"To Touch the Living Roots of Possibility"

(Read this work or return the Many Things Index or Asbury Index)

"Experiments could be made, I believe, that would demonstrate and perhaps measure pure psychic involvement in the vicissitudes of quotidian existence. However, we shall have to content ourselves, as individuals, with an appreciation of the outcomes, small as they may be, of our practical theory in its humblest application. The reader of this monograph should find this more than sufficient." - Cecil De Sanctis (late 1890s)

Quantum physics sees the universe as an arena of possibility, probability or indeterminacy in which any of a "zillion" events can happen depending on the presence of the conscious mind. Just as there is no color without the eye; just as there is no sound without the ear, just as there would be no nausea without politicians; so (according to some quantum physicists) is there no clear, fixed reality without the mind of an activating observer. The idea is not new; in fact, it is hundreds of years old; but quantum physics has moved significantly toward the first scientific investigation of it, taking consciousness as both the perceiver and "creator" of the world.

It would be a very lengthy task to suggest what happens in the basic relationship between mind and world; and, anyway (aren't you glad) it is beyond the scope of this document (further, I should add, quantum physics ultimately sees no distinction between mind and world - suspiciously like a psychotic, if you ask me). But what I do wish to concentrate on is the smaller events in our daily lives and examine the relationship between them and ourselves.

1) Negating the Negative: The Straight Method

Most of what happens in our daily lives contains a large dose of randomness. This state of affairs often runs contrary to our own sensibilities, or what we would like to see. For example, let's say you are going to play one of those 40-number "pick-six" lotteries. You probably would not pick the numbers 1-2-3-4-5-6. While it's not impossible for these numbers to come out in this order, we don't count on it happening - it's too great a coincidence. In other words, we believe the world of randomness works against coincidences (or against arrangements that reflect human sense or sensibilities). Too bad!

Of the many possible things that can happen to us, it would seem that the more randomness is involved, the more an undesirable (or at least neutral) event will come our way - unless, of course, we use our knowledge to intervene. As in gaming, the odds are usually contrary to our choice - especially if we do nothing. (Let that be a lesson to ya!)

To put it another way, there are undesirable possibilities in the universe that could be coming our way right now. There are good ones, too; but desirable things are more selective in the human world and often come into being by our getting involved.

THE IDEA HERE IS FOR YOU TO BECOME INVOLVED IN THE CONTROLLING (OR THE ABORTING) OF NEGATIVE POSSIBILITIES. CAUTION CAUTION CAUTION: HERE'S WHERE YOU MIGHT LOOSE YOUR WHITS AND BECOME A RAVING LOON. READ AT YOUR OWN RISK!)

When we discussed synchronicity, we learned that there can be meaningful coincidences in the world - some bad, some good, some neutral. I believe that synchronicity on a small scale is much more common than most people realize. Our day may be filled with little metaphors, reproductions of other events, and other hidden coincidental connections of every sort.

SEE WHAT I MEAN? HIGH PARANOIA ZONE HERE!

In what follows, it is not necessary to be aware of all such signs.

WHEW!

The larger ones will do - particularly the verbal ones or the mental ones. With the right kind of mindset, one acquires a particular sensitivity to the possibility of a synchronistic experience.

For example, here is Synchronicity Experience Number 1 again, which I have re-written here for easy availability:

You are talking to a friend. In the course of the conversation, for whatever reason, you mention Roger, a mutual friend, whom you haven't seen or thought about in years. "I wonder what ever happened to Roger," you say. "Gosh - I haven't seen him in ages. I wonder what he's doing." Well...the next day you happen to be walking downtown, doing some errands, and who do who bump into? - ROGER!

Now since we are presently dealing with negative possibilities, let us say that Roger is someone you DO NOT want to see. (He's a very annoying person who makes your life miserable.)

There is something about the occurrence of Roger's name. Rather, it is the FEELING you got from his name... You did not like it. It sounded suspicious suddenly coming up in the conversation like that, especially after you hadn't thought of him in a long while. You're sensitive to it, you feel the name with its threat attached. (Hey, chill out!)

How to erase the synchronistic possibility of encountering Roger? WHEN THE NAME ROGER COMES UP, YOU HAVE TO DO SOMETHING THAT I CALL "CLICKING IT OFF".

YOU HAVE TO CLICK OFF THE POSSIBILITY THAT ROGER MIGHT BECOME A SYNCHRONISTIC EXPERIENCE FOR YOU.

