asterisk before the paragraph number.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
NOTE: [ "HS" is Helen Schucman. "B." is Bill Thetford ]
" *206. The following is in relation to question about sex. Tell
B. "the one more river" is related to sex. You might even
explain it to him as a "tidal wave", a term which he will
understand. YOU won't.
**207. Both of you are involved with unconscious distortions
(above the miracle level), which are producing a dense cover
over miracle-impulses which makes it hard for them to reach
consciousness. Sex & miracles are both WAYS OF RELATING.
The nature of any interpersonal relationship is limited or defined
by what you want it to TO DO which is WHY you want it in the
first place. Relating is a way of achieving an outcome.
**208. Indiscriminate sexual impulses resemble indiscrimate
miracle impulses in that both result in body image
misperceptions. The first is an expression of an
indiscriminate attempt to reach communion thru the body. This
involves not only the improper self identification, but also
disrespect for the individuality of others. Self-control is
NOT the whole answer to this problem, though I am by no means
discouraging its use. It must be understood, however, that the
underlying mechanism must be uprooted (a word you both should
understand well enough by now not to regard it as
frightening).
209. ALL shallow roots have to be uprooted, because they are
not deep enough to sustain you. The illusion that shallow
roots can be deepened and thus made to hold is one of the
corrolaries on which the reversal of the Golden Rule, referred
to twice before, is balanced. As these false underpinnings are
uprooted (or given up), equilibrium is experienced as
unstable. But the fact is that NOTHING is less stable than an
orientation which is upside down. Anything that holds it this
way is hardly conducive to greater stability.
210. The whole danger of defenses lies in their propensity to
hold misperceptions rigidly in place. This is why rigidity is
regarded AS stability by those who are off the mark.
**211. Note: The only final solution - (no, Helen, this has
nothing to do with the Nazi use of the term.) You just got
frightened again. One of the more horrible examples of
inverted or upside down thinking (and history is full of
horrible examples of this) is the fact that the Nazis spelled
their appalling error with capitol letters. I shed many tears
over this, but it is by no means the only time I said "Father,
forgive them for they know not what they do."
212. All actions which stem from reverse thinking are
literally the behavioral expressions of those who know not
what they do. Actually, Jean Dixon was right in her emphasis
on "Feet on the ground & fingertips in the Heaven," though she
was a bit too literal for your kind of understanding. Many
people knew exactly what she meant, so her statement was the
right miracle for them.
**213. For you and Bill, it would be better to consider the
concept in terms of reliability & validity. A rigid
orientation can be extremely reliable, even if it IS upside
down. In fact, the more consistently upside down it is, the
more reliable it is, because consistency always held up better
mathematically than test-re-test comparisons, which were
ALWAYS on shaky ground. You can check this against Jack's
notes if you wish, but I assure you its true. Split-half
reliability is statistically a MUCH stronger approach. The
reason for this is that correlation which is the technique
applied to test-re-test comparisons, measures only the EXTENT
OF association, and does not consider the Direction at all.
214. But two halves of the same thing MUST go in the same
direction, if there is to be accuracy of measurement. This
simple statement is really the principle on which split half
reliability, a means of estimating INTERNAL consistency,
rests.
215. Note, however, that both approaches leave out a very
important dimension. Internal consistency criteria disregard
time, because the focus is on one-time measurements. Test-
retest comparisons are BASED on time intervals, but they
disregard direction.
*216. It is possible, of course, to use both, by establishing
internal consistency AND stability over time. You will
remember that Jack once told his class that the more
sophisticated statisticians are concentrating more and more on
reliability, rather than validity. The rationale for this, as
he said, was that a reliable instrument DOES measure
something. He also said, however, that validity is still the
ultimate goal, which reliability can only serve.
**217. I submit (I'm using Jack's language in this section,
because it always had a special meaning for you. So did Jack.)
Your confusion of sex and statistics is an interesting example
of this whole issue. Note that night you spent in the scent of
roses doing a complex factorial analysis of covariance. Its a
funny story to others, because they see a different kind of
level confusion than the one you yourself were making. You
might recall that YOU wanted that design, and Jack opposed it.
