Recently, I made the decision to spot-check my e-book, "Mathew Franklin Whittier in his own words," for two weeks, before considering it completed. I had spent several months archiving all of Mathew's published works and incorporating any new insights into the book. But then, one week into this final process, it occurred to me that perhaps I hadn't digitized one or two pieces. When I looked them up, lo and behold, I found three new ones. These were significant finds (I won't try to explain why, here.) So that required some major revisions, and I've decided to reset the clock. I'll be spot-checking for another two weeks.
I remember, when I did some proofreading* for a scholar named Ward Parks, on a re-issue of Meher Baba's "Discourses," that he remarked to me, "It's amazing that no matter how much I proofread this book, I can still go back in and find errors." That's been my experience with my own book, as well. Of course, I can't afford a professional proofreader, and one's eye tends to miss errors in one's own writing.
I follow the Facebook feed for my chosen presidential candidate, Bernie Sanders. I don't agree with everything he says, but I deeply admire his character and commitment. Specifically, he was quoted as wanting to fight corporate greed and wage disparity. To me, this goes deeper than class struggles--it goes (as I commented) to the rise of "Social Darwinism," which in turn was let loose upon society because organized religion lost to Darwinism, based on philosophical Materialism. In other words, religious people knew that greed was a sin. But when organized religion was discredited by materialistic science--specifically, by Darwinism--that opened the door for "Social Darwinism," which rationalized and justified corporate greed on an unprecedented scale. It made it normal. If your thing is power, there is nothing to stop you if life is all designed as a contest for "survival of the fittest," and people are just animals. Nothing that Humanists can contrive by way of a philosophy of caring for each other, is going to be able to combat this, so long as the absurd error of Materialism holds sway. Humanism is no replacement for religion--it is only a stop-gap, while the encrusted old spirituality is replaced by a fresh new dispensation.
So, I said that what is needed is rational inquiry into the spiritual world. Well, someone--I don't know their affiliation--shot back the dogmatic Materialistic party line. I wish I'd copied it. Maybe I can find it, again (though I don't want to be tempted to get into it with him--I responded that I didn't want to argue it on Bernie's forum). ... Nope, can't find it. It was something to the effect that "Science is science."
You can't reason with such a person. My work isn't intended for them (however much part of me would like to debate them). They go into dogmatic la-la land, and as I know from trying to convince my mother, who has dementia, of anything, it's useless.
But as I spot-check my book, and see how fun the detective work is--I've been watching "Bones" re-runs, and it's every bit as sophsticated as the detective logic in that show--I begin to wonder whether I'm just not very good at explaining and presenting my own work.** I don't believe in ad copy hype, but maybe I'm really not getting this across.
So I thought I'd try again, for any new people.
I have almost total amnesia. All of us do. Having found a real past-life match in recent history, still, all I have are a few snapshots of cognitive memory--chiefly where strong emotion was involved--and full access to Mathew Franklin Whittier's feelings and emotions. How do you prove that this is real, and not imagined?
Well, the easy way would be if he had a diary and reams of correspondence. Supposing it could be proven that I was never exposed to that material before, I could simply set down all my impressions in one column, and then check them against facts in the diary and correspondence, in a second column.
This wasn't possible, because while the first condition was met--i.e., I can prove that I never had access to Mathew's life history when I set forth my impressions--the second condition wasn't. I was able to find copies of something like 15 letters written by Mathew; and, initially, based on a 1941 thesis written about his life, and a few anecdotes mentioned by his famous brother, John Greenleaf Whittier and others connected with his legacy, a very sparse biography. Not only was it sparse, but it was severely skewed. To be blunt about it, Mathew was marginalized and slandered.
So I had a few letters, and a prejudiced, sparse biography. I also had something like 60 of his published works, representing the only character he was known to have created, the Archie Bunker prototype, "Ethan Spike."
Even here, I was careful to record which impressions I had prior to being exposed to this information, and which came after. But over the course of seven years' research, I was in for a big surprise. Mathew had actually published under something like 30 pseudonyms (many of them one-offs or brief series). So far I have over 550 pieces, at last count. And a great deal of this stuff contains veiled autobiography. In the case of his travelogue, it wasn't even veiled--except that he was writing under a secret pseudonym, so that nobody knew it was he.
This was exceptionally good work--so good, in fact, that several people claimed it for themselves. Mathew couldn't fight back, because he was working under cover (as it seems) for William Lloyd Garrison, as an Abolitionist. So as far as the historical record is concerned, he didn't write anything but the "Ethan Spike" character.
This is very good news for me--because if I can restore the correct attribution to this lost work, I can use the material therein to verify my past-life impressions, with no possibility of my ever having been exposed to it previously. It's a unique opportunity, I would say.
The detective work is fascinating, and Mathew's writing is fantastic. I am going through the book, now, to be sure that my own writing reads as smoothly as possible. When you read poor writing, your mind is constantly stopping, going back, and trying to make sense of this or that phrase. I am eliminating these "hitches" as much as possible. I can't dumb down the detective work; but then, people seem to like that level of sophistication in "Bones."
Do you know how they do it in that program? They show you the most disgusting corpses they can manufacture; they have a murder to solve; and they have sexual or romantic relationships going on among the characters. It's a formula, and it works. When that starts getting stale, they introduce some outlandish plot like a supervillain.
I suppose, if they were to present just the detective work, itself, kind of like on "Genealogy Roadshow," it wouldn't be nearly as popular.
And on the subject of genealogy, that is not the way to find out who you are. You are not your ancestors--you are your past incarnations. Past-life research is the real genealogy.
This book should be very popular among intelligent people who want answers and enjoy a good read. I think the reason it isn't, is that it simply offends people's reality. The almost complete shut-out I'm getting, is more like the response I got from that fellow on Facebook. It's sheer prejudice, arrogant prejudice--underneath which, is abject terror. It's sort of like looking at those corpses on "Bones," except it forces you to come to the opposite conclusion--you can't, actually, be that body at all. You must be something else--something that can use the body like a space suit, and then take on another one.
Just as jarring for the Materialist, but perhaps with a happier ending.
Stephen Sakellarios, M.S.
*On the Table of Contents and the Appendix.
*I think if people would let themselves get into this book, they would ask me, "Why didn't you tell me that these outrageously cool finds were in there?" I'd have to answer, "I did tell you, but you thought it was just hype, like everybody else uses, so you didn't take me seriously."
Music opening this page: "I Imagine Myself" by the author