Wednesday, September 30, 2015

Recording of the 9/29/15 Interview

Here is the link to the recording of last night's show with Michael Johnson.

McHenry says, "That's my Dad!"

Autumn Evening Nap


Sunday, September 27, 2015

Upcoming Live Interview

On Pararock TV - August returns for more lively and exploratory conversation with Michael Johnson!
NOTE THAT THE CORRECT DATE IS TUESDAY 9/29, NOT 9/28!


Saturday, September 05, 2015

Qh3 Podcast Interview with August Goforth







Join us for this fascinating interview which touches on some of the emerging ethical issues that surround the transition of new paradigm healers into the field of mainstream mental health.


Grazie Mille to Jerry Guara for his pioneering exploration through these podcasts.   If you liked this interview, and would like to hear more  -- please contact Jerry at Qh3.podomatic.com and let him know.

Tuesday, September 01, 2015

From the Archives - Happy Journeying

[First posted 19 Decebmer 2010]
Friend and reader Sydney comments:

I have been reading Douglas Fawcett and Raynor C. Johnson.Both writers as you know discuss in their books, Imaginism. There is a discussion on "The Plurality of Lives". Tim in The Risen appears to be against this concept.Yet the evidence for a"bottom up" "top down" soul development does seem to be there.Also the idea of consciring instead of consciousness seems a good one. How do you feel about the theory of Imaginism in general and in particular Fawcett's idea of Plurality of Lives. If you could also give some opinion on consciring.

RC Johnson, who was born at the turn of the 20th Century, was not only a "christian reincarnationist" and a mystic, but had a PhD in physics from the University of London. Tim suggests that RC's scientific knowledge base informed his theories of evidential pre-existance and reincarnation, resting on Newtonian physics that applied only to the macro world of physicality; the micro and sub-micro worlds of quantum mechanics were virtually unknown then, compared to today's advances in understanding. Heisenberg's principle of indeterminacy had only been formulated around 1925. Even then, quantum mechanics clearly began evidencing that the world was not the world anymore. Most scientists at his time, including physicists, struggled with letting their minds accept what their physical senses would not. Many still do, especially as quantum mechanics has now emerged in the biological sciences, including DNA exploration.

Tim's brilliant exposition on how one can still have a reincarnational experience without actually "reincarnating" is one such example of the notion of multiplicity of worlds. Is this the same as "plurarity"? We suppose that would be up for debate. Tim reminds readers that we cannot debate those personal answers that have been arrived at from within; quantum mechanics supports the idea that everyone's world is a unique world, i.e., "authentic". We can't debate personal authenticity.

RC, along with many theosophists, kabbalists and other modalities that embrace pre-existence ideas as fact, appears to have juggled such notions on a polarized continuum - a very black and white way of experiencing the universe. We encourage the exploration of all that lies in between the black and the white. One of my guides, Boris Pasternak, is quite intrigued by your mention of "bottom up/top down" soul development, and sees it as "looking through the glass, darkly" (his words.) He notes that "this up/down view is also a polarized attempt to rationalize behavior from the viewpoint that there is and must be some kind of 'struggle' to develop within a hierarchal structure. The old-new message reemerging in the 21 C. is that struggle is not necessary, only unkind."

At the Yule party I was at last evening, one of the many lovely people there (a psychic, of course!) commented how happy she was to see the words "21st Century" on the cover of our book. "This is where we are, and where we need to keep our focus now, on the new language and new thought!" she added. We agree.

The language of RC's books are even more thick and slow-going than that of The Risen, not helped by his mysticism which made things even more gooey, however delicious. He advises the reader about this by warning that he is going to make up his own words to try to describe the indescribable, such as "conscire" - which is an interesting idea, but difficult to get. Obviously, he understood it -- or did he? At best, he exemplifies the way of self-exploration of one's inner worlds toward understanding them. Often it's like deep-sea diving and coming back to the surface and unable to fully describe what was experienced in the unseen depths. (see Fawcett's Light of the Universe as an example, and good luck!)

It is clear that RC’s ideas were informed and supported by his religious beliefs, which got him some hot water with the Methodist church. Religious beliefs, as we are sure you realize, often create hierarchal systems of judgment, such as reincarnation. Johnson practiced an eclectic mixture of Christianity, Hinduism, yoga and other eastern religions, and belonged to a group called the Santiniketan Park Association, which he began hosting in the early 1960s.
 
RC would probably be blown away and then enthusiastically embrace Pim van Lommels new book,  (which August highly recommends) Consciousness Beyond Life: The Science of the Near-Death Experience which finally begins to put the ideas of quantum physics into comprehensible language. It can be seen that RC's theory of imaginism was a launching pad for some of the Risen material in terms of finding language that worked in practical yet mystical ways, and yet it will still be challenging if one struggles with it. But what would happen if one stopped struggling to incorporate others' ideas (including that of the Risen) and instead got quiet enough to hear the answers within? As we continuously reassure the reader, the answer is always within, and it's always there. Your questions, dear Sydney, are signposts pointing the way. Happy journeying!
 
Maude: I should like to change into a sunflower most of all. They're so tall and simple. What flower would you like to be?
Harold: I don't know. One of these, maybe.
Maude: Why do you say that?
Harold: Because they're all alike.
Maude: Oooh, but they're not. Look. See, some are smaller, some are fatter, some grow to the left, some to the right, some even have lost some petals. All kinds of observable differences. You see, Harold, I feel that much of the world's sorrow comes from people who are this,
[she points to a daisy]
Maude: Yet allow themselves be treated as that.
[she gestures to a field of daisies]
[Cut to a shot of a field of gravestones in a military cemetery].
(From Harold & Maude, 1971)