One of the real reasons why that evening was so exhilarating
was because it represented a "battle of intellects", (both
good ones, by the way), each communicating exceptionally
clearly but on opposite sides. The sexual aspects were
naturally touched off in both of you, because of the sex and
aggression confusion.
**218. (It is especially interesting that after the battle ended
on a note of compromise with your agreeing with Jack, he wrote
in the margin of your notes "virtue is triumphant." (HS note
re submission-dominance, feminine-masculine roles, entered
into this.) While this (remark) was funny to both of you at
the time, you might consider its truer side. The virtue lay in
the complete respect each of your offerred to the other's
intellect. Your mutual sexual attraction was also shared. The
error lay in the word "triumphant". This had the "battle"
connotation, because neither of you was respecting ALL of the
other. There is a great deal more to a person than intellect &
genitals. The omission was the Soul.)
**219. I submit (after a long interruption) that if a mind
(Soul) is in valid relationship with God, it CAN'T be upside
down. Jack & the other very eminent methodologists have
abandoned validity in favor of reliability because they have
lost sight of the end and are concentrating on the means.
**220. Remember the story about the artist who kept devoting
himself to inventing better & better ways of sharpening
pencils. He never created anything, but he had the sharpest
pencil in town. (The language here is intentional. Sex is
often utilized on behalf of very similar errors. Hostility,
triumph, vengeance, self-debasement, and all sort of
expressions of the lack of love are often VERY clearly seen in
the accompanying fantasies. But it is a PROFOUND error to
imagine that, because these fantasies are so frequent (or
occur so reliably), that this implies validity. Remember that
while validity implies reliability the relationship is NOT
reversible. You can be wholly reliable, and ENTIRELY wrong.
221. While a reliable test DOES measure something, what USE is
the test unless you discover what the "something" is? And if
validity is more important than reliability, and is also
necessarily implied BY it, why not concentrate on VALIDITY and
let reliability fall naturally into place.
222. Intellect may be a "displacement upward", but sex can be
a "displacement outward." How can man "come close" to others
thru the parts of him which are really invisible? The word
"invisible" means "cannot be seen or perceived." What cannot
be perceived is hardly the right means for improving
perception.
**223. The confusion of miracle impulse with sexual impulse is a
major source of perceptual distortion, because it INDUCES
rather than straightening out the basic level-confusion which
underlies all those who seek happiness with the instruments of
the world. A desert is a desert is a desert. You can do
anything you want in it, but you CANNOT change it from what it
IS. It still lacks water, which is why it IS a desert (Bring
up that dream about the Bluebird. While HS was looking for
this dream, she came across another. The message was to bring
both, as an excellent example of how extremely good HS had
become over the intervening 25 yrs. at sharpening pencils.
Note that the essential content hasn't changed; its just
better written.) The thing to do with a desert is to LEAVE. "
~ Urtext of ACIM
~ Lee
because it always had a special meaning for you. So did Jack.)
Your confusion of sex and statistics is an interesting example
of this whole issue. Note that night you spent in the scent of
roses doing a complex factorial analysis of covariance. Its a
funny story to others, because they see a different kind of
level confusion than the one you yourself were making. You
might recall that YOU wanted that design, and Jack opposed it.
One of the real reasons why that evening was so exhilarating
was because it represented a "battle of intellects", (both
good ones, by the way), each communicating exceptionally
clearly but on opposite sides. The sexual aspects were
naturally touched off in both of you, because of the sex and
aggression confusion. ~ Urtext
Hi all,
This series of excerpts from the Urtext of ACIM
will feature those portions that specifically reference
the thoughts, reactions and relationships between and
among the three who produced ACIM: the Course's scribe,
her dedicated assistant, and the Author who dictated the
material.
Note:
"HS" refers to Helen Schucman, whose shorthand notes
document the rapid inner dictation that produced the
unedited manuscript (Urtext) of ACIM. The early portion of
her notes also capture her own thoughts and questions, as
well as the Voice's answers, in bracketed asides that reveal
a secondary layer of ongoing personal instruction
and encouragement for the scribes, even as the Voice
pressed on with dictation of the Course material.
