{Spiritual Fusion [continued]: Human Intermingling}[2nd October 1987]

[Redbook4:80-81][19871002:2245d]{Spiritual Fusion [continued]: Human Intermingling}[2nd October 1987]

19871002.2245

[continued]

So far as* Men are concerned, the achievement of 'mingling'* (the stage beyond [']touching[']* must depend on the degree of self-less-ness of the individual: which is another way way of describing what happens, or should happen, in love between individuals (discussed earlier***).

But this raises interesting possibilities. I intuitively see Fusion as a mutual process, and would prefer to see Intermingling [sic] also as requiring the consent of both individuals: and perhaps, in the Spiritual Kingdom, this is how it is for Intermingling (as I feel sure it must be for Fusion, which is restricted to the Spiritual Kingdom). But among Men, the imaginatively sympathetic entry into another's point of view might seem to require the selfless motivation and awareness of only one party: the object of this might not be aware of it at all. That is one theory.

But another theory suggest that, on a spiritual level, both parties participate, even if one at least may be unconscious of it. Two things support this theory: first, the difficulty of entering sympathetically into the mind of supremely selfish individuals (not to be confused with analysing and understanding their motives) – this difficulty, I think, is felt by both unselfish and selfish individuals; and secondly, the support or 'lift' felt by those subject to an intermingling empathy by another or others, without overt communication of it, whether as**** an actor in front of a 'live' audience, or a pedestrian in a street who turns to face the eyes of a complete stranger out of earshot behind him.

The last encounter, of course, need not always turn out selfless; but speaking for myself, although I have frequently attracted the attention of a stranger by unconsciously staring at his or her back when I was thinking of something quite different, I have never, so far as I recall, been able to do it deliberately, i.e. selfishly. Intention, benevolent or malevolent, it seems must follow the communication.# If this second theory is correct, it tends to support the religious view of the active power of Love.

*[See last two previous entries.]

**[See last previous entry but one.]

***[Possibly a reference to last previous entry but one, after the diagrams.]

****[for example (presumably).]

#That does not mean that it cannot be intended, of course – intention may precede the communication as well as follow it, but not accompany it.... <871003> [Nor does it mean to suggest that intention is necessary. <20160820>]

[PostedBlogger18102016]