How do you do this? Very easy! YOU MERELY THINK ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF ROGER BECOMING A SYNCHRONISTIC EXPERIENCE. It takes a fraction of a second, and no one knows you have done anything.

BEST OF ALL...YOU WON'T BE SURPRISED BY ROGER! (YOU HOPE!)

I must repeat: It is something about the occurrence of Roger's name. It's the FEELING you got from his name. You did not like it. It sounded suspicious suddenly coming up in the conversation like that, especially after you hadn't thought of him in a long while. You're sensitive to it. THAT'S A SIGN THAT SYNCHRONICITY MAY SOON BE COMING YOUR WAY. IF ROGER IS NEGATIVE, CLICK IT OFF!

(DING DIN DING DING ... THAT SOUND YOU HEAR IS THE WAGON BRINGING THE MEN IN THE WHITE COATS.)

As a physical aid, you can tap your finger or blink your eyes once as a feedback device when you "click it off." (Cecil De Sanctis preferred "a tap of the index finger to secure the recognition.") It's like hearing the "click" of electric typewriter keys, sometimes psychologically required by people to make sure they've made a mark on the page.

(That's all! Now I'm going around taping my finger and blinking ... DING DING DING DING...)

Please re-read the above... Now, perhaps there's something deep inside you that has a vague familiarity with this "Click-Off" concept. Sometimes it's like that with powerful ideas - we feel we've heard them before. Have you ever said (or heard someone else say) "Now that I've thought about it, it won't happen."? Personally, it rings a bell for me. If in casual conversation I say this to someone, they might chuckle and say, "Yes, you're right."

In fact, the concept of negative intervention of the human mind is, I think, rather widespread, whether we realize it or not. (Which, of course, means that insanity is more pervasive than we ever thought is was.)

But what is happening? Remember I said that quantum physics sees the universe as a great arena of unrealized possibilities? I believe that the signs of synchronicity herald the possibility that a particular event is on its way to birth. The name Roger suddenly coming up (and your feeling about it) should be a synchronicity sign.

(If it's isn't, then you probably are an extremely healthy and well-adjusted individual -- God bless your little heart!)

Before Roger's name was mentioned (and perhaps at the same time), the possibility of seeing Roger was WAVE-LIKE, that is, indeterminate, like the wave-function of a sub-atomic particle. Possibility-waves (as they relate to human occurrences) are like form that is still short of content - they are broad and volatile. But anything can be born from them, especially if a synchronicity-sign is present, which might indicate a "chiseling out" of its narrowing identity (in the manner of the high-probability, single-slit experiment. The possibility of Roger happening may be ready to "pop" the real Roger into reality...

...UNLESS YOU THINK ABOUT IT!

Roger may not exist for you to meet in your present universe - not yet. But the sudden use of his name (the pure recognition of him) may announce that he is on his way to becoming PARTICLE-LIKE (that is, "solid" or "rounded" for you in your universe - and therefore a remarkable coincidence). By THINKING ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY THAT ROGER MAY SOON BE A SYNCHRONISTIC EXPERIENCE FOR YOU, YOU ARE DENYING CONSUMMATION OF THE SYNCHRONICITY. (See Fig. 3, Roger on Main St.)

(Note: If you are not insane at this point, just wait...)

In one way, by thinking about Roger's possible occurrence, you are challenging randomness in order to be beaten by its meaninglessness. That is (unless you are actually psychic), the very fact that you are, as it were, "predicting" (thinking) that Roger will happen, foils the synchronicity. In a more "quantum" way of looking at it, you are "collapsing" the "Roger Wave" into the "particle" of your deliberate thought about Roger's possible synchronicity appearance, a possibility which is now usurped by your mind. The "Roger-wave" "outside" you dies off before it can be particle-ized as a fact of reality; it is canceled by the "Roger Particle" "inside you" that you form after hearing his name.

DING DING DING DING...

Any thought or sight can have its negative synchronistic counterpart in reality. It is a question of one's becoming sensitive to the appearance of these signs (which may number in the hundreds during the course of a single day). Observation of our own reactions to things is important. It is - we must say it - a SUPERSTITIOUS FEELING associated with the sign that we must recognize and then combat by "clicking off" the possible consummation of it in reality.