"B." refers to Bill Thetford, who regularly typed out Helen's
shorthand notes as she read them aloud, and whose later
role included editing the resultant Urtext manuscript into
the edition of the Course originally prepared for publication.
The Urtext of ACIM was publicly unavailable for the first
25 years of the Course's publication, and though never
intended for public scrutiny, its recent discovery unveils
this rich, embedded, 'second layer' of material that essentially
documents, in intimate detail, the entire scribal process.
As the literary and spiritual mastery of ACIM continues to
draw wider attention due to its public domain status,
its greater scrutiny will include naturally lead to various
attempts to account for how the material was produced, and
even to theories that suggest Helen's complicity in some order
of hoax or subterfuge. Given the indisputable fact of the
Urtext's early registration with the U.S. copyright office,
any such theory must account, as well, for the existence of
this very private and personal 'second layer' of scribal material.
~ Lee
** Paragraphs that include '2nd layer' material will usually
include an asterisk before the paragraph number.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
NOTE: [ "HS" is Helen Schucman. "B." is Bill Thetford ]
" *206. The following is in relation to question about sex. Tell
B. "the one more river" is related to sex. You might even
explain it to him as a "tidal wave", a term which he will
understand. YOU won't.
**207. Both of you are involved with unconscious distortions
(above the miracle level), which are producing a dense cover
over miracle-impulses which makes it hard for them to reach
consciousness. Sex & miracles are both WAYS OF RELATING.
The nature of any interpersonal relationship is limited or defined
by what you want it to TO DO which is WHY you want it in the
first place. Relating is a way of achieving an outcome.
**208. Indiscriminate sexual impulses resemble indiscrimate
miracle impulses in that both result in body image
misperceptions. The first is an expression of an
indiscriminate attempt to reach communion thru the body. This
involves not only the improper self identification, but also
disrespect for the individuality of others. Self-control is
NOT the whole answer to this problem, though I am by no means
discouraging its use. It must be understood, however, that the
underlying mechanism must be uprooted (a word you both should
understand well enough by now not to regard it as
frightening).
209. ALL shallow roots have to be uprooted, because they are
not deep enough to sustain you. The illusion that shallow
roots can be deepened and thus made to hold is one of the
corrolaries on which the reversal of the Golden Rule, referred
to twice before, is balanced. As these false underpinnings are
uprooted (or given up), equilibrium is experienced as
unstable. But the fact is that NOTHING is less stable than an
orientation which is upside down. Anything that holds it this
way is hardly conducive to greater stability.
210. The whole danger of defenses lies in their propensity to
hold misperceptions rigidly in place. This is why rigidity is
regarded AS stability by those who are off the mark.
**211. Note: The only final solution - (no, Helen, this has
nothing to do with the Nazi use of the term.) You just got
frightened again. One of the more horrible examples of
inverted or upside down thinking (and history is full of
horrible examples of this) is the fact that the Nazis spelled
their appalling error with capitol letters. I shed many tears
over this, but it is by no means the only time I said "Father,
forgive them for they know not what they do."
212. All actions which stem from reverse thinking are
literally the behavioral expressions of those who know not
what they do. Actually, Jean Dixon was right in her emphasis
on "Feet on the ground & fingertips in the Heaven," though she
was a bit too literal for your kind of understanding. Many
people knew exactly what she meant, so her statement was the
right miracle for them.
**213. For you and Bill, it would be better to consider the
concept in terms of reliability & validity. A rigid
orientation can be extremely reliable, even if it IS upside
down. In fact, the more consistently upside down it is, the
more reliable it is, because consistency always held up better
mathematically than test-re-test comparisons, which were
ALWAYS on shaky ground. You can check this against Jack's
notes if you wish, but I assure you its true. Split-half
reliability is statistically a MUCH stronger approach. The
reason for this is that correlation which is the technique
applied to test-re-test comparisons, measures only the EXTENT
OF association, and does not consider the Direction at all.
