The Alexander Material by Ramon Stevens

Issue No. 5

Find other issues here.

Ask a question here.

Q: Why exactly has my mother chosen dementia? Why do so many people of her age choose this? Will this also change in the future or increase? Thanks for your profound answer, I'd appreciate it. (K.)
A: First, let us explore and clarify the notion of “choosing” dementia. As we have stated before, the higher self “chooses” its major life themes before birth. Its focus is on childhood and maturity; the themes and issues that can arise then. Dementia, coming at the end of life, is less likely to be chosen ahead of time as a theme or experience, as it comes in the final phase when one's life tasks have either been fulfilled or not. Other brain–based debilities, like retardation or autism, which manifest early in life, are more likely to be explicitly chosen for the experiences they will bring.

Everyone's body declines and dies. There is a vast array of potential routes to that end, and while the time of death is chosen, the path to it may not carry such importance to the higher self. In other words, some people may suffer a decline of brain function, or of bodily function, without it necessarily carrying import to the higher self. It can just “happen” that way.

That said, the rise of end–stage brain disorders like dementia and Alzheimer's, as well as of childhood–origin disorders like autism, reflects the increasingly toxic environment in which you live. You in the modern world spend your lifetimes using soaps, shampoos, cleansers, toothpastes, deodorants, medications, etc., containing manmade chemicals; eating pesticide– and fungicide–laden food, perhaps of genetically modified origin; driving cars, living in houses, working in offices, all of which emit toxic vapors; using cell phones, computers, and wireless internet, getting x–rays and CAT scans—under such an assault of chemicals, toxins, and radiation, it is a wonder anyone grows to a ripe old age with brain and body at peak vitality!

While we have said that suffering dementia, or any of the myriad others diseases of modernity in old age, may not reflect a specific “choice” by the higher self, there can be a “collective choice” such that, by declining and dying in specific ways, their suffering reflects back to society that something is amiss, disordered, and needs attention. A century ago, cancer was rare and suffered only by the elderly. Today, cancers of childhood and young adulthood are increasingly common. That means something. The question is whether the message is heeded, the cause identified, and corrective measures implemented.

Death is always chosen. A century ago, many children died of diseases which are today rare. So the collective message of a century ago—regarding sanitation, for example—has shifted to other culprits. The death is individually chosen; its means reflects a collective message that a responsive society would best heed.

Q: Is it possible to travel in time by exercise only of the mind and intent? (L.A.)
A: You would need to clarify what you mean by “travel in time.” Travel with your physical body? How would travel of the “mind and intent” work; what would you observe, experience, in such a state?

Answering in general terms, being uncertain of your meaning, we would remind you that in deepest terms all “time” is simultaneous; that is, time is one of the parameters of the physical system, which itself is simply a subset of vast fields of consciousness knowing no time or space. Theoretically, then, a mind can travel anywhere in time or space, without limitation. What it can observe or learn or participate in in such a state would be another issue. It would be unrealistic to expect that you could “drop in” on other times and places with the full fidelity of your five senses and present–day ego, memory and experience.

Q: Much of the area of health seems to be “ruled” by the belief that you do not create your own reality. I know people, with cancer, going to the oncologist and in conversations it is normal to talk about this as if they are the victims of the disease. You catch yourself doing that afterwards. When you try to believe that you create your own reality, you can try to heal yourself. However, I don't know people who consciously healed themselves. Doing that would be like stepping out of the box, going against a mainstream belief that the disease you have is incurable (if the medical treatments don't work). Can social fears actually block self–healing? “In what position am I going to get if I healed myself? What would my family say?” Do these worries matter? (W.B.)
A: To the extent that you accept, consciously or unconsciously, the prevailing beliefs about health and illness, then naturally they color your reaction upon becoming sick. We would caution you, though, against the contrary belief that all illness is curable if one's beliefs are simply in proper alignment with the Universe. Death is always chosen, the means can vary, and there are times when a certain illness is chosen symbolically. Cancer, which kills its host by mutating wildly, symbolizes humankind in its ever–increasing numbers and assault on the earth.

For those who survive cancer, with or without conventional treatment, such life–threatening illness can have many meanings. “Being a victim” is rarely the meaning; and slumping into that comforting, attention–getting role hinders recognition of the deeper meaning, which likely relates to “unhealthy” lifestyle or relationships.

