In the piece “Choice and Appreciation” I proposed the possibility that there is a flow of choices all the way from the “big bang” to my moment-by-moment choices right now. From an energetic perspective, that means that every single choice upstream has some impact on the energy that is represented as me, since I am sourced by the entirety of that stream.
I’ll return to my “Siemens” analogy about levels of awareness. Choices made upstream always will have some impact downstream. Those upstream choices will impact a wider array of downstream people and processes in their organization but typically at a more subtle level. Upstream choices are reflected in me primarily as moods, ways of being, tendencies, worldview, and the like. They can act like an overarching steering mechanism. They obviously are experienced, but I tend to be most aware of them when I’m not actively engaged in anything. What is most visibly impactful are the choices made with clear and present attention. Conscious choices will most often override upstream intent because, as I’ve pointed out, downstream shorter wavelengths tend to mask the longer ones. You’re not likely to be thinking about your overall commitment to life while you’re zipping down a mountainside on a snowboard or trying to put a squirming child into a car seat. Though your overall commitment is reflected in your individual choices here, making an impact in this world still requires taking action within these local frequency levels where it can be experienced and appreciated.
With that as a basis it makes sense to look at the choices that were made after I arrived in this body, since that frequency range is closer to where my attention is right now than something that occurred in a less dense place. I am not denying that earlier choices from past lives or bardo realms have an impact, I’m just saying that those choices will be less discernible here than choices made once we are anchored here.
I will point out that in early childhood our attention was less focused on the details of what we now see as day-to-day life than it was after enculturation was completed. It is easy to see that infants are not quite able to bring their attention to bear on any one thing in particular at first. That is developed with practice. It seems to me that enculturation is, at least in part, the training process required to become focused on, and the ability to manipulate, the energies of which this place is made.
I’ll here provide an example of how one of my choices was made and still impacts me today. The thought process for this part of the perspective was initiated in either an “est” or Landmark course long ago, I don’t remember exactly when. I’ve made my energetic additions and stirred their idea around a bit so it reflects only how I see it in this moment.
In elementary school I got caught by a classmate repeating something that I’d agreed to keep secret. The first thing that happened was the experience named embarrassment, which momentarily stopped my mind; there was silence. What occurred next was the thought that I broke my promise, thus “I can’t be trusted”. The third was a promise to myself to always keep my promises in the future, to “be reliable”. These two statements were cemented onto very long wavelengths of the near silence evoked by embarrassment. These long wavelengths are typically experienced as stillness, which can be described as openness or vulnerability. Choices or declarations made in those moments of stillness seem to hold real power, as they are placed at longer wavelengths. In Carlos Castaneda’s “Tales of Power”, Don Juan says “…any thought held when the mind is silent is properly a command.” I gave the mind two commands/declarations – “I can’t be trusted” and “I will be reliable” – and it simply said, metaphorically, “OK”. It’s a machine. I gave it a command – made a choice – and it ran the program.
Those words, and the associated frequencies, then retreated into the background as daily life went on. To this day I am very attentive to being reliable, and though societally this structure works very well, this particular program created other issues. Firstly, I’m hyper aware of inferences that I am not trustworthy. And secondly, my declaration that I will be reliable was laid overtop of “I can’t be trusted.” Being reliable contradicts the “fact,”– since I said so–that I’m not trustworthy, so there is a dynamic tension there in my depths where both reside. So no matter how much “superficial” evidence I gather for being reliable and trustworthy, there will never be enough of that evidence to override “I can’t be trusted.” The only possibility, it seems, is to do the reprogramming at the space on the hard drive where it was originally written, so to speak. In the words of Don Miguel Ruiz, “Breaking agreements is very difficult because we put the power of the word (which is the power of our will) into every agreement we have made. We need the same amount of power to change an agreement.” Though today I am conscious of the original implanted command (Ruiz’s agreement), the mechanism generated by my own instruction to the mind keeps running. Given that I am now aware of it, I at least have a measure of control over the expression of that flow and where responsibility is assigned, which in this model should always be me.
Another side effect of this mechanism is that people who do not keep their promises irritate me. This is one way that negative Shadow reveals itself. Keeping promises and being reliable is one of my standards and is generally supported by culture as how everyone “should” behave. But the “Catch 22” is that seeing people who are not reliable provides me the evidence that, compared to them, I am. Therefore, I actually want this irritating behavior in my environment since it verifies that I am, in fact, trustworthy. So I am always seeking it out, despite the fact that it upsets me. But the energy of that old “I can’t be trusted” command still rises through the energetic layers and permeates the present while I continue the Sysiphus-like task of collecting evidence to quell the deep disquiet of my own making. It’s a “vicious circle.” But the mind is just acting upon the commands that I gave it and is doing its job, as designed. The mind is not the problem, my programming is.
How many times in your life have you declared “I am (fill in the blank)”? Each declaration is accepted by the mind as a command and lives on within you. The energetic level at which a command was placed determines how much that command will influence thoughts and behavior. I am saying that this particular manifestation of anger is a result of earlier choices, remembered or not. They, in vast number, have become standards that I use to present what I’ve deemed to be an acceptable identity to the world. This includes both those that I deliberately put in place, as with the example above, or that I chose to adopt in order to “fit in,” following the flow of cultural conditioning. Culturally there are a multitude of these, such as “wait your turn, be considerate, clean up after yourself, share with others” and the like. In each and every case, with varying levels of consciousness, I made a choice. So not only am I responsible for the results of those choices, in some ways I “am” – or my identity is – a composite of those choices. I use every one of them to present this composite to the world and assess the world from there. I see if people and points of view measure up to the standards that I decided are the most appropriate for me. When they don’t, Shadow arises.