We cannot Give back to God if we find ourselves so ungracious that we are unwilling to Take what God gives us. Understand I am not suggesting that this dual play is easy to master, in fact it is a challenge that takes a lifetime. It takes discipline not to despise those that take an honest wage. It takes discipline not to despise those that take air to breathe and food to eat. Be critical of takers because they don`t give back. But be critical of givers that are unable to take, and use deception to hide their envy.

The Giver is the masculine that sows, the Taker is the feminine that reaps, almost the reverse of what modern society will have us believe. The Taker is receptive, and finds itself in receivership once something is given. The giver that is unwilling to take will find itself equivocating on the meaning of the word "Take"; Take is said to be egocentric despite the reality that taking points to reception.

It comes back to emotions that underwrite our words again. We share emotions and then projects mental images and words onto our shared emotions. Some of these emotion are revealed by synchronicity, as noted by Charles Tart in "The End of Materialism." The literalist pretends not to equivocate and project. But the fact remains that the giver that is unwilling to Take finds itself giving not the intended meaning of Take, but returning a distortion that reveals a deeper conflict. Thus Tart was both curious and cautious over his synchronicity that involved Mrs. Coudetat.

Rather than telling the details of Tart`s synchronicity, let me share my own. My synchronicity was just like Tart`s, and it also involved the city of Davis. Several years ago I was visiting my brother in Davis, and we watched a video after dinner. We watched the original "Manchurian Candidate." After the video I drove home late at night. It takes an hour to return from Davis. Any way, I was ready for sleep, and before hitting the sack I usually listen to the radio for a few minutes before dozing off. When I turned the radio on that night, the very first words that came out of the radio were "Manchurian candidate."

The meaning of this synchronicity haunted me. I hesitate until now to give meaning to this event. Like Tart`s synchronicity, it involves an "identity crisis" (Tart`s words on page 79 to give meaning to "coup d`etat"). Tart (page 83) writes: "I believe the associations of military dictatorships, cheering crowds, and thought about efficient and disciplined organizations taking over when the governments fail represents analytical and associative overlay following my initial psi impression of the word coup d`etat." Then Tart (page 86) finally admits: "the imminent and somewhat critical letter from Mrs. Coudetat constituted my own psychological coup d`etat in defending me against possible guilt."

And you see the word "coup d`etat" carries similar connotations as does the "Manchurian candidate." It was also an identity crisis that points to a counterfeit man that is being elected to high office under fraudulent terms. I was my own psychological Manchurian candidate, or the giver that could not take.

 

Stephen