This "clicking off" MUST be specific in the following way: You must say (i.e., think) "This sign will not become synchronistic." It is NOT enough to recognize the possibility that a sign is supposed to mean something. The sign's possible consummation must then be "clicked off" with your canceling intention in mind: "This will not become synchronistic."

It seems logical that he best way to combat a negative sign is to "click it off" AS SOON AS THE SIGN IS RECOGNIZED (and this includes recognition of it at any time after the sign was actually present). "Clicking off" a sign immediately upon recognition is to prevent furtherance of its progress toward consummation.

It must be mentioned at this point that, at least in theory, any thought or utterance (or "sign," in general) that relates to any bad possibility can be - and should be - "clicked off." Again, it would be best to catch the sign immediately after it is recognized. This technique seems to work best if the sign is sudden ("comes out of nowhere") and is not part of any ongoing bad thought or situation.

2) Negating the Negative: The Reversal Method

Example 1: You're very proud of your old car. You've had it for ten years and have never had a single problem with it. Here you are driving around with your friend, Bill. "You know, Bill, this car has been absolutely great," you tell him. "It's been humming along now for a hundred-thousand miles and it's never seen the inside of a service station. It's a really wonderful car." At that moment, the engine starts to skip. Then you hear a clanking noise. Smoke rises from the hood and the car begins to cough and jerk. A minute later you're stopped cold and something tells you your marvelous machine has seen the days.

Example 2: Some years ago, Zeno Clamp (Nowever Then's resident inventor), was thinking about how great his latest invention was. Usually modest Zeno was in a boastful mood: It's so unique! I'm such a genius! A solar-powered dental flossing machine! What an idea! I can't wait to get final approval from the patent office. But later that day he finally did hear from the patent office: it turns out that someone else had invented the same product. It had been marketed years before and was a complete failure.

Example 3: "My little boy, Billy, is the best kid in the world. Everybody should have child as good as he his." The next day your doorbell rings. It's the police. It seems that little Billy has just been caught trying to snatch a purse.

Example 4: "John and Mary are the ideal husband and wife. They are two people you can never imagine getting a divorce." A month later you hear that John and Mary have split up.

If the above examples remind you of simple-minded comedy, you should consider that there is usually a bit of truth in the patterns of humor we respond to. We can all recall comedic scenes in which a "poor soul" announces something (often quite boastfully) only to see his declaration reversed right before his eyes. The character, in shock, freezes (perhaps with his smile still on his face) and we all laugh.

Cecil De Sanctis believed that God - the whole Universe, if you will - likes to "reverse the switch" on occasion, perhaps to temper our hubris, to test us, or to remind us of our uncertainty. As such, our "clicking off" can be a humble recognition of our place in the world.

Perhaps it is a gift for our having noticed.

I also think that some part of us may have suspected that we soon would eat our words. Perhaps we felt an approaching WAVE of something contrary, and this nearly unconscious suspicion prompted us to declare (for security) what we all along "knew" would be foiled.

At this point, again, possibility-control practitioners will PARTICLE-IZE the WAVE in their minds before it becomes an actual particle (as defined by a solid and specific piece of reality). THUS, THEY FOIL THE POSSIBILITY WAVE BY "PREDICTING" ITS OCCURRENCE OR CONSUMMATION, WHICH, I THINK, THE UNIVERSE WILL NOT ALLOW US KNOWINGLY TO DO, UNLESS WE ARE PSYCHIC (ASSUMING THAT SUCH AN OCCULT CONDITION ACTUALLY EXISTS).

Now I would like the reader to go back to the beginning of this essay and read the extract from Cecil De Sanctis' letter about the Abigail Punch incident. Cecil De Sanctis decided to complete The Living Roots of Possibility because he thought that further study of this subject (both his own study and that of others) would facilitate the frame of mind necessary to put his technique into action whenever needed (that is, as a reflex action). He thought that this method of thinking could have saved Abigail from that unpleasant experience beneath the beer wagon.

Look at Abigail's declarations: "I will jump in front of it [the beer wagon], I tell you!" Founder De Sanctis knew that she was being facetious; yet he realized too late that the forcefulness of her outbursts could very well have caused possibility waves to be particle-ized and her insincere statement to be fulfilled. Had Cecil De Sanctis been in the frame of mind that his theory calls for, he could "headed off" the adverse "particle-ization" by particle-izing it in his mind first (by "clicking it off").

The same is true for Abigail's second statement, "Never have I touched a drop of ale and I never will, I tell you!" This is a choice example of a declaration that is primed for reversal.

