[Excerpt Be and Become, Chapter One. Comment: This section largely contains personal reflections and experiences of the author, Steaphen Pirie]

When we believe ourselves to be predominantly separate from the world around us, we take the view that things “out there” happen to us, seemingly independent of us.

When we introduce our mind into the mix we see that we can raise our percentage responsibility quite significantly. In other words, we reduce the seemingly random effects of the outside world upon our lives. But to what extent can you continue building the degree of choice (control) in your life? What is the theoretical maximum possible degree to which you can take responsibility for everything that you experience? Where do you draw the line, between that which is your responsibility or doing, and that which isn’t? At what point do you look out upon the world and say it has nothing to do with you?

Getting connected

This was generally the line of thinking and questioning that I was following (a few years ago) when I had the good fortune to attend a workshop on meditation. During the workshop the lecturer informed the audience that we control1 100% of our experiences. Until that workshop I had easily accepted 90-95% responsibility, having by then realized the connection between one’s attitude and one’s subsequent successes and failures. This is not to suggest that I had succeeded in eradicating my insecurity and negativity. I had simply recognized the need for self-development, hence the attendance at the workshop.

Despite my insecurity and doubts, upon hearing the lecturer assert that we choose 100% of our experiences, I took it upon myself to challenge the lecturer by explaining to him that it could only be a maximum of around 95% or maybe even 98 or 99% but certainly not 100%. After all, how could I be responsible for a completely chance event such as a falling meteorite slamming through the ceiling and taking off my right arm?

He answered that it was 100% and after repeated objections from me explained that on some level of my awareness I would have been aware of the impending disaster and yet despite such awareness I would have for my own reasons chosen to participate in that event.

Apparently, in the example of the meteorite, I would have been either subconsciously or unconsciously “aware” of the impending disaster, but due to my subconscious or unconscious “agenda” I would have “decided” to experience the event for my own personal learning and growth.

Now this was hard to argue with because, let’s face it, if we knew the content of our subconscious and unconscious minds then it wouldn’t remain sub (below) conscious or un (not) conscious. It seems self-evident that what we don’t know, we don’t know. So I tentatively accepted the logic of the idea that perhaps there was somewhere deep within me a whole stack of “programs” that were quietly controlling my life, much like a computer program can control a robot or motor-vehicle. After all, by the time I had come to sit that lecture I had become well acquainted with the idea that by changing my attitude and developing new skills I could create more beneficial results in both my personal and business life. Accordingly, the objective of the workshop was to get to know and therefore be able to change the detrimental or harmful “programs” that were causing the workshop attendees their problems or lack of results.

And it made sense, at least from a mathematical perspective, in that if one extrapolates the increasing degree of control which accompanies increasing awareness then ultimately the end-point to the extrapolation must be 100%.

The turning point

Now, this was one of the major turning points in my life, for I had been presented with an idea which appealed to my ardent “black or white” logical, sceptical, atheistic, “cut and dried” nature.

The idea that I had 100% responsibility for my life did have a certain purity and symmetry. It was concrete and absolute. It was somehow compelling and appealing. The idea also had a simple validity in that the one and only common element in all my experiences, without exception, was me! No matter who or what might have shared my experiences, when all else was considered, the only guaranteed common element in every bit of my life was me. Or more correctly when dreaming and unconscious states are included my awareness or my “mind” was the only consistent common element throughout my entire life.

If the reports of continued awareness after short periods of clinical death are valid, then I can’t even expect that my physical body will necessarily be a part of everything “I” experience. My awareness is, was and will be the only guaranteed common element for everything in my past, present and future. There is not one ingredient of my physical reality that can be guaranteed to be always there with me to share my experiences. Not one. Every person, thing or event in my physical experience was like an accoutrement for my mind, like changeable fashion accessories that changed from moment to moment.

Given the changeable nature of these physical accoutrements which accompanied my personal experiences it seemed reasonable that I might have more to do with my circumstances than given credit by science or religion. Since “I” was the only guaranteed mainstay in my entire existence it seemed reasonable that “I” must have something to do with it. As you read the foregoing you may also have recognized that the one element that has remained consistent throughout all your experiences has been your awareness.

The idea that I had 100% responsibility for all my experiences allowed me to feel vaguely secure for some reason and yet ... it was an idea pregnant with phenomenal implications.

Almost immediately those implications started to become apparent. If I choose 100% of my circumstances then that means that I must be the originator of all my experiences.

