I'm writing early in the morning because I want to touch on a particular topic--I may write another entry, or add to this one, if I have an accurate psychic reading at the psychic fair I'm going to be attending, this afternoon.
Yesterday, I finished watching a three-hour lecture by alternative theorist Michael Tellinger on YouTube. I would say he is more of a theorist and advocate of alternative paradigms, than a researcher, inasmuch as he is all over the map, without delving far enough into any one topic to prove it. At least, judging by his presentation. He cites researchers who have done so in each area, whom I haven't taken the time to study--but I think I will go back over that lecture again, take notes on these cited sources, and explore them further.
Like myself, he has set aside the world view and a priori assumptions of materialism, and has taken up those of mysticism, meaning, esotericism. At one point he quotes the mystical dictum, "As above, so below"; and he understands that God is the original Source, and that the creation originated with the Word, i.e., with sound or vibration. And that everything, at its base, is energy, vibration, and magnetism.
This accords with the teachings of the spiritual masters I've studied, in this lifetime, as my conceptual base (rather than the plethora of lesser philosophers I studied during my 19th-century lifetime as Mathew Franklin Whittier). So Michael has made the "jump," or "flip," if you prefer. And because his root assumptions are now trued, there are two effects: 1) he sees how snowed we are as a culture (whether deliberately or "organically"); and 2) he entertains radically different explanations of reality.
There are things he accepts as fact; or, at least as being plausible; that I find too much of a stretch. For example, he's a "moon landing denier." He says there is evidence that filmmaker Stanley Kubrick was hired to stage the entire thing, and that the proof lies in a comparison of filming styles. I haven't looked into this. But I do know that there are astronauts who, themselves, turned alternative theorist--and I don't know that any of them made this claim. One would think they would have, if it's true.
Then there is his evidence, which he interprets as being skeletal fragments of an ancient mile-high giant. But these are supposedly mud fossils. You get a mud fossil when an animal, or a person, is suddenly caught in a mud slide. But there are no mud slides large enough to submerge a mile-high man. It would barely tickle his toe--and you'd think that this would have occurred to Michael, before he stood in front of an audience (and a camera) and presented it.
It's this kind of logical embarrassment that I try very, very hard to avoid in my study. Because it only takes one, or at most two, to discredit you altogether.
All of this reminds me of Mathew's review of a book by psychic Andrew Jackson Davis. This was before Mathew and Davis met personally (the account is in Davis' books, and it occurred in 1854). Mathew took a middle of the road attitude toward Davis, as I am taking with Tellinger. Since I have all of Mathew's published works digitized, now, all I have to do is to remember which publication a particular work was in, and I should be able to search it by keyword...
I found it quickly enough, and I'm trying to decide how much of it to quote. I'm always aware of the possibility that I'm boring even my handful of readers, to the point that they'll click off to something else. Unfortunately, my photographic copy of this is in snippets, taken with my cell phone. It appears in the Aug. 5, 1847 edition of the Boston "Chronotype." It's a letter in the year-long series of weekly or bi-weekly letters Mathew wrote from New York City under the barely-disguised signature, "X.F.W." to Elizur Wright, editor of the Chronotype. He is commenting on Davis' newly-released book, "The Principles of Nature, Her Divine Revelations and a Voice to Mainkind." Mathew says "It purports to be communicated to the world by and through Andrew Jackson Davis, the Poughkeepsie 'Seer' and 'Clairvoyant.'" I'll lift out those paragraphs which illustrate my point as to Mathew's balanced approach:
This book is written in a uniformly elevated, and often eloquent style. It explains the profoundest subjects with great clearness, and frequently with most remarkable felicity of illustration, and will excite observation as well by its intrinsic character as by the manner of its composition. The latter feature is the one, however, about which the most will be said, and which will be especially subjected to sober skepticism as well as to jeering railery and irrational abuse.
* * * * *
The book thus purports to be a revelation of truths important to human welfare from the extra-natural to the natural world. It was delivered by an uneducated and ignorant person entirely unacquainted beforehand with the subjects of which it treats, in obedience not to any impulse of his own, but to an irresistible impression made upon him, as it is claimed, during his magnetic trances. It certainly presents a problem not easy to be solved upon the hypothesis that it is a pure imposture. For it is impossible to conceive that an ignorant shoemaker's boy, or that the persons who have been engaged with him, could compose a work of such a character as this. Not that there are in it no faults such as reason must instantly condemn; but there are also in it many things at which reason must confess her admiration and astonishment, however difficult she may find it to admit the fundamental claim put forth in its behalf. At any rate, however, is it not time for a thorough unprejudiced and scientific investigation of the phenomena connected with what is commonly known as animal magnetism, instead of artibrarily setting it down as a mere delusion?