Just as there is some truth in the patterns of simple comedy, so is there some truth in primitive superstition. In certain parts of the world people do not like to receive compliments. There was a time when, in certain parts of the Mediterranean, some mothers would rub dirt on their children's faces and clothes before their children left the house. This was to prevent people from saying "What a pretty little boy or girl!" What the parent feared was the ironic REVERSAL of the compliment in reality by some misfortune that might befall the child.

Some people often say "God forbid" whenever someone mentions the possibility of something very bad happening. This "God forbid" is used against the undesirable thing actually happening. It is a form of "clicking off." Knocking wood (which is meant to stand in for the wood of the Cross) has a similar function. Of course (as my great-grandfather discovered), the serious role of the mind in "clicking off" is of absolute importance.

Recently, I have been wondering if magic wands, associated in mythology with wizards, had the same "feedback" function as the blink of the eyes or the tapping of the finger. Perhaps the wizard needed to tap something (or at least wave at something) to confirm for himself the issuance of his "magic thought."

3) Notes On The Good

Now the possibility-manipulator may wonder if his or her recognition and "clicking off" of signs might accidentally influence the fulfillment of good signs. To put it another way, Can the consummation of a good sign accidentally be destroyed ("clicked off") by our recognition of this sign? One might say, just as nature abhors a vacuum, the universe (in the present theory) abhors a prediction: if you could see a sign and think "that is going to happen" then you would be predicting the future, which is impossible (unless you are really psychic). Does not randomness work against you here by stopping the good because you recognized (and perhaps accidentally tampered with) its possibility in a sign?

Had great-grandfather De Sanctis not dealt with this question himself, I doubt whether I would have had the insight to formulate it. He claims that while there is some precedent for the belief that simple recognition of a good sign can (to use his word) "corrupt" a good sign, "there is no condition wherein the good of the symbolic image [i.e., sign] might be stayed from its determined path without the influence of necromancy" [i.e., deliberately evil interference]. Without much commentary, he cites the "common advice"Don't think about it as being "in wide usage" to avoid the undoing of a good possibility. As another safeguard, Great-grand father says (rather unscientifically) that we must "confront the good symbolic image with the utmost humbleness, truly cognizant of our weakness before the face of the Divine" and expect that "in our unworthiness no good will come of it. "

When one considers the latter recommendation, one realizes that this "humbleness" and state of non-expectation is actually a form of negation - a negation of one's tendency to want to predict.

I leave the reader to ponder this idea, but in Section Four I will add another safeguard which, I think, holds promise.

It is at this point that Cecil De Sanctis continues to develop the moral aspects of possibility-manipulation. It is easy to see that his technique can be used against the good possibilities of others by "clicking off" our recognition of someone else's positive sign or by refusing to deal with someone's negative sign. How much better (great-grandfather says) "to assist our fellow human beings in the cultivation of the good, or, conversely, in the cancellation of evil, if it is within our God-given power to do so."

The following verses by Tennyson were found scribbled on the inside front cover of what was once one of Cecil De Sanctis' notebooks:

For what are men better than sheep or goats

That norish a blind life within the brain,

If, knowing God, they lift not hands of prayer

Both for themselves and for those who call them friends.

(From "The Passing of Arthur".)

Great-grandfather goes on to suggest that a look at how we use the technique will reveal to us the character of our spontaneous intentions and alert us to improvements to be made in ourselves: "Of immoral spontaneity we can sometimes be forgiven, in our recognition of it, as it races from the brute within; the calculation of evil, however, its acceptance and preservation, is quite another matter. Those who touch the living roots of possibility shall be at once the players and the attentive audience in a theater of moral choices."

4) Positive Attraction: The Mind-Image Connection

Much as I am reluctant to admit it, there may be some truth to the "visualization" craze one occasionally hears about today. This is a practice in which a person visualizes something (as part of a daily ritual) and expects that, through visualization, the mental image will materialize in one's life (that is, as actual reality). Just as Einstein's work predicts the existence of black holes (though his work itself is not about black holes), so does Cecil De Sanctis' theory suggest that visualization on the level of "image to reality" has validity.