Q: Leaving major avatars aside, are certain people cast as “indispensable” among the players on the stage of history and granted a special role? All of us are bound by the great rule of forming our reality through our choices and beliefs, but not all of us can play the part of, say, George Washington. In many respects, his life seems to have been charmed. Horses were shot repeatedly out from under him, bullet holes pocked his clothes, assassins were summoned and failed. In the end he changed history. Was he protected—kept in the game, so that he could play his part to the end? (K.Y.)
A: Were spirits watching from above during Revolutionary battles, nudging bullets aside from their lethal trajectory, foiling assassins, orchestrating battle outcomes? No. For better and worse, there is no such direct intervention in earthly affairs. If someone seems possessed of a shield of invincibility, it is because he or she has not chosen to die at a certain time, in a certain way. Bullets do not meet the flesh of someone whose life plan does not allow for such an end.

Q: Could you comment on the symbolic meaning of money. What does it represent in our society and was that its original intent? Why did we bring it about and what are the pitfalls and benefits? What, if any, alternatives, like bartering, would be best for an enlightened human society? (A.H.)
A: You hardly need a metaphysical counselor to discover the original meaning of money, which arose as a medium of trade. In its deepest terms, money is symbolic food; for food is the most elemental of goods. A farmer may not care to barter his crops for pigs or pots or shoes, whatever a buyer offers as barter. They complete the transaction with a symbol of agreed–upon meaning and value—stones, shells, coins, beads, whatever form it takes.

We have written elsewhere about the existential insecurity that afflicts civilized peoples, and how various “security trinkets”—wealth, fame, and power being the principal ones—assuage, but never heal, that insecurity. No matter how much you have of a security trinket, it is never enough. Many were the conquerors driven by an insatiable desire to conquer and control the entire world; anything short of that—a mere continent or two—could not quench that burning desire. So it is with money, which is something almost everyone handles every day—unlike power or fame—making money the focus of most people's longing for “more.”

An enlightened society could still continue using a symbolic means of exchange; it is a convenient and efficient means of conducting business. What would change is in anyone mistaking the symbol for its deeper reality. An enlightened society would offer existential security to its members, so none would pine for trinkets.

Q: There is a growing concern about the growing number of bacteria resistant to antibiotics and recently bacteria causing immunity to antibiotics within people. The cause is the high use of antibiotics in intense stock farming. Those bacteria are spreading more and more, causing extra health problems with patients in hospitals who get infected or with tuberculosis, the bacteria is sometimes totally resistant to antibiotics. This whole situation can grow into a return to a time before penicillin. Not asking how come we are in this, in everything, not wanted position in relationship with our agriculture. (But comments are welcome). In your last book you talk about the relationship between viruses, mankind and our immune system. But what about bacteria? Same story? (W.B.)
A: Life on earth is designed to be a struggle. One of the elements of that struggle is simply staying alive amidst the onslaught of viral, bacterial, and insect assaults on your health. Every living being is both prey to such assaults and is the assaulter of other species (humankind being the world champion of interspecies assault!). Broadening the scope from our essay on viruses, then, we can sketch a more comprehensive picture in which every living being is embedded in a dance of survival, dodging or repelling assault while simultaneously assaulting other species, for food if nothing else.

With regard to viruses and bacteria, they live in and on your body in countless number. Wash your hands with “antibacterial cleanser” and they're back an hour later, none the worse for wear. While physically so minute, these little creatures are infinitely clever, mutating constantly to adapt to changes in their environment. If humankind employs excessive antibiotics, bacteria will naturally develop resistance. Humans are doing their job—maintaining an efficient and abundant food supply—and bacteria are doing theirs, dodging chemical assault and living to swarm another day.

Humankind has so warped and plundered its environment, has been such an effective and efficient assaulter, that in some parts of the world “nature” no longer exists; instead, a human–fabricated environment has been created, at the cost of the balance of elements present in a healthy ecosystem. Everywhere you see evidence of the deleterious effects of these changes, including the rise in autism and dementia. Until humankind restores itself, in smaller numbers and a less destructive lifestyle, to its proper place in the global commons, you can expect further and more dramatically harmful effects on your species.

For example, autism and dementia are “competence diminishers”; they render their sufferers incompetent to care for themselves, to participate in the work of maintaining society. Left alone in the woods, they would perish. As the number of such “diminishers” rises, as it must in a toxic, denatured environment, the burden grows on the shrinking number of competents. Ultimately, something has to give.