That book is available for free download from Archive.org. Davis is all but forgotten, today. As I recall skimming some of his books, he had the idea that the planets were inhabited, which we now would consider utter nonsense. Then again, there seems to be evidence that Mars was once inhabited, and that that civilization destroyed itself. I found enough evidence by enlarging a high-res image from the Rover, to convince myself, personally, that this bears further (honest) investigation.
The difference between Tellinger's work, and mine, is that I have zeroed in on one small area, and "worked" it to death, as it were. It's true that I comment on lots of things in this blog, because when you make the "flip" to the esoteric world view, you start seeing stuff--to put it mildly. Everything based on Materialism is profoundly screwed up; and the efforts to retain Materialism in the face of ever-mounting contradictions, forces the Materialists into ever-more profound levels of irrationality and subterfuge.
Whether what we see of the moon, today, is a giant hologram--as Tellinger suggests--is another matter.* Talk about a cover-up! I did once have a very strange, very vivid dream, which seemed to be of the future. There were advertisements being projected onto the clouds--hugely annoying. But the evidence Tellinger presents--of a scan line running across the face of the moon, displacing small details in close-up view--is far more likely to be an electronic anomaly of the recording process, than evidence of a hologram. Even if the source of the footage claims it was taken, say, with a film camera, I think it's more plausible that they were perpetrating a hoax, than that this is a hologram. There are a lot of amateur astronomers out there with good equipment--they would be able to tell the difference very quickly, I think. Even if there were technology capable of producing a moon-sized hologram in the sky that remained viewable from every point on the globe. As Elrond said to Gandalf, "Our list of allies grows thin."
And herein lies another difference between my work and Tellinger's--I have tried my best to shoot down my own theories. I don't see Tellinger doing that.
At any rate, I took the one research question, "Was I, in fact, Mathew Franklin Whittier in the 19th century?", and I dug and dug and dug and dug. The less feedback I got, the deeper I dug, and the longer I kept at it. I quickly found that I had these literary attributions to deal with, including a few famous works. Those, also, I had to dig deeply into. You know how sometimes there are what you might call "nested contingencies?" You suddenly get the whim to cook pancakes; but in order to cook pancakes, you have to buy a griddle. But to do that, you have to drive to the store, and your car is low on gas. But you can't buy gas, because your checking account is low. So you try to shift some money from your savings into your checking, online, but you've forgotten your password to your online banking. In order to get your password, you have to click the "Have you forgotten your password?" link. But you're not receiving your e-mail properly; and you can't figure out how to get your e-mail working again, because you don't really understand POP accounts and all of that. So you have to look up online how to do that. You can't figure it out, and so you're going to have to pay somebody--and now you are in a circular series of nested contingencies...
Meanwhile, all you wanted was to cook some damn pancakes.
Just so, when I dug into Mathew's hidden legacy in these period newspapers, I found that he signed almost everything with pseudonyms. I could identify his work by style, but not by signature. As a routine precaution, I would Google the interior lines, or investigate the pseudonym. Quite often, I would be stunned to find that the poem, or the series, was claimed by historians for another author. And yet, I was sure I was right about it. So that required that I set aside my discussion of the work in question, as Mathew's, and pursue this attribution problem.
Mathew's authorship of the "Quails" letters, in the 1849-52 Boston "Weekly Museum," took me, what, something like 200 pages to prove in Mathew's favor, in my first book. That's the size of a respectable book, in itself. But the "Quails" letters amount to a weekly public diary. They have him asserting that he's personal friends with Oliver Wendell Holmes;* they have him meeting with Victor Hugo, in Hugo's home in Paris. They have him, seemingly, acting as a secret liaison for William Lloyd Garrison, and reporting his contacts through the column, as though they were just friendly social calls. They also have him being gifted a copy of Edgar Allan Poe's "Ultima Thule" portrait, by the photographer, and commenting on it. And they have so much more, including his personality, beliefs, values and convictions. This series was absolutely crucial for my research. I finally destroyed the scam of Dodge's authorship (and it was a deliberate scam, which Mathew played along with, presumably to deepen his cover). But will anyone reading that book, hang in there with a digression long enough to be a book in its own right? I don't know. It's pretty interesting, but just the thought of it might deter most people from buying it.