214. But two halves of the same thing MUST go in the same
direction, if there is to be accuracy of measurement. This
simple statement is really the principle on which split half
reliability, a means of estimating INTERNAL consistency,
rests.
215. Note, however, that both approaches leave out a very
important dimension. Internal consistency criteria disregard
time, because the focus is on one-time measurements. Test-
retest comparisons are BASED on time intervals, but they
disregard direction.
*216. It is possible, of course, to use both, by establishing
internal consistency AND stability over time. You will
remember that Jack once told his class that the more
sophisticated statisticians are concentrating more and more on
reliability, rather than validity. The rationale for this, as
he said, was that a reliable instrument DOES measure
something. He also said, however, that validity is still the
ultimate goal, which reliability can only serve.
**217. I submit (I'm using Jack's language in this section,
because it always had a special meaning for you. So did Jack.)
Your confusion of sex and statistics is an interesting example
of this whole issue. Note that night you spent in the scent of
roses doing a complex factorial analysis of covariance. Its a
funny story to others, because they see a different kind of
level confusion than the one you yourself were making. You
might recall that YOU wanted that design, and Jack opposed it.
One of the real reasons why that evening was so exhilarating
was because it represented a "battle of intellects", (both
good ones, by the way), each communicating exceptionally
clearly but on opposite sides. The sexual aspects were
naturally touched off in both of you, because of the sex and
aggression confusion.
**218. (It is especially interesting that after the battle ended
on a note of compromise with your agreeing with Jack, he wrote
in the margin of your notes "virtue is triumphant." (HS note
re submission-dominance, feminine-masculine roles, entered
into this.) While this (remark) was funny to both of you at
the time, you might consider its truer side. The virtue lay in
the complete respect each of your offerred to the other's
intellect. Your mutual sexual attraction was also shared. The
error lay in the word "triumphant". This had the "battle"
connotation, because neither of you was respecting ALL of the
other. There is a great deal more to a person than intellect &
genitals. The omission was the Soul.)
**219. I submit (after a long interruption) that if a mind
(Soul) is in valid relationship with God, it CAN'T be upside
down. Jack & the other very eminent methodologists have
abandoned validity in favor of reliability because they have
lost sight of the end and are concentrating on the means.
**220. Remember the story about the artist who kept devoting
himself to inventing better & better ways of sharpening
pencils. He never created anything, but he had the sharpest
pencil in town. (The language here is intentional. Sex is
often utilized on behalf of very similar errors. Hostility,
triumph, vengeance, self-debasement, and all sort of
expressions of the lack of love are often VERY clearly seen in
the accompanying fantasies. But it is a PROFOUND error to
imagine that, because these fantasies are so frequent (or
occur so reliably), that this implies validity. Remember that
while validity implies reliability the relationship is NOT
reversible. You can be wholly reliable, and ENTIRELY wrong.
221. While a reliable test DOES measure something, what USE is
the test unless you discover what the "something" is? And if
validity is more important than reliability, and is also
necessarily implied BY it, why not concentrate on VALIDITY and
let reliability fall naturally into place.
222. Intellect may be a "displacement upward", but sex can be
a "displacement outward." How can man "come close" to others
thru the parts of him which are really invisible? The word
"invisible" means "cannot be seen or perceived." What cannot
be perceived is hardly the right means for improving
perception.
**223. The confusion of miracle impulse with sexual impulse is a
major source of perceptual distortion, because it INDUCES
rather than straightening out the basic level-confusion which
underlies all those who seek happiness with the instruments of
the world. A desert is a desert is a desert. You can do
anything you want in it, but you CANNOT change it from what it
IS. It still lacks water, which is why it IS a desert (Bring
up that dream about the Bluebird. While HS was looking for
this dream, she came across another. The message was to bring
both, as an excellent example of how extremely good HS had
become over the intervening 25 yrs. at sharpening pencils.
Note that the essential content hasn't changed; its just
better written.) The thing to do with a desert is to LEAVE. "
~ Urtext of ACIM
~ Lee