The Alexander Material by Ramon Stevens

Issue No. 8

Find other issues here.

Ask a question here.

Q: What is the best way for an individual to develop psychic abilities, such as clairvoyance and clairaudience? (L.A.)
A: The snappy answer is that if you were meant to be clairvoyant or clairaudient, you already would be. For talent of any nature lies on a spectrum, with an inborn "set point" and potential spectrum of development. You can reach only so far beyond your intrinsic set point, whether it be artistic talent or psychic ability.

Consider that the purpose of life in a camouflage system (see Conscious Life) is to ensure the privacy of your thoughts, emotions, and experience. No one can read your mind, nor you others'. To possess the psychic abilities you mention would be to violate the purpose of the camouflage system—which doesn't mean, of course, that it never happens, but that it is intentionally rare.

All that said as preamble, the best way to develop one's psychic and/or spiritual abilities is meditation. This waking sleep bypasses the ego—even as it is proud to perform an "important" ritual by silencing itself—and allows deeper elements of the self to emerge in the waking state.

A more precise method, if you have a specific psychic ability in mind, is to work with a friend or partner to "stretch" your potential in that direction. If you seek to be clairvoyant, for example, establish a regular time to develop your abilities. Have your friend/partner select and place an object behind a screen of some kind. Guess what the object is. You can use an agreed-upon set of objects, which you have seen, and have your friend/partner keep track of your hits and misses. Calculate whether your guesses exceed the statistical odds. Do this every day, if possible, as the regularity and intentionality "stimulate" whatever innate clairvoyant ability you may have to its highest potential. See if the statistics skew in your favor over time. If they do, you have realized your potential. If they do not, you never had any.

Q: I have been reading more and more articles (typically in "New Scientist" magazine) on how we don't have "free will." Our responses supposedly are programmed. There are even studies saying that the decision to act comes some tiny fragment of a second after we have begun acting. What is your take on free will and what these studies mean? I find it hard to even contemplate such a concept of not being at least partially in control. (C.H.)
A: On the "free will spectrum," ranging from "none" to "infinite," we would place our bet somewhere in the middle. Your question focuses on neuronal research, but there are other factors involved which affect free will: the country, family, age, race, and gender of your birth (to name a few); the efficiency, openness, and predispositions of your neurological system (i.e., how clearly, efficiently, intelligently incoming data are processed and decisions formed and executed); childhood experiences which inhibit or enhance self-image, self-esteem, self-control. These are but a few of the factors involved.

In other words, one's decision-making "process" is, in fact, not a single process but the product of multifarious factors which influence one's potential for clear, rational, effective decision-making. Where all these factors are relatively "clear," one's decisions result more from "free will" and less from "automatic programming." And vice versa.

You have probably had the experience of pondering a decision, unable to resolve it, when suddenly you find yourself acting one way or another, without consciously having decided on that course. Hesitating before diving into cold water is an example: you hem and haw and scratch yourself until suddenly, without a clear decision, you jump. So where the normal decision-making process fails to reach a clear decision, other, more "automatic," processes may take over, which indicates that there is a "you" deeper than your surface ego, which contributes to the process. It is this deeper self that contributes to decision-making in the dream state, or while concentrating on something unrelated to the quandary at hand.

Consider that the "you" you think of as having free will is the ego, which is both blind to many of the influences on it, and generally short- and narrow-sighted in its thinking range. The ego loves to loudly trumpet that it has free will—which implies a perspicacity, depth, and insight it lacks—when it often acts in reflexive, impulsive, and self-defeating ways.

To answer your question, yes, you are partially in control; but never in full, conscious command of all the many factors woven into your decision-making process.

Q: I would ask one thing about Seth. In recent years it seems that Seth is doing through new channels, "Mark Allen Frost." It seems to be a bit changed about the depth of how he addressed each topic with respect to his writings in the past. Now it seems he chose to be more simple and direct. But perhaps a little poorest of content. I wanted to know if you can tell me if he really is Seth? Or is some other entity that is using his name, to be able to count on a large number of readers who respected him and still hoped to be able to read his teachings? (A.G.)
A: Perhaps you are a new reader. We generally do not comment on other entities' material.

If you find the alleged "new" Seth material to be of a lower order than that delivered by Jane Roberts, there are several possibilities: (1) As all channeled material flows through the mind of the channel, the quality of that mind determines the quality of the material. Were the original Seth entity to speak through a different mind, the material would differ to the extent the channel's mind differed from Ms. Roberts' (which, of course, it would have to). (2) An entity unrelated to the original Seth is speaking through this author. (3) No entity is speaking through this author.

Rather than concern oneself with the origin of channeled material, which can never be proven in any objective way, better to evaluate the quality of the material and see if it resonates with you, especially where a channel's output lasts for a number of years and remains consistent across that time.

Q: Why are so many so-called spiritual sources (channelers, etc.) so intent on pushing the twin flame concept? I know it's not MY truth, but is there an important reason why so many are buying into it at this time? (I don't mean 'buying into' in a pejorative way—not truth for me, but perhaps truth for others.) (E.S.)
A: The New Age field can be like high fashion—a trendsetter sets the trend and everyone follows. It is a field prone to fads and sensationalism, for the people involved tend to be emotionally and psychically sensitive, as well as naively gullible, while lacking a hard-edged objectivity. It is also a largely female field, and is more likely to generate trends appealing to that audience—romance among them.