Q: I have a question about the incarnation process in relation to the higher self. You say that each incarnation is an offshoot of the higher self. In many cases, though, there seems to be some continuity for the passing soul to choose a new life. How does the passing soul experience the transition to a new life? Does he remain in eternal validity in the higher self, watching a new offshoot going into physical incarnation with some or all of his karmic baggage, or is there really a part of the passing soul, that does incarnate again?

You say that a new offshoot is created, but how is that new offshoot influenced by previous life, and how does that seem to explain the apparent continuity in some cases of personality over successive lives? (J.P.)

A: Most of your questions are answered in our book Earthly Cycles. The “new” issue raised is in your last question, regarding continuity of personality over successive lives. All of the incarnations flowing from a given higher self share a common family of consciousness, which has a major influence on personality. Beyond that, personality is a blend of characteristics selected by the higher self before birth, and life experiences in a family and culture (which are also chosen). From our perspective, everyone starts “fresh,” and while karmic bonds may carry over from one lifetime to another, personality generally does not.

Q: How many people can live on planet earth? It's the title of a scientific documentary about our overpopulation. It is predicted that around 2050 there will be 9 billion people on planet Earth. Those extra 2 billion people are, graphically explained, the current population of China, Europe and America added together. They must be fed, clothed and given the opportunity to live a first–world lifestyle. And Earth, with the aid of science and technology, must produce just that. So science more or less said. Since that manmade future is not going to happen (and we could be lucky with that), the documentary brought home a threatening hint that a period of calamity is not so far into the future. Moving to a safety zone is an option. But collectively do you see in the near future some actions taken to reduce our numbers? (W.B.)
A: As always, the choice is yours. You can take the necessary steps to reduce your numbers, or have your numbers reduced by external forces, with all the suffering that will entail. There is a saying, “The Earth bats last.” Picking up our assaulter–assaultee motif from above, we would add, “The Earth assaults last.”

Q: You mention Southern Europe as one of the more safer regions in the world to ride out the global warming crisis. However, it is predicted that the Mediterranean ecosystems may be among the most impacted by global warming. Spain is expected to get an African climate and Italy may see a return of malaria. You get the impression that the effects of global warming in Europe will happen first and most severely in Southern Europe. So why move there? Or are there regions or countries in South Europe best to be avoided? If so, which ones? (W.B.)
A: It is better to speak of “climate change” than “global warming” because there will not an even, uniform rise in temperatures worldwide. Overall, this will be the case, but in any specific locale, temperatures may warm or cool. When we speak of a “Zone of Safety,” we exclude northern regions like Canada or Scandinavia because they may, in fact, grow colder.

More, weather patterns will become less predictable, more erratic, more extreme. So those in an already challenged region, like the northern latitudes, may suffer the double whammy of colder temperatures and fiercer storms.

This is why we recommended Southern Europe as more likely to weather climate change. That said, we have mentioned that coastlines are best avoided; if there is anything Italy has more of than pasta, it is coastline! So that is a factor to consider.

Q: There are regression hypnotherapists [Brian Weiss, Michael Newton] who, with seeming credibility, document hundreds of cases of regressing clients to “life between life” spirit realms. That reality seems very different from what you describe in your books. Soul color seems to matter…you never mention this. Many spirits have names (even Seth spoke of “entity names”)…you never mention any spirit having a name. There are guides who choose their charges and help them over many lifetimes…this feels really different from your “higher self decides all” template. There is a coming together of soul companions after lives…you speak mostly of moving on. There are lasting relationships over millennia...you say the goal is to release relationships. These hypnotherapists seem to be serious people doing serious work. Is there a flaw in their process? Is there a flaw in my interpretation? Please comment. (K.Y.)
A: Nothing you have mentioned as the features of the spirit realm contradicts what we have written. The features highlighted may differ, but that is to be expected given the radically different sources of the materials you are comparing.

You might wish to review Earthly Cycles, chapters 18 and 19. There we discuss the various guides, which we call “welcomers“ and “sages,” who assist souls in the post–death and pre–birth processes.

Consider the source of these accounts: living human beings accessing deep memories while in a hypnotic state. Just as we have repeatedly stated that a discarnate entity's material is always filtered through its host's consciousness, so are such “memories” filtered through the mind, the hopes, the ambitions, of their human relaters. Nothing is more important to human beings than relationships—the crux and crucible of growth and learning—so it is no surprise to find an emphasis on souls joining in the spirit realm, planning lifetimes together, bound through millennia.

