The Alexander Material by Ramon Stevens

Issue No. 3

Find other issues here.

Ask a question here.

Q: What is the relationship between stone circle structures like Avebury and Stonehenge and the energies of the earth, and what was the actual purpose or function of those sites? (R.L.)
A: A circle is a two-dimensional sphere. As you know from Conscious Life, the two most efficient shapes are the axis (straight line) and the sphere. Energy moves most efficiently, with the least resistance or loss of strength, in these two patterns.

In stone circles like Stonehenge, the circle is “symbolic.” That is, while the shape has an overall circular form, there are gaps between the stones which would create friction, loss of efficiency, were energy actually traveling around the circle.

The builders of Stonehenge and other stone circles were “honoring” the earth, the moon, and the stars by symbolically replicating them in their circles. (We hear the protest that the people of that time thought the world was flat. No, they didn't; they could see the curvature of the earth and surmise that the earth had the same shape as the sun and moon.) The circles were used for several purposes: (1) as a daily visual reminder of the earth- and sun-based religion of the time (not unlike cathedrals with their soaring crosses visible for miles around); (2) for religious ceremonies on the equinoxes and solstices. Priests would stand within the circles (the villagers without), acting as the nexus between sun and earth energies. The ceremonies would feature “binding” of sun and earth energies, strengthening that celestial bond and ensuring their continued “cooperation” in offering the necessities of life: warmth, light, food. At winter solstice, a ceremony would be enacted in which the “vanishing” sun would be depicted as running away from the earth; the priests would “bind” the sun to the earth with their songs and chants.

The priests, then, were seen as powerful enough to “order” the cosmos about. Contrast this with other cultures, whose people saw themselves at the mercy of the cosmos, placating the gods with sacrifice. Not so among the Celts, who fancied themselves the guardians of a cosmos of irascible and fickle celestial bodies which, without a firm priestly hand, would spin about in random chaos.

Q: I was wondering how our individualized soul fits in with our probable selves and their rate of progress? How do probable selves continue on as unique sparks of divinity within all the higher self's infinite and cosmic possibility? Does each probable self have its own inner ego? Is the life we create totally unique when we have all these probable selves? How do all the inner egos fit into the greater entity? (T.W.)
A: We would encourage you to read our book Earthly Cycles, if you haven't already, for an in-depth discussion of probable selves, the higher self, etc. To answer your questions specifically, and in order:

An individualized soul and its brethren probable selves are linked in a common endeavor; that is, each probable self inhabits a unique probable earth while pursuing certain common themes or life experiences. Each probable self may be “tuned” to a different “set point” on the life theme continuum, and in the dream state and at other times they share their experiences. For example, if the theme is poverty-wealth, each probable self might be tuned to a different experience of that theme. The shoeshine-boy probable self meets the billionaire-banker probable self to exchange insights and experiences gleaned from their disparate experiences of the same theme. Both sets of experience are equally valid and fruitful for the higher self, however much the shoeshine boy may pine for a warm bed and full belly.

Each probable self maintains its uniqueness due to its “tuning,” which you can think of as a unique embedded code (not dissimilar to bar codes on the products you buy, though infinitely more complex). This “anchors” it to a specific probable earth and a specific time period.

Yes, each probable self has its own ego.

Yes, the life you create is entirely unique, and you can see why: the setup is unique and the stage on which you play out your life is unique. The life experiences you garner will therefore make a unique contribution to your higher self's store of earth-life knowledge.

Q: What is déjà vu or does it even exist? (L.A.)
A: That's funny, we could swear someone asked us that question before. People often assume a feeling of “déjà vu” springs from a past-life memory. It may, but, to follow from the previous question, it may have a variety of other causes. If other probable selves, in their unique cocoons of experience, have been to the “probable versions” of a place; or met a “probable version” of a person, that can also trigger a frisson of recognition in you (“I feel like we've met before somewhere...”). Since life experience is gathered and evaluated principally in emotional terms, if a probable place or probable person from a probable self's experience carries powerful emotional resonance, the likelihood of a déjà vu experience is enhanced.

Q: I'd like to follow up on my question about evolution, with some "Which came first, the chicken or the egg?" type questions. When humans were first here on the earth, did they start as fully formed adults in a functioning tribe or troop? Did they have no parents or ancestors? Did they know they were the first? From what you described in my question in last month's Q&A I imagine they sort of "rehearsed" this role as founders in non- physical form and then merged into being in the world. I think we have a hard time imagining the first people without them having some physical parents, thus the idea of humans evolving from something else seems more reasonable to us, based on our understanding of how the world seems to work. What can you tell us about this? (A.H.)

About your answer about the evolution theory in issue 2. I can follow what you say that each species was created and thrust into existence all at once. If you give the earth, like us humans, a coordinate which attracts or repels events, e.g. species, it makes sense. However, as an event type, a species body is an object which can't be formed out of clay. So how do species, for instance us humans, get fleshed out? (W.B.)