"Twin flames" sounds like "soul mates" with a fresh coat of paint. It also reminds one of the Greek myth about the origin of humankind: originally everyone had four arms and legs; early humans displeased the gods so they split humans in half and you spend your lives chasing after your missing, and "better," half.

The ultimate purpose of human life is to evolve to where one releases all attachments—to soul mates, twin flames, and everything else—so an unbalanced focus on any "attractor" that binds you to earthly life—wealth, success, power, romance—is an impediment, not an enhancement, to spiritual growth.

Q: As here on the earth plane, our spiritual evolution is reflected and guided by the spiritual blast of rock n roll and the Beatles, Picasso's warnings of nuclear war and social disarray, and other genuine art that continually allows us to become aware of greater slivers of enlightenment and fragments of truth, what is your concept of art where you are in the cosmos? From your fully enlightened level where probabilities don't need to be symbolized in order to glimpse aspects of enlightenment, do you still use some form of art to grow ? In a sense, isn't the Universe art? (T.W.)
A: No, the Universe is not art; for it does not exist as a symbol of a deeper truth, but is what it is. At our level, no, we do not use art in the human sense, for where thought transmission is instantaneous and complete, there is no need for symbols of deeper truth, or prophetic fragments embedded in music and paint. Art is for you to cherish and enjoy, one of many precious elements unique to human and earthly life.

Q: Any Alexander comment about the DMT elves? (see Wikipedia article) (M.G.)
A: For other readers, DMT is a psychedelic substance producing a short, intense trip which may include "elves" or other beings who welcome the tripper and guide his/her experience in an alternate reality.

Stepping back for a moment from any one substance, consider that the earth is fairly well distributed with plant compounds which produce psychedelic experiences in humankind; and that shamanism has developed where those substances are especially potent and linked to plant-specific "guides." There is a family of guides who work through psilocybin mushrooms, others with ayahuasca, others with peyote, and so on. There are guides on both sides of the looking glass, then—human shamans and plant-specific entities—which work together to ensure a seeker's safety and comfort (shamans) and that the experience be as meaningful, productive, and educational as possible (guides).

The question is not specific as to the information sought, so we will restrict our comments to this confirmation that, yes, such guides exist and their purpose is to help humankind by mediating psychedelic experiences.

Q: In your book Whatever Happened To Divine Grace?, you mention that there is creative Source of Art and Truth from which every true artist, philosopher or scientific inventor draws upon (Plato calls it "world of ideas"; Seth, "Framework 2".) I understand you mean that the more clear and undistorted the channel between the gifted people and the Source is (minimum of restrictive beliefs and lower motives like ego or prestige but maximal openness to inspiration...), the greater will be the achievement of human creator and consequently the progress of all society.

However, according to Dr. Albert Rothenberg from Harvard, "the creative process to be [sic] a conscious, rational process," quite "contrary to the romantic notion that creativity grows largely out of inspiration, the thinking of dreams, or some unconscious source." Similarly, Edison said, "Genius is one per cent inspiration, ninety-nine per cent perspiration."

Is openness to inspiration and channeling from metaphysical Source really so essential for great inventions or creative achievements, or are Rothenberg, Edison and others wrong? (R.G.)

A: You are mixing several discrete issues. The first is creativity. Creativity is intrinsic and universal in the human species. Pass out paper and crayons to a roomful of young children, and are they at a loss as to what to do?

The second issue is mastery. Mastering a creative skill—painting, playing an instrument, writing, cooking, etc.—takes time and practice, the 99% perspiration. Even a towering genius must master his craft before wrenching it in bold new directions.

Third is the distinction between leisurely or even skilled artists, and towering genius. The former, by far the larger population, nestle snugly in the "here-and-now" of their time and place, producing works comfortably familiar to the mainstream. They draw their inspiration from quotidian sources: what they see, hear, read, and the hoary legacy of tradition.

Towering genius, by contrast, means an artist whose inspiration flows not from the here-and-now, but from the future; or, beyond this, from a timeless wellspring of creativity. Art of genius has a prophetic quality as it symbolically depicts probable futures. We have previously mentioned the work of Picasso, whose scrambled faces augured the development of nuclear fission, with its potential to scramble the DNA. Or the thundering turmoil of Beethoven, who presaged a century and more of upheaval, revolution, war, crumbling empires and beheaded monarchs, across and beyond Europe.

The same process applies to science and inventions—the inspiration arises from a Bank of Probabilities that those living in the here-and-now do not access. Da Vinci's helicopter sketches, for example. And Edison labored many long hours over his inventions, but whence arose the original idea for an electric light? recording and playing back sounds? moving pictures? Without that 1% inspiration, what avails the other 99%?

Q: OK, this question is not a joke. But, what is the real purpose or meaning of life? I know, or think I know, what our purpose is in our rebirths or incarnations; that of enlightenment, finding the God within us, etc. But, if you go back to the beginning when God created man and breathed the breath of life in man, before the 'fall,' what was the purpose of man at that time? (J.R.)
A: If you hew to an Old Testament version of the origin of humankind, seek answers within that context. We have never spoken of a god breathing life into man, or a fall from grace.

Join the conversation! Ask Alexander a question here!