Index
of all tapes & topics
6/28/94
"Peach Trees, Relationships,
and Binary Switches"
by Melanie
Anne Phillips
Hear this tape in Real Player format
Purchase this tape on CD for only $4.95
O.K., I was thinking today of dealing with quads in
terms of the forms that life can take. We look easily at the animal and the vegetable but
what fills out that quad? Well, everyone always says animal, vegetable or mineral and they
are looking at things in terms of three, which means that essentially it gives us the
animal life, the vegetable life and chemical compounds. What is the other one? Well, the
other one would be that elusive area where they are talking about viruses. Is it alive, is
it not alive? What exactly is it? Essentially, we're talking about chemical compounds that
are essentially little computers, they are little physical computers that re-configure
their size, their shape, change and bend themselves around, splice themselves to other
ones, mutate. As such, they mimic life, but they are not life as we know it. They are on
the other side of that limit line. Two on one side which would be the chemical (or
mineral) and viral, and two on the other side which would be plant and animal. So, just
another perspective with which to classify things, looking at life is making up a quad of
animal, vegetable, mineral and viral.
It's the 28th of June, at about 10 minutes to 9 in
the morning. I had a thought about when we are dealing with loss. I had a dream last night
about my peach tree. I planted this tree three years ago, and had great hopes (because I
love peaches) of being able to can the peaches and make peach pies, and just enjoy a fresh
peach off the tree. That was something of a childhood dream. I always loved orchards and
things. So, it goes way back into how much importance I put into having a peach tree. Now,
there was a shift because when I planted that tree three years ago, it didn't really
matter which peach tree it was, any peach tree would have done, but I really wanted a
peach tree.
So, I planted a tree, and the very first year that
it came to bearing fruit, there were only four or five peaches that showed up on it, which
was two years ago. And at that time, the dog came out and jumped up and knocked them all
off the tree, because the dog liked to play with them, and the dog was still very
puppyish. So, I said, O.K., well I've lost them this year, but there were only four or
five - that's fine. Well, the next year, I got about twenty peaches on the tree, and I
said great. No matter what the dog does this year, the tree's a little bit bigger, the
dog's a little less playful, more old....I'm going to have these peaches. And the dog
didn't knock them down, but, just as they were starting to get a little bit plump, the
little neighborhood girl came over when Mindi was playing with her in the backyard here,
while I was not around, and she picked all my peaches off the tree, because they were fun
to throw around the yard. I was livid, I was enraged, because now, I had figured after the
first year, that it was going to be a process of another year that I had to endure in
order to get peaches off of my tree. And I couldn't even go out and buy another peach tree
and plant it and get fruit any earlier, that was the best I could do.
Well, I said O.K., this next year, she's not going
in the backyard all summer long, the dog doesn't really care anymore, we'll see what
happens. This year, I had about two hundred blossoms that turned into peaches; two hundred
peaches on my tree. I think actually the first two years of having them picked off, helped
it along, so that it ended up responding saying, “Oh, yeah, well I've got to survive,
I've got to pro-create here, so I'm going to come out with all these peaches,” and in
fact, all of those peaches are still there. But, I am so worried about something happening
to them, either by birds coming down and devouring them all, or the gardeners coming in
and trimming it back, or something. Any kind of chaotic event, that I can't even
imagine...I've been so worried that I had a dream about my peach tree last night. And in
this dream, I dreamed that the other neighborhood kid, a little boy, who is the brother of
the girl who pulled the peaches off, they were having a party over there -- a birthday or
something at their place which is two doors away. And the little kid came over when nobody
was watching, and he pulled off all of my peaches. Now, in this dream, that was it. Once
those peaches were pulled off, the tree would never try again, it wouldn't bear fruit
again, because it wasn't worthwhile. I knew this in my dream.
The sense of loss was absolutely amazing. But, the
point is that I went over to confront them at the party in a very nice way because the
parents really had no hand in doing this, and the kid was just having fun. So, I went over
to confront them at the party, and I wanted to come up with some way of having them
compensate me for the loss of my peaches that would make me feel good again, that would
make it all O.K. And I couldn't think of one. At first, I thought, well what if they buy
me four or five other trees to make up for it, and I said, well, yeah, but, I could buy
four or five other trees, but when I put them in, there's still going to be a waiting
period and a lot of anxiety now that all of the fruit's going to ruined, even though
that's unlikely. What if they bought me a bunch of peaches. Well, that doesn't do it
either, because I wanted to grow them on my own. What if they just bought me the best
peach tree in the whole world from some special place. Well, no, because it's not any
peach tree, it's this peach tree. And it occurred to me, why is it this peach tree? And
how does that compare to when you lose a loved one in a long term relationship? If you
have a relationship, and somebody jilts you for somebody else...that's the same thing. If
you have a marriage, and you lose somebody to death, that's the same thing. Divorce must
be very much like that.