A: In the previous issue we answered your question by advising that all plant and animal species which have ever inhabited, or will ever inhabit, the earth were “created” in the nonphysical realm—the realm of pure consciousness—and only later seeded into manifestation in the space-time dimension as conditions warranted. Your current questions ask the How? How did the human species manifest for the very first time?

Every species, every individual creature, arises from an energetic “blueprint” which remains in the nonphysical realm and “pulses” to life in space-time terms. The pulses occur far too rapidly for you to detect; your matter-based consciousness “smooths” the on-off pulsations into an illusion of continuity. It would certainly be disconcerting to be speaking with someone and have him blinking in and out of his chair—appearing and reappearing with alarming rapidity. You spare yourself the disorientation by simply “not seeing” the “off” pulsations.

To ask about the first parents of humankind therefore misses the point. Every body, your body, exists primarily as a field of energy whose “life force” is vitalized with every “on” pulsation. Your biological parents played an important, but secondary, role in your creation: the energetic blueprint came first.

As the earth passes through oceanic cycles of accelerating and decelerating vibration, it attracts species hovering on the nonphysical side of the membrane as conditions ripen for their manifestation. In time terms, the “first” attempts at manifestation are subtle ones, as the magnetic attraction of favorable earth conditions pulls on the generic blueprint hovering on the other side. There is a period of give and take, subtle interplay, as the generic blueprint pushes across the membrane and checks its “fit” with earth conditions. There is a period of adjustment to the unfamiliar environment and slower pulsations of the earth (like you plunging into the ocean from a warm beach, or from a cozy house into a wintry landscape).

If all goes well, meaning the generic blueprint finds compatible energies and environment, it begins the process of materialization. This is still a period of give-and-take across the membrane. Each pinpoint of vibration within the generic blueprint must find a matching earth element in order to build bone and blood and tissue (the process can abort at any time if matching earth elements are not found).

When it is ascertained that sufficient earth elements exist to allow a species to survive, even thrive, the generic blueprint generates countless copies of itself (not unlike a cell reproducing itself) and “presses” them into manifestation across the membrane and into disparate earth environments. There is, then, no “first parent” of humankind or any other species; there is a sudden manifestation across the globe of a theretofore nonexistent species carving out patterns of survival from disparate ecosystems. Were you standing in the right place at the right time, then yes, you would see a novel animal simply “appear” from the ether. Because humankind is the last species to have appeared for many millennia, the chances of your enjoying such a spectacle are slim indeed!

We have said that evolution occurs within species, but not between species. So when conditions were ripe for reptiles, or birds, or fish, to manifest, their generic blueprint was thrust into form in myriad forms across the globe. Some thrived in their ecological niches; many perished. If you study the fossil record with this understanding, and free yourself of the linear–evolution approach, you will find evidence that species appeared “at once” around the globe.

Similarly, humankind appeared in scattered clusters around the globe “all at once.” There was no Adam and Eve in the Garden, then, no common progenitor as the current theory holds. Archaeologists keep digging up earlier and earlier settlements, confounding the Bering Land Bridge theory and other notions concocted to force the evidence into a clean linear-evolution line. No such line exists, as the evidence shows. North and South America, Asia, and Africa all hosted early humans at about the same time. Of course, later migrations have smeared the DNA trail beyond hope of recovery. But what evidence you do have undercuts the validity of the linear- evolution theory.

Q: Why are there so many cases of autism today? (K.Y.)

Why is Celiac disease becoming so popular? Is it any way related to Autism? And why is Autism so prevalent? (W.K.)

A: While in college, our host (Ramón) volunteered at a children's “mental hospital.” There he was “befriended” by a boy suffering from a classic case of autism: repetitive rocking, magazine eating, grunting in lieu of speech, and avoidance of direct eye contact. Nonetheless, the boy responded to Ramón's kindness in his own oblique way, such that the staff commented that he (Ramón) was the boy's favorite person. The boy would grab Ramón's arm, avoiding eye contact, but grunting as he pulled Ramón out to the hallway, where they would play “chase” up and down the hallways, the boy shrieking with the thrill. At other times, the boy's sense of humor was evident, again expressed in his oblique, sideways manner.

At the time, the theory du jour of the then-primitive field was that autism was caused by a “refrigerator mother” whose coldness stunted the child's psychological growth. Fast-forward to today and autism is understood as a neurological impairment in which normal interpersonal relations are stunted, locking the child inside his own mind. Repetitive behavior and the need for rigidly maintained schedules also manifest, evincing a need to “order” the world in comforting routine, as the autistic is unable to “order” the world—to express needs and desires—through normal interpersonal means.

Autism appears to have a strong basis in genetic mutations. The question to ask then is, Why are genetic mutations increasing? For they cause far more diseases, including cancer, than just autism. You live in a toxic soup, eat an unnatural diet, and live unnatural lifestyles. All of these “stressors” can affect the highly complex process of genetic recombination.