Somehow I must unknowingly (subconsciously or unconsciously) attract or choose to encounter everything I experience? If I run late for work or an appointment because the trains or buses were running behind schedule, or because there was a traffic jam, then it could only be because I didn’t foresee these difficulties and take alternative measures to avoid running late.

Any of the countless such similar situations which caused me undesired experiences would all reduce down to me not being aware of impending events. But the foregoing examples require that I be aware of things outside my immediate awareness and of events prior to their happening! To take full responsibility for our circumstances requires that we utilize “extra-sensory” abilities such as telepathy and precognition.

We must expect that:

I must somehow be able to be intuitively and precognitively aware of things outside my immediate environment and of things about to happen (i.e. pre-know the future). After all how else could I be aware of the meteorite prior to it crashing through the roof and causing me harm, or of a traffic accident a few blocks ahead about to occur which will block traffic for hours causing me to run late for work?

Either such senses are valid and real or I am reduced to having to blame the external environment for some of my circumstances. We then find ourselves back in the swampy vague mush of not being sure if we created our circumstances or if some entirely chance event or external agency applied its influence to determine our fate. We must doubt the very fabric of our existence and our safety in it.

When we believe and experience ourselves to be distinctly separate from the outside exterior world, we cannot but feel that life is fraught with danger, uncertainty and mishap. With this perspective and belief we will agree that “life was not meant to be easy.”

Clearly the degree to which we feel fear is the degree to which we feel disconnected from (or out of control of) the exterior physical world of “things”—people, animals, weather conditions. When we believe ourselves to be distinctly separate from the outside physical system we must doubt our safety. We must feel victims to exterior circumstances.

Conversely,

The acceptance that we are ultimately at the mercy of chance in an obviously hostile world was the less appealing of the two alternatives to me. I wanted less fear and doubt in my life, not more of it through acceptance that I was some sort of cosmic victim, awaiting chance or fate to ruin anything or everything that was dear to me.

I believe that we take for granted our innate awareness that we are not victims of chance in a meaningless world. I believe that if we were truly subject to chance, we would not feel confident to get out of bed or even to take breath. We trust the billions of cells in our organs and the organs themselves to cooperate, moment by moment, to create a functioning responsive body.

We trust the Sun to rise, the seasons to follow one another and the various physical laws such as gravity to continue behaving as they do. As children we take steps, occasionally falling—would we do so if we were entirely sure that life and learning was just a matter of luck?

• 1. Instead of using the word “control” it may be helpful for you to substitute words such as “allow” “attract” “create” or “choose.” For example, you may prefer “ ... we subconsciously attract ...”

[Excerpt of Be and Become, Chapter Two - copyright Steaphen Pirie, 2008]

Sorting priorities

I have heard it said on numerous occasions that Benjamin Franklin would often deliberately drift off into sleep by holding a rock above a metal bucket, so that as soon as he nodded off he would drop the rock, wake and recall his creative intuitive thoughts.

That would also explain why, before drifting off to sleep, I could imagine the most eloquent, rational dialogue with all sorts of people, entirely contrary to my normal waking experience of not being able to voice my opinions easily, unencumbered by self doubt.

It would also explain why new and creative ideas and solutions to problems often came to me during my morning shower when I would often drift off into a reverie under the gentle massage of warm water. In recent years I have come to learn that many people experience a heightened creativity when relaxing or showering such as highly successful author Arthur Hailey who admitted “There’s something about that hot water that makes thinking easy.”1

It appeared that by relaxing (either via meditation, daydreaming, or some activity which engenders a relaxed state) we become more open to intuitive, precognitive thoughts. It was almost as if the more diffused my focus of attention (thoughts) the more open I was to creative ideas. Maybe in being relaxed and diffused, my thoughts somehow spread themselves out into the cosmos, connecting me with other places, people, ideas and times?

In addition, I learned that dreaming during sleep was also a valuable source for intuitive thoughts and solutions to problems. In one series of meditation workshops I had learned to recall and program dreams to provide solutions to problems. I learned how to recall all my dreams throughout the night by waking after each sleep cycle and noting down my dreams in a book I had placed beside the bed.2

This tendency towards activities that enable the mind to relax and be creative is common to many great scientists and successful people. Einstein was renowned for his avid pursuit of sailing and music, both of which helped his creative thinking.