In other words, a lot of the things that we are
going to have to address, come down to this stupid peach tree. So, why is it that nothing
else in the world, no combination of things can make it all right. Well, because the peach
tree is not an object, it's a process. And that process has defined itself uniquely,
because it's not a linear process, it's a non-linear process. In other words, when you
talk about the potholes in the road of life, there's no way to expect where they are, but
they do change the course you've taken. And when you look behind you and see that winding
course, you can tell that this is familiar ground. In other words, it's the one true path
through chaos that you can actually understand, because you've been there. Now, naturally
things may come into a different light, and you may put them into a different context. You
realize that you were actually snaking your way through a bog, or a swamp instead of a
desert. But, it doesn't change the path you took, because that much remains certain. Now,
of course, yes, memory fails, and you'll look at things incorrectly, but only from an
objective standpoint. Subjectively, you look at something, and you remember it exactly the
way it was, subjectively. And therefore, even if it changes in your mind daily from what
the path was you actually took, it always seems like the path you took.
And you still associate it with those items that
you can see as milestones along the way. Now, for me, for this peach tree, it was an
ongoing process of all the trials and tribulations which represented the only reason to go
forward, the only reason to continue all the motivations I had for wanting a peach tree to
begin with. But, they were all centered on nurturing this particular peach tree. Now, this
is something that we are going to have to address. I don't have the answers here, I just
have some interesting questions as to why nothing else in the world, no combination of
things ...everything else taken together, can compensate for such a loss. It takes time
for the mind to unwind the justifications. And nothing can balance it.
Here, we get right back into the notion of a binary
switch -- switching from looking at something and saying, I need it to survive, to saying,
No, I can survive without. Looking to something and saying, I'm constantly hurt and
nothing will make me happy again, to actually being happy again. And what happens to the
hurt? You don't ever completely lose it. It never is ever removed from you, rather it is
merely downgraded continually, and other things become more essential. And yet, at the
moment that something strikes that in your memory, it can well back up years later with as
much sadness or as much joy as it originally generated. And so, there's something to do
with the relationship between the linearity of process and the interference pattern,
holigraphically.
And just as we've been talking about getting into
the Fourier equations, I believe his name was George. He worked in the forties and came up
with equations that translated wave forms into interference patterns, and interference
patterns back into wave forms. Something in those equations is going to give us the key
again to the binary switch. Because the binary switch says you flip from state A to state
B and process C begins. What's the D? The D is that interference pattern between structure
and dynamics, because there's going to be that fourth one. But, we look at it as, we take
state A, we move it to state B and process C begins. The force that's applied to switch it
from state A to state B, that indeed is D ...that's the interference pattern, that's aptly
named D in this example, because it deals with desire, it deals with that D of the KTAD
[Knowledge, Thought, Ability, Desire, grouped together in a “quad”].
Now, the reverse of that, or inverse of that is
also true, meaning that you could have state A, could be created, let me see, how do I
want to phrase this. You apply a force to state A and it changes to state B and allows a
process to go, whereas theoretically, a process could act upon state A, changing it to
state B, which actually causes the process D. So, the question as to whether it's a causal
relationship which would be more of a linear way or typical, left-minded way of looking at
it is that you apply a force to A, switch it over to B, which then causes C. And the force
you apply could be called D, or the other way of looking at it is you apply a force to A,
switches it to B, and that allows a process of C to go on, and you still applied force D.
So, the question as to whether something is just
opened like a gate is opened, or whether something actually acts as a catalyst to begin
something is getting back to the idea of whether it is merely a gravitational type thing,
or whether it actually comes into contact, and has a physical reaction between the two.
Does a process begin because you lower a resistance to something and allow it to go on, or
because you raise the resistance to something else that is an inhibitor, that prevents
something from going on. Or, does a process go on because you create a potential, or
because you diminish a potential which is going to upset equilibrium. Or because you apply
a current, or because you shut off a current, which starts getting to the magnetic effect
of things - an electrical attraction. Or because you have power and apply power or you
withhold power.
Now, this obviously grows into a pretty big spiral,
because if you take the concept of each of these - we've looked at a binary state of PRCP
or PRCO [Potential, Resistance, Current, Power of Potential, Resistance, Current,
Outcome]. When we've looked at that binary state on each of those, we can then see that we
can create a causal or non-causal situation with each one. Causal is when you apply
something and it makes something happen, non-causal is when you withhold something and it
happens because of the holism of the system, minus what you've taken out. And yet, even
that's a binary state. You see, we begin to use binaries to build quads, and we move
backward from that and we can always spiral and spiral and spiral farther backward. But,
until we get to the point where we have spiraled backward so far that there is no
functional difference between where we are and where we began, we have not completed a
formula for the unified field theory.
So, keep in mind those four different universes
that we talked about. The existence and negative existence and the left and right minded
views of things - the spatial view and the temporal view. Those four make up the essential
building blocks we're going to grow from. That's gotten us up to 16. We originally only
had four- time, space, mass and energy. Mental relativity added thought, knowledge,
ability, and desire. Mental relativity split thought, knowledge, ability, and desire. Not
by creating four new elements, but by saying the way in which those elements arrange
themselves became two different ways, temporal and spatial, giving you left minded and
right minded. And so, the first part of the work is to define exactly what happened there
mathematically, when we have these different equations that are applied to one and applied
to the other.
Let's see what that translation effect is to go
from one to the other. Because one will appear to be a wave form, one will appear to be an
interference pattern, in terms of left minded and right minded equations. So, if we have
these equations, one wave form, one interference pattern, and can describe them as such,
then the Fourier equations should allow us to be able to figure out what kind of mechanism
is at work, that translates one to the other, that causes it to shift from one place to
the other. And when we do that then we can come up with the mathematics that creates the
shift among all of them, by transmuting it.
In other words, the shift that occurs is going to
change around the quad. You will go from a K and create a T by applying a potential for
example. Or then you will go from a T to an A, you might apply a current. The operation
that is going to included to translate from one to the other, is going to be a different
operation in which each case - it will probably be a different operation moving in
different directions. It will probably be a different operation, moving in left minded Z
patterns [through the quad], or right minded circles [around the quad].
But, the point is we have all the building blocks.
We have all the pieces now, and back when we were creating Dramatica, one of the big
things we were doing is sitting on the floor with all of the names we knew existed, trying
to figure out how the elements went together at the bottom of each Class. Rearranging them
in all kinds of different patterns. We didn't know if they were individually arranged, if
they were arranged by pairs, if they were rearranged by quads. If they shifted their
position all over the 64 or just within a quad or the quads within a set, or what
happened. And finally we realized that it was actually rearranging the pairs within the
sets that occurred from class to class to class. Now, that rearrangement gives us exactly
that feeling of one thing coming out of left field, because it goes from the K class to
the A class to the T class and they have this arrangement each of which allows for
archetypal characters to be created. However, when we move to the D class and use the same
permutation, the last step of the permutation, we end up with archetypal characters not
being allowed to be created. They violate that rule of not having the same two elements
out of the same quad.
So, obviously we have the process under lock and
key; it's at work, we've already created it in a matrix. But, we don't understand
mathematically what's happening. The point is the processes used to go among those are all
the same. The shift that occurs from a K to an A to a D to a T; all of those things no
matter which direction you go, is all a logical progression and it makes sense. But, the
thing that's changing that doesn't make sense, is the way that we are putting confines on
it. In other words, if we have three things that work one way, we've got one thing that
works another way. And we are always going to end up with three one way, and one another
way. And because of that, all we have to do is follow the natural progression of going
from wherever we are through a second one, a third one and to the fourth one. And when
we've gone through that progression, which is quite natural, suddenly we find we've
flipped a binary state somewhere else, that exists automatically.
In other words, there's no direct connection, no
hard material connection between one binary state and the other, because it's already
hardwired in, and defacto, when you go through three of anything and get to the fourth
one, the one that comes out of left field, it doesn't come out of left field when you come
to it with the process you've been using, but something else in an area you haven't been
looking has changed. And that aspect that has changed is the same on the first three and
different on the one that's changed.
So, in fact, it really hasn't changed at all. All
you've done is moved to a place where some new rules apply. And this means that the laws
of physics as we know them are not constants at all. They do not apply everywhere, they
have to fall apart when you take that final step. It's not that they fall apart, it's that
something else applies and they don't. So, moving from class to class to class to class
when you take steps in a progression, you end up with that fourth step. Watch the fourth
step, it's a doozy.
