On How Why Logic and Natural Logic Differ

This Week's Questions

[Question 1] I do not understand the difference between "why logic" and the "natural why"; at least in a way that I could teach to another.
[Answer] "Natural whys" are just "the way it is," as in Zen. This is to say, they are simply the state of the stage on which life occurs.

"Logical whys" imply cause and effect and that all things occur as a result of the passage of events over time. They result from the belief that by identifying these "causes," we can anticipate these causes and thus, keep our pain from reoccurring.

Being able to identify the "natural whys" in our lives is especially significant, in that we can use this knowledge to recreate the stages on which both submergences and emergences occur. In other words, we can use them to set the stage in us for healing.

Being able to identify the "logical whys" in our lives is significant in that we need to see past them in order to find the "natural whys."

[Question 2] I don't understand—and can't picture—how a "collapsing magnetic field" parallels the creation of a BLock.
[Answer] The startling effect of a collapsing field on ferrous metals leaves a lasting impression in the metal which then limits how the metal can conduct electricity. We call this lasting effect, becoming magnetized. Blocks are similar in that the lasting impressions they create in us limit (restrict) our abilities to conduct our lives.

[Question 3] I can't picture a vacuum.
[Answer] Can you picture outer space (an "almost vacuum?") Can you picture the gray blank screen of the movie theater when the film breaks (another "almost vacuum")? Can you also feel what this second experience is like when this happens? This is the vacuum of the empty mind.

[Question 4] I can't see how the "physical ability to see" affects the "visual ability to see."
[Answer] They are analogous, meaning, they share the same patterns. Thus, the "physical ability to see" creates the prototypes for what occurs in the visual mind.

[Question 5] I don't understand what being in the subconscious is like.
[Answer] Ever see colored fish just below the surface of the water? You can "almost" see them clearly? This is the essence of the subconscious. Things stored here are "almost" clearly visible.

No coincidence that in those moments just before healing, our subconscious often floods with fleeting images we cannot quite make out. This is the experience of some blocked material emerging into the subconscious. Not fully healed. But no longer completely BLocked either.

[Question 6] I can't picture pain. I can't see how pain is present in an event.
[Answer] Pain can't be pictured. Only the symptoms of pain can be pictured. Even so, we experience the pain because we ourselves are in the event and not separate from it. In other words, we ARE a part of the event and so, we and the pain are connected, like the waves and the ocean.

[Question 7] I can't picture how a baby is consciously connected to the Divine. Or anyone else for that matter.
[Answer] Try picturing the converse. Can you see how babies experience no separation between themselves and their world, including no separation between themselves and both the people and things around them? Experiencing "no separation from things" is "being connected to the Divine."

[Question 8] I do not get what it means to be unable to separate feelings from experiences.
[Answer] You can picture experiences and feel them while picturing. You can also feel pain and have no picture. Thus, while the picture and the pain are never literally separate, they can be experienced separately.

Babies begin to do this, at least qualitatively (as in "good" and "bad") at around age two. This separation, then, is what creates the human tendency toward moral judgments. More over, moral judgments are never "cause and effect" based. They simply are the result of us having split life into two piles; into what is good and what is bad.

[Question 9] I can't picture the "natural why." Nor can I picture the difference between the "natural why" and "why logic."
[Answer] "Natural whys" are blameless explanations as to why life happens as it does. "Why logic" answers are blaming answers as to why life happens. Thus, all you need do to picture this is to first picture any painful experience, then picture the difference between explanations for this experience which blame and explanations which do not blame.

[Question 10] I don't completely understand how, or why, we try to fill in the vacuum of the startling moment with why logic; why that and not something else? What is the nature of why logic and how does it become the filler for an empty state of mind? Further how is it we are programmed to do so? How did it come about?
[Answer] "Why logic" is the essence of the development of Layer 2. Children develop this behavior in response to the collective experience of parents' and teachers' demands on them that they do whatever they can to prevent their own pain. And this strategy works. Children, and all of us in fact, do hurt less when we use "why logic."

Thus, "why logic" is the strategy we develop in childhood in order to meet the demands of those around us that we somehow become able to prevent our suffering. More over, as we are by nature, programmed to fill in any and all voids in our minds, these "why logic" responses become the natural remedy to fill in these voids.