And in reference to his liking for sailing:

Along with Einstein, other famous scientists also appeared to be creative and inventive when relaxed:

Arthur Koestler (having forgotten the source/author) wrote in his book “The Act of Creation”:

In his book, The Achievement Factors,Eugene Griessman relates how Nobel Laureate Francis Crick went about being creative:

Victor Frankl, well known psychotherapist and survivor of Nazi concentration camps observed:

In a similar manner, Griessman makes the observation that:

Letting go of the desired outcome seems to be a key component to creativity and success. I expect this is the origin of the saying that a watched kettle does not boil. Somehow things seemed to happen best when I didn’t dwell upon them. The creative process seemed very much a matter of forgetting about the desired outcome. This “forgetting” could not be feigned by deliberately thinking of something else if in the background one kept worrying about the problem. The creative process seemed to require a genuine confidence and ease—there was a certain “relaxed expectedness” required. The more I focused on the desired outcome, goal, answer or solution the more I seemed to push it away from me.

My creativity, and that of the famous scientists, appeared to be the result of a process of invitation and never the result of a request or demand. It did no good pushing myself to be creative.

This creative process also occurred, as one might expect, in the business world.

Don Wallace, in his review of work done by Steve Devore of SyberVision studying successful entrepreneurs, noted:

So it appeared, at least according to some research, that successful business people also managed to straddle this strange paradox of desiring certain outcomes and then letting go of those desired outcomes.

I began to understand the many examples of Eastern sages’ advice about the need to give up desire although, in fundamental terms, I couldn’t reconcile this advice with life’s great thrust of desire and enthusiasm. Nevertheless, there did seem to be a sort of paradoxical duality to life—desire, but non-desire.

Life seemed to be a continual process of having to focus then relax or to desire then “letgo.” And it appeared that this “letting go” somehow encouraged one’s intuitive awareness (“gut feelings”). From my research it appears that many great scientists, inventors and successful business people rely upon this “sideways” inventiveness.

Intuition seems to work through such mechanisms (in a similar manner in which you don’t directly stare at a star in the night sky in order to better see it). It’s interesting to note that the value of intuition is frequently undervalued, if not entirely dismissed, by modern science and mainstream Western society. And yet it shouldn’t be for it seems to be an integral part of any new idea or solution to a problem. In his book, “The Conscious Universe,” Dean Radin noted that:

Koestler came to similar conclusions about the central role of intuition in inventiveness:

If “subjective, irrational” feelings such as intuition (gut feelings) are such a key component to the discovery of new ideas, inventions, theories, products and services, why does there appear to be no concerted effort among the populace to develop these processes, senses or feelings? Why aren't we taught how to be intuitive in school or in our universities?

In my business training experience there are few brave souls who venture such training for fear of ridicule and being perceived as being “space cadets.” Such abilities as intuition and precognition are not generally considered “real” by such pillars of mainstream Western society as science, the media and our educational institutions.

My reading, research and personal experienced revealed a common thread -- that intuitive information comes first through one’s feelings. During the “remote viewing” research conducted at the Stanford Research Institute in the seventies by physicist Harold Puthoff, Puthoff observed that:

• 1. Jenny Tabakoff, “Hailey’s flight to success,” The Sydney Morning Herald, John Fairfax Holdings Ltd, Sydney, 31 January 1998, Spectrum section page 11.
• 2. A sleep cycle is the transition from waking consciousness (beta brain wave frequency) through the various phases of sleep. A complete cycle typically lasts around 90 minutes.
• 3. Ronald W. Clark Einstein, The Life and Times, Hodder and Stoughton London 1979, page 115.
• 4. Clark, page 115.
• 5. Arthur Koestler, The Act of Creation, Pan Books (Picador Edition) London 1978, page 211, quoting Beverage, W.I.B., The Art of Scientific Investigation, Heinemann, London 1950, pages 73- 74.
• 6. Koestler, The Act of Creation, page 145.
• 7. B. Eugene Griessman, The Achievement Factors, Avant Books, San Marcos, CA 1990, page 75.
• 8. Mihaly Czikszentmihalyi, Flow: The Psychology of Happiness, Rider London 1992, page 2 (citing Victor Frankl, Man’s Search For Meaning).
• 9. Griessman, page 75.
• 10. Success Magazine, Success Magazine Company, August 1989, Hal Holdings Corporation, New York, page 63.
• 11. Dean Radin, The Conscious Universe: The Scientific Truth of Psychic Phenomena, HarperCollins Publishers, New York 1997, page 200.
• 12. Koestler, The Act of Creation, page 147.
• 13. Omega Science Digest, Magazine Promotions, Sydney 1994, page 55 (Omega Science Digest published by Magazine Promotions by permission of The Hearst Corporation, New York).