Our perspective is more detached, more clinical, for we have released earthly incarnations and observe them as scientists might the denizens of a petri dish. The intense emotional bond humans feel for each other is absent from our consciousness, except to be noted as a “fact” of human existence. We speak less, therefore, of such matters than entranced human beings do.

Our “model” of reincarnation, as expressed in Earthly Cycles most particularly, does not allow for the “recycling” of souls into new bodies, again and again, over the centuries. That is a simplistic, comforting notion; and it is little wonder than human subjects concentrate on such hopes. Ours, we submit, is a more sophisticated model, however “cold” and discomfiting it may be to those still on their human journeys.

Q: You say in Spirit Wisdom that knowledge about earth's electromagnetic field and its role in sustaining surface life, is nonexistent. Why is this so? Is this knowledge linked with our “setpoint” or are there beliefs blocking this? Further, to be honest, I find the situation rather weird. We, meaning humans, other species and Earth, we are in a threatening situation because we humans harnessed electricity. I know there is a difference in an electricity network for one billion people or for 7 billion people, but if the damage can be so invisible to us (this must be known) and at the same time so threatening to Earth's health, you'd expect more clearer warning signs (from the universe). Holes in the ozone layer, autoimmune diseases, freaky weather, global warming, all disturbing phenomena, but none of them points to the use of power lines. Why is this so? (W.B.)
A: You certainly have plenty of warning signs from the universe! The issue is one of interpretation, desire to find the root source of the problem, and will to remedy the problem.

When Rachel Carson wrote Silent Spring, the problem of the decline of bird reproduction, which imperiled the bald eagle, was generally known. The cause, however, remained a mystery (just as the worldwide decline of amphibians and bees is in your time). It took her synthesis of the available data to pinpoint the cause. A similar situation arose with the hole in the ozone layer, which was attributed to fluorocarbons used in refrigerators, etc. The problem was well known, but its cause a mystery until the scientific data fingered a likely culprit.

The problem with the effects of global electrification—which include erratic weather patterns and damage to the subtle energies of human, animal, and plant bodies—is that the effects are so enormous and diffuse. In the examples given above—thin egg shells, the ozone hole—the problem is discrete and identifiable. Erratic weather is not identified as a single problem with a single cause: weather always varies. When noticeably extreme, such patterns are attributed to El Niño, La Niña, global warming, etc. The problem is too huge and diffuse to be viewed as a specific, isolated problem. As for the effects on subtle energies, their existence is not even acknowledged.

Q: I have known quite a few people who say they feel they have not found their “true calling” in life and flounder from one seemingly meaningless job to the next. In Earthly Cycles, Alexander speaks about the seven different families of consciousness and how each family has tendencies toward certain occupations. And it seems each aspect of the human quadrangle may also influence the potential career field of an individual.

Given this, how can one discover or identify a career that is inherent in one's consciousness that is fulfilling and rewarding? Is there even such thing as a person's “true calling”? (L.A.)

A: Consider that human beings have inhabited Planet Earth for over a million years, and that civilization arose only five millennia ago, give or take. That means that for the vast sweep of human history, there was no such thing as a “career.” Man or woman, chief or warrior, priest or slave, one was born into one's position in life; “choosing a career” was not an option.

Remember that the principal crucible of learning and growth is relationships. For many people, there is no career or calling that is ideal for them, because it doesn't matter how they earn a living; what matters is how they treat the people around them; how deeply and broadly they love. Many of the jobs in your complex, modern society are routine and boring: ask any file clerk.

When we spoke of the families of consciousness and how they cluster in certain careers, we were indicating certain tendencies or affiliations which naturally arise: an Innovator has to innovate, and the principal realms for innovation are science and art. That said, an Innovator can be a school teacher, a plumber, or a bureaucrat, and find room for innovation, albeit in a narrower range. And the poor Agitators, who cannot sit still, cannot climb a career ladder rung by rung, cannot conform to stultifying customs, rarely build what one would call a successful “career.” If their lives hold promise and potential, it lies elsewhere.

If you are reading and contributing to this column, we may presume that your friends and acquaintances tend to be of a metaphysical orientation. It can be especially difficult for those with sensitive natures to find a career that nurtures and supports them; an industrialized economy has other needs. In this case, it may be that a series of meaningless jobs which keep body and soul together is the best they can do in the “career” realm; they must look elsewhere, to other realms, to express their true selves and find fulfillment.

Join the conversation! Ask Alexander a question here!