In the case of autism, we sense that heavy metals are particularly implicated; that is, those living in environments with elevated levels of heavy metals in the air and water are more likely to suffer genetic abnormalities leading to impaired neurological development. If autism is increasing, it serves as yet another red flag warning you of the dangers of swimming in a toxic soup of your creation.

Q: What exactly is kundalini and what purpose does it serve? How can one who is going through an awakening facilitate the process? (L.A.)
A: “Kundalini” is an Eastern/Indian concept used to represent, in visual/spatial form, the blossoming and flowering of consciousness. We have written elsewhere* about the flow of energy in the spine, which we term the coordinate. “Awakening kundalini” simply means waking up from a state of unconsciousness—living at an animal level of consciousness—to one growing toward enlightenement. From our perspective, there is no actual “stuff” there—no coiled energy at the root of the spine, waiting to be triggered and released. Kundalini is a metaphor, then, for the process of spiritual awakening.

[*See Conscious Life, Ch. 17.]

Q: My question is about cancer. Advancement in technology made it possible for scientists to unlock the entire genetic code of two of the most common cancers—skin and lung. The scientists found the DNA code for a skin cancer called melanoma contained more than 30,000 errors or mutations almost entirely caused by too much sun exposure. The lung cancer DNA code had more than 23,000 errors largely triggered by cigarette smoke exposure. Are they correct? The promise of this technology is that they will be able to pinpoint the genes that cause the cancer and develop "gene fixing" treatments. (W.B.)
A: As always when discussing matters of health, there are several interpenetrating levels of reality to consider. The surface level is the one you discuss: the realm of genes, cells, mutations, and DNA repairs. Below the surface, however, lies the meaning of a disease state (for every disease has one). Here lie deeper psychological, emotional, even metaphysical “triggers” which cause the disease to manifest in the first place. In other words, the deeper meaning comes first—creating a field of disharmonious energy patterns in a localized body area—followed by the secondary manifestation of the disease which you recognize.

Much of the cancer epidemic is caused by insults to the body, which include living an unnatural lifestyle, eating a diet at variance from a natural diet, or the deliberate inhalation/injection/etc. of harmful substances. As far as the first two factors go, it is virtually impossible for a member of modern civilization to avoid at least some “disrespect” toward the body. This includes watching the evening news and having one's pulse race over events occurring thousands of miles away, with no connection to one's safety. The usual suspects, whose toxic effects you already understand, include a diet heavy in meat, fried foods, sugar, and caffeine; smoking and drinking (both willful ingestions of poison); excessive exposure to sunlight, x-rays and other radiation, etc.

So the insult to the body's integrity—a willful disrespect shown to the divine vehicle of your soul—creates a field of disharmonious energy patterns. When genes mutate—as they constantly do—that field of scrambled energy makes it more difficult for the body to locate and heal the damaged DNA. The mutations go unrestored and, as they multiply, make it more likely that a precancerous cell will not be detected and destroyed aborning.

The cause of cancer, then, is chronic disrespect toward the body, especially the parts of the body directly affected (e.g. a smoker's lungs). The effect is that the body's normal cancer-detecting and –destroying mechanisms are impaired.

Q: Since you answered the question from our brother or sister from Malaysia, I'm from the Netherlands. It's a densely populated coastal area beneath sea level so there's not a high score or no score as far the safety zone you mentioned is concerned. But we anticipated and prepare ourselves for more extreme weather and other circumstances, rising sea levels, extreme storms, more rain. Over the years we brought our sea defenses to new higher “standards.” So before I go looking for property in Spain could it be that we turned ourselves into a safe pocket? (W.B.)
A: Why is it that those living in areas especially threatened by global warming seek reassurance that their perilous homeland is an exception to the laws of nature?

It may well be that an advanced nation such as the Netherlands has erected sufficiently strong defenses against rising, stormy seas. But that begs the larger question: If the effects of global warming in Europe include impaired food production and fresh water supplies, as well as general chaos and mass migrations, being in your situation—where resources will have to be devoted to holding back the stormy seas—means fewer resources available to answer the other challenges climate change portends. Also, the Netherlands lie north of the northern boundary of the “safety zone” as we have outlined it, though its low elevation and seaside locale mean severe cold would be moderated to some degree. Depending on your age, you may live out your life in comfort; but a century hence, the Netherlands will be no one's idea of paradise.

Q: Much is being made of the date Dec. 21, 2012, the end of the Mayan long-count calendar. Is this date going to be significant, or is Dec. 22nd just going to be the start of a new calendar? (Just like Jan. 1st is for our present culture.) (J.R.)

I hear the angst in the previous questions and see the fear it comes from. Wouldn't it be more productive if we all got on with building a microcosm which can feed the tone of the macrocosm we say we want—instead of continuing to feast on fear? (L.H.)

A: We second the second comment—perhaps the best way to combat 2012 mania is to set a target of making a significant move toward a more sustainable lifestyle, or moving to a “safety zone,” by December 21, 2012. Then, when that dreaded day arrives and nothing happens, you will feel a sense of accomplishment rather than foolishness.

Join the conversation! Ask Alexander a question here!