I had no choice. I couldn't just give an opinion and one implausible piece of evidence, like Tellinger does concerning the moon being a hologram. I needed to nail the lid on Dodge's coffin, so that there was no question that the column was Mathew's work. And the same goes for about 12 or 13 other false claims--including those by Charles Dickens and Edgar Allan Poe. This brings up the point that the extended verbiage of my book is not fluff. It is all substance.
I think this depends on whether I am taken seriously. No-one who doesn't take me seriously, would bother to read this evidence all the way through. But--and I've used this analogy before--there are people who "don't like elves," who won't read J.R.R. Tolkien's "Lord of the Rings" series. That's actually considerably shorter than my book, extending, as I recall, to about 1,200 pages. But the point is, for people who gladly immerse themselves in that work, the ending comes far too soon. I truly think that there will be people, someday, who feel the same about my books. Because there is that intrinsic fascination in them, once one is open-minded; Mathew's work, peppered throughout, is exceptional, and I still write well, today. So I suppose it's like aquatic diving. If one is averse to swimming under water, one might be willing to dip under a few seconds only; but a scuba diver would stay under for a couple of hours, and feel it was far too short a dive. (I don't know anything about diving, so I'm just grabbing those figures out the air, by way of analogy.)
My work is for intellectual scuba divers. In this age of memes and sound-bites, there are not so many divers. But I think this trend of superficiality, of skimming the surface of life, will have its day, and the pendulum will swing back to deep study. At that time, my books may be discovered, and gain a surprising popularity. It used to be, in the 19th century and even later, that a reader would gladly pick up a lengthy tome, and immerse him or herself in it. Now, I think we are more in-line with comedian Emo Phillips, who says that he loves to curl up in front of the fireplace with a big book like "War and Peace." He says that a book like that can keep a fire going for two hours!
Stephen Sakellarios, M.S.
P.S. Okay, I had the past-life psychic reading at the psychic fair, and I'm just going to tack on my impressions here for anyone who may be interested enough to read down this far. I'm going to be a bit brief, if possible, because I am so physically burned out from the stress of this last round of research and archiving, that my health is being adversely affected. Before we begin, I gave only my first name, and at least for the initial past-life impressions, she didn't know who I was nor did she know anything about my past-life claims.
This woman gives past life/health readings, and she asked me which I was interested in. I said "both," but that I was more interested in the past-life material. That was a mistake, because she was all about the health. She started out with my crown chakra being depressed or subdued--asked if I have been on medication, whether I smoke marijuana, etc. I told her it's stress, that I didn't want to give away too much by going into it, but that I knew all about that. But she persisted, going into my diet, my emotional (and by inference, physical) loneliness, etc. etc. etc. I mean, not at the outset, but she kept returning to these themes, which I know all about, and don't really want advice on. Give me three weeks of not trying to key in and proofread over a hundred newspaper articles at breakneck speed, plus revising and editing a complicated book, and I think I'll feel, and "read," a lot better.
As for emotional loneliness, let me tell you, since I've been with Abby, it's the first time in my life I haven't felt lonely. But this lady was reading on a physical level. Need I elaborate?
On the other hand, she did prove herself genuine. She was given (by those spirits working with her, and my own guides, supposedly), a lifetime some thousands of years ago in Egypt, in which I was a slave. But I was a slave with advanced understanding, who was sad that I wasn't appreciated as such. Finally, I spoke up or spoke out, and was, she says, "eviscerated." Of course you recall that Mathew Franklin Whittier was a fiercely dedicated abolitionist, and risked his neck for that cause.
I should be clear, here, that she got the scenario from the spirits she was working with, but I asked her the question regarding why I was killed, because I was fishing for something I had remembered under hypnosis. When you do that, I think you generally get the psychic's "best guess," not something that was given to her. I think, in hindsight, the spirits had withheld the part that would have matched up with my own memories, because it would have been too strongly evidential, and they have to have special permission to do that. I'm not just extrapolating this from today's session--I've seen it happen, before. The accuracy rate goes up if you stick to what the psychic is being given--it drops way down when you start asking questions. And these kinds of readings are sometimes exasperating, because the spirits seem to withhold precisely that "clincher" which would nail it, as proof.
What I had remembered under hypnosis, many years ago, now, was my one and only glimpse of an Egyptian lifetime; and that was, that the soul which would become Abby, was a young woman owned by a man who didn't have a relationship with her, per se, but simply considered her his property. I ran away with her, she died in the attempt (perhaps, a fall off a high place), and I don't know what happened to me subsequently, but it probably wasn't good, and very likely I didn't survive it. (This makes far more sense, for an evisceration scenario, than simply daring to speak up about something, which normally might earn one a flogging or a similar punishment.)
But I have also extrapolated a lifetime in ancient Rome, wherein I was a philosopher, but became slave to a Roman official, perhaps a senator or something like that. The tenor of the relationship was a kind of warm (if obligatory) relationship, in which the official didn't really understand how much I knew. And, in fact, I am pretty sure he is one of my eldercare clients, today. Or will be for another week, because I'm switching jobs, but I still have two more assignments with him.
This theme has come up numerous times, for different past lives, and in different combinations of circumstances. But always, the business of being ahead of my time, of not being appreciated, and then of being cut down somehow, or shunned (another form of cutting someone down). The theme with the girl keeps coming up, as well. In Mathew's lifetime, he eloped with Abby, stealing her from her father, a marquis. But he couldn't support her and protect her, being severely and aggressively shunned as they were, for their advanced beliefs and understanding, and so she died of consumption after only a few years--apparently, with her father being unwilling to help them. Same pattern, different set of circumstances.
I told the psychic that I am experiencing a variation of the same pattern, today, and then the question became "How am I blocking myself?" Where she took it, was the physical memory of my body--the memory of being killed for speaking out. But as Mathew, I avoided being killed, and instead, was shunned and my work was ripped off. The frustration is the same all the way through.
So, am I blocking myself? I told her that in this lifetime, I speak out but nobody pays any attention. But in true New Age form, she was quite certain that I am unconsciously blocking myself.
In the lobby of this event, was a fellow seated on a platform playing sitar. I was the only person, that I could see, who took a seat near him and listened to his music. Otherwise, he might as well have been live New Age Musak. I probably could arrange free speaking events. But I am pretty sure I would be like that sitar player. One or two people in a group of 25 chairs, one of them a kid fidgeting.
This psychic didn't seem to have any belief in, or resonance with, Abby, even after I showed her Abby's locket. She kept pressing me to pay attention to higher guides--I told her "Abby is plenty high," and it went in one ear and out the other. She wanted me to do physical spiritual practices--I told her those weren't requried in my spiritual path. We finally agreed on praying out loud. I told her I talk aloud to Abby all the time--nothing. I got the impression Abby didn't like her, and didn't give her any inkling of herself, at all. This woman apparently thinks my health would improve if I ate red meat, and got into relationships, i.e., a physical one. (No wonder Abby doesn't like her. It's hard enough to do this with encouragement, no less with someone trying to undermine it.)
So it was very frustrating, on one level. (A variation, perhaps, of the frustration I have experienced, in different configurations, for centuries.) We finally agreed to disagree as regards the place of the physical body in spirituality. I say it's a vehicle--she seems to think it has equal weight in itself. But perhaps she hasn't seen people who are physically and mentally falling apart in their advanced age. The body is not a thing to give equal weight to. Physical life is short, and the body is a vehicle to get done what we need to get done, here. It is nothing in itself, in my opinion. If it must be sacrificed for the higher work, then it is to be sacrificed.
But I must stop here, because if I don't recover from this stress reaction in time to start my new job, I am going to sacrifice mine while I still have work to do. As for whether I'm blocking myself, I'm not seeing it. I have been "speaking out" daily on this website, and quite effectively, I think. What's holding me back is integrity. I could play to the crowd, water down my information, and "go commercial" if I wanted to--and I'll bet I could draw a crowd, and some money, as well. The more integrity you express, the longer it takes for the public to come around. The more you cut corners, the quicker it happens.
I don't cut corners.--S
*Which has its own significance, as regards whether Mathew could have been one of the unnamed young men around Charles Dickens when Dickens visited Boston in 1842 (we know that Holmes was there).
Audio opening this page: "Venus Isle"
by Eric Johnson, from the album, "Venus Isle"