Let us distinguish between "exterior-visualization-projection" and "interior-visualization-projection" (both are my own terms). The latter is commonly called self-hypnosis. It was very popular in America in the 1920s, where it appeared as a distillation of the work of a French pharmacist named Émile Coué. One of Coué's famous "affirmations" was "Every day, in every way, I am getting better and better." In self-hypnosis, one makes a habit of "programming" oneself for better performance in any area of life. The secret, of course, is in the repetition of an idea in a state of relaxation. The self-convincing mental and verbal affirmation of some desired state eventually produces or strengthens that condition in the practitioner.

Little controversy surrounds the efficacy of self-hypnosis (or, as I have called it, interior-visualization-projection); it is generally thought to produce positive results, in varying degrees, in the dedicated practitioner. Acceptance, however, is less than general when it comes to "exterior-visualization-projection." It is easy to see why: this technique tries to create a desired condition outside the practitioner. For example, if a person wants, say, to visit Paris but is unable to do so for, say, lack of funds, he or she would create a daily ritual of visualizing him- or herself in Paris (using the most vivid imagination possible). Some claim this practice produces desired results in reality over time by creating favorable conditions in the life of the visualizer, conditions which would allow him or her in fact to visit Paris.

I must say that I am not an expert in these matters. I do, however, know several individuals who defend the "exterior" practice on the grounds of experience. Casper Pokeberry, of Casper's Foundation Garments (Main Street, Nowever Then), swears he got his business off the ground by using this technique. (I will spare the reader the lengthy details.) Gertrude Nubblecake claims she cured her brother-in-law of sciatica and reduced the swelling of her grandmother's foot by repeatedly picturing a healthy foot on the aged woman. (The reader will recall that the foot was crushed by the works of Sophocles in circumstances decidedly synchronistic.)

How could this technique be valid? One way of looking at it is to believe that the continual picturing of something will "attract" in some way elements of a parallel universe - or perhaps a "possibility field" - in which the desired object or situation exists. The fact that there is a seamless congruence between mind and matter in the spiritual theories we have discussed makes this idea understandable.

But according to Cecil De Sanctis (via his own brand of "quantum physics"), the real strength of such visualization must be in those repetitions of the visualized thought that lose contact with the interfering will or desires of the practitioner. At a certain point (perhaps from sheer monotony) some repetitions will become like unnoticed synchronistic waves of possibility that are on their way to reality. This refers to what Cecil De Sanctis said about non-expectation. It amounts to a pure non-interference that can intensity the arrival of good. Visualization, then, is sound in his theory, provided that the necessary state of mind - or non-mind - be attained.

Furthermore (and this final point is perhaps the most important of all), such visualization-practice may work as a reinforcement of good possibilities, especially if their arrival is hinted at in a sign.

Naturally, there is no substitute for hard work to bring about one's goals. As I have said in the part that deals with synchronicity, intense and broad involvement in one's work and interests boosts one's chances of uncanny "tailor-made" conjunctions (especially when one least expects it). Often such occurrances go beyond our wildest dreams and make for ingenious results.

Concluding Note

The immaterial nature of the "forces" at work in our theories suggest that the practices described in this book are applicable to any spiritual or psychic situation, real or imaged. At some level, however, little difference exists between the real and the imagined: a superstition may act upon a person if the person believes it is true. If seven years bad luck from breaking a mirror terrifies you, rest assured that you can "click off" the arrival of such bad luck (but please do it seven times just to be on the safe side). Much is still a mystery. Much may forever rest on opinion. Whether or not there is a continuous psychic relationship between Gertrude Nubblecake's love of Greek tragedy and her grandmother's tragically damaged foot must, in the final analysis, be left to the reader's judgment.

 

Bibliography

The following interesting books assisted us in the development of Parts 1 and 2 of my Commentary. Naturally, the authors of these works cannot necessarily be said to subscribe to the theories of Cecil De Sanctis or to my elaboration on his work. Any misrepresentation of quantum theory in this essay is solely the product of my own weary brain. (P. De S.)

Halpern, Paul. Time Journeys. McGraw-Hill, 1990.

Jung, C. G. Synchronicity, An Acausal Connecting Principle. Translated by F.F.C. Hull. Bolinggen Series, Princeton University Press edition, 1973.

Talbot, Michael. Beyond the Quantum. Macmillian Publishing, 1987. Wolf, Fred Allen.

Wolf, Fred Alan. Taking the Quantum Leap. Harper & Row, 1989.

 

[PREVIOUS PAGE] [RETURN TO MANY THINGS INDEX] [RETURN TO MAIN PAGE]