THE PROCESS CHURCH OF THE FINAL JUDGEMENT 1965 revised October 1969
1. 1 A HOSTILE ACT IS AN ACTION OR NON ACTION WHICH IS AGAINST THE CODE OF RIGHT AND WRONG OF THE PERSON PERFORMING IT.
2 Such acts can be very minor actions which a person performs against himself, such as falling over and hurting himself, losing a valued possession, failing to meet an appointment and thereby causing trouble for himself, and so on; or they can be far reaching activities involving millions of people, such as leading a nation into war, inciting to genocide, instituting a programme of religious persecution, causing an economic slump, etc. And they can be anything in between these two extremes.
3 They can be failures to act where there is a sense of obligation, compulsion or necessity to act, as well as positive actions.
4 WHAT IS A HOSTILE ACT FOR ONE PERSON MAY NOT BE FOR ANOTHER. The criterion is whether or not the person PERFORMING the act CONSIDERS it hostile, either consciously or unconsciously.
5 CONSCIOUS HOSTILITY
6 This is when a person feels consciously that what he has done (or failed to do) is hostile, either to himself or to someone else or to several other people. He feels consciously that it is WRONG.
1. A shouts in anger at B and then immediately feels guilty for having done so. He feels he has committed a hostility against B. He feels quite consciously, that he has gone against his own personal code of right and wrong.
2. B forgets to give A a very important message, and as a result A is considerably inconvenienced and also blames B for the inconvenience. B feels bad on three counts. First he feels guilty about forgetting. It goes against his own code of efficiency and precision; a hostility against himself. Secondly, he feels bad about having inconvenienced A; a hostility against A. And finally, he feels bad about incurring A's displeasure; another hostility against himself. All three quite conscious.
8 UNCONSCIOUS HOSTILITY
9 This is when a person goes against his own code of right and wrong without being consciously aware of it. This can either be because he is not conscious of that particular aspect of his own code, or because he is not aware of what he has done or failed to do.
3. A asks B to come to his house. B arrives and they talk. Then they quarrel and B leaves in a very unhappy state. Now A feels bad as a result, but he does not know precisely why. He does not feel as though he has done anything hostile to B. The quarrel was two-sided, and in fact B started it. But this does not make A feel any better.
Unconsciously A has an agreement with himself that what happens in his house is his responsibility, and that he should never allow a guest to leave his house in an unhappy state. That is part of his code of right and wrong. No amount of justification or extenuating circumstances, however firmly it may convince him consciously, will alter that rigid unconscious agreement. In his terms, though he is not aware of it, he has been hostile towards his friend B by allowing him to go off dissatisfied. To do such a thing is against his morale code.
4. A tells B something which hurts his feelings. A is quite conscious of the fact that he feels it is wrong to hurt other people's feelings, but he is quite unconscious of the fact that this is what he has done. However his unconsciousness, being far more sensitive that his consciousness, knows what has happened and reacts accordingly. A feels discomfort stemming from his unconscious guilt, but because he has not realized the effect he has created on B, he does not know where the discomfort it coming from.
11 Conscious hostility is fairly straight forward. But as you can see, unconscious hostility is fraught with all kinds of possible pitfalls and problems.
12 For one thing conscious codes of right and wrong may seem sane and rational, at least to the person possessing them, but a person's unconscious codes would very often seem completely ridiculous, even to himself if he knew what they were.
13 For example a person may quite well have an unconscious agreement with himself that he will have committed a terrible hostility against his child if his child does not turn out to be a genius. Absurd - but not to his unconsciousness, which has decided that that is so. Or he may have an equally strong unconscious agreement that he must always fail in whatever he does; that it is morally wrong for him to succeed. Again, absurd - but that is the decision of his unconsciousness, and the result is that success gives him a feeling of unease and discomfort, or perhaps embarrassment, which he cannot explain because he is not aware of the fact that for him, to succeed is a hostile act.
14 Another problem with unconscious hostilities is that unconscious moral codes are very often in a state of even conflict, so that to take a particular action is hostile, but not to take it is equally hostile, possibly in a different direction.
15 This can manifest consciously of course; such as when you have a difficult decision to make because either way someone gets hurt. But when the conflict is conscious and in the open, it is generally not hard to handle or come to terms with.
16 But when the conflict is unconscious, doubts and uncertainties and dilemmas arise without the person knowing where they are coming from.
17 For example, a person may feel - quite unconsciously - that it is his moral duty to keep himself in isolation from other people, not to become involved with them, not to make close contact with them, not to become involved with them, not to make close contact with them, not to be known by them, and so on; but at the same time on another level he feels - again quite unconsciously - that his function is to spread happiness, to make people feel good, and if he is failing to fulfill this function that is a hostile non-action. Imagine the problems such a person has in his contact with people. All the time he is committing a hostility one way or the other. He feels the dissatisfaction, but he has no idea what it stems from.
18 When someone performs what is for him a hostile act, he has basically two courses open to him. Either he can recognise the act for what it is in his terms and accept responsibility for having performed it, or he can reject it and his responsibility for it.
19 The first of these alternatives entails seeing clearly the full extent and significance of the act and to whom it is hostile, deliberately chosen to perform it.
5. A. Is rude to B and makes B unhappy. A feels bad about this, recognises that he has quite deliberately and purposely created this effect on B and that in his terms it is a hostility. That is an acceptance of responsibility.
6. A falls downstairs and sprains his ankle. He recognises that the fall was entirely his own doing. No one made him fall, nothing compelled him to fall - outside of himself. The hostility against himself was performed by him alone.
21 Rejection of responsibility for a hostile act can take several forms.
22 I. Unconsciousness. Responsibility for an unconscious hostility is automatically rejected by its being unconscious. If someone does not know, for whatever reason, that he has been hostile, then he cannot accept responsibility for having been hostile.
7. A tells B a story about C which turns B against C. This, in A's terms is a hostile act against both of them, but he is quite unaware of the effect he has created. He has blinded himself to the significance of the story he has told, and therefore does not realise what he has done.
This is a rejection of responsibility. By ignorance of the effects of his action he avoids having to face up to them.
24 II. Justification. Even if a person knows that what he has done is hostile, he can still reject responsibility for it by justifying. He can say: he couldn't help it, he had no choice, it wasn't his fault, or he can say: he didn't realise.... he didn't know.... he wasn't aware.... he forgot... (which of course may be true, but it simply goes back to the unconsciousness form of rejection). In some way or other he can contradict, both for his own 'benefit' and for other people's if necessary, his feeling of guilt at what he has done. He feels he has done wrong; by justifying he tries to convince himself and anyone else concerned that he has not done wrong. This is justification.
B. A trips B, and B injures himself. A feels guilt, but insists that it wasn't really his fault, because something got in his eye, so he couldn't see where he was going...etc.
26 III. Blame. This is a more active and positive form of justification. Responsibility is given to another person or group of people, very often the person against whom the hostile act is performed. 'It was his fault'; 'He made me do it'; 'I didn't do it, he did'; 'He shouldn't have got in the way'; 'If he'd told me, I would have...'; 'They forced me into it'; and so on. Basically the same object; a person trying to convince himself that he has not done wrong when he feels he has done wrong; this time by passing the responsibility to someone else.
9. A misses an appointment with B and feels bad about it. But he blames B for not having made it clear where the appointment was to be. In this way he attempts to vindicate himself by putting the responsibility for the wrongness onto B.
28 IV. Minimisation of the hostility. This is again a variation on simple justification. It is trying to make the hostility less of a hostility, trying to minimise its importance or significance or the scope of its effects; if possible trying to make it into no hostility at all.
29 'But it didn't really do him any harm'; 'She deserved it; 'He didn't suffer'; 'It could have been worse'; 'I only said...'; 'I just told him to...'; 'I was only trying to help'; 'It was really a good thing after all'; 'It's in the interests of the public good'; 'In fact they could benefit from it'.
10. A tells his boss that his colleague B is an idler. As a result B loses his job. A feels guilty, but insists that it was his duty to report B and anyway B will have no difficulty in getting another job.
Here is an illustration of the illogicality that stems from the fact that justifications DO NOT WORK. If A feels guilty about what he has done to B, no amount of justification of any kind will truly satisfy his conscience. So although he tells himself that he has done his duty and therefore no wrong, he is clearly not convinced, because he still has to minimize the effect on B in terms of him finding other employment. If he REALLY felt he had done no more than his duty, he would not need to belittle the detrimental effect on B.
31 With unconscious hostilities, already we are rejecting responsibility by the very fact of them being unconscious.
32 With conscious hostilities, we can either accept full responsibility, or we can justify - remembering the extent of the territory covered by the term justification - and thereby reject responsibility.
2 . 1 THE EFFECT ON SOMEONE OF PERFORMING A HOSTILE ACT, DEPENDS ON WHETHER HE ACCEPTS OR REJECTS HIS SENSE OF RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE ACT.
2 If he accepts his sense of responsibility, the act need have no lasting detrimental effect on him. Probably he will communicate his feelings of responsibility to whomever else is involved, reverse the situation as far as it is possible for him to do so, undo anything that can be undone, and at once start contributing positively to the situation.
3 This is the most he can do, and if every part of it is done to the limit of his capability then he is left with no bad feelings. It may take time and it may entail some form of suffering by way of expiation, but as long as there is a full awareness of responsibility, it will be effective.
4 In some cases all that is necessary is the complete acceptance of responsibility, in others a person demands action of himself to make truly right, in his terms, what he feels is a wrong situation which he has created. The extent of requirement depends entirely on the nature of the hostile act and how the individual himself FEELS about it. There can be no objective rule.
5 What we are dealing with here are not objective facts but subjective realities; the agreements and decisions of each individual human mind; the demands, both conscious and unconscious, which a person makes upon himself.
6 We can generalise, because there are common denominators in all human beings. We can be sure of the overall structure, but not of the separate idiosyncrasies. They vary from one individual to another.
7 IF SOMEONE REJECTS HIS SENSE OF RESPONSIBILITY FOR A HOSTILE ACT, BY WHATEVER METHOD, UNCONSCIOUSNESS OR JUSTIFICATION, HE CREATES A DETRIMENTAL EFFECT UPON HIMSELF.
8 I. Unconsciousness. If he suppresses his awareness of a hostility or the full extent and significance of a hostility, then the conflict between his unconscious sense of guilt and his need to shelve the responsibility by unawareness, enacts itself on a completely unconscious level. Discomfort of some kind automatically results; sometimes physical, sometimes mental. On one side he wants to take the blame upon himself and expiate or undo what he feels he has done; on the other side he wants to be blameless. All he is conscious of is the sense of discomfort that comes to the surface as a result of this dichotomy.
9 He does not know where the discomfort comes from but he must pin it on something.
10 The thing that appears to him to have caused it, is the situation in which the hostility was committed. And the liveliest 'agent' within that a situation, is the person or people against whom it was committed. So he identifies the discomfort with that person or those people - and perhaps the situation or the environment as well if they are distinctive enough.
11 This automatically produces with him a negative attitude or reaction towards that person, those people, that situation, and/or that environment. His own individual nature will decide which, and also what form the negative attitude will take.
12 It could be resentment, dislike, fear, hatred, embarrassment, envy, suspicion, scorn, boredom, repulsion; any negative feeling or attitude that the individual unconsciousness chooses to push into the consciousness in order to tackle the threat in the situation, to keep it at bay; the threat being whatever it has decided is causing the discomfort.
11. A says something to B which makes B feel bad. A is unaware of the effect he has created and of his own deliberate, though unconscious, intention of creating it.
Unconsciously he is aware of both, and unconsciously he feels guilty for what he has done. But because he is unwilling to accept responsibility either for the action or its motive, a conflict ensures between feeling responsible and wanting to reject the responsibility.
A begins to feel uncomfortable around B. He rationalises this feeling by finding something wrong with B and resenting him for it. He decides that B is stupid, or ugly, or dishonest. B may well be all three, but the important thing here is that A USES one of these things, whether it is true or imaginary, to explain his discomfort around B. Then he resents B for it.
It does not make A feel any better. His resentment of B drives him towards committing further quite conscious hostilities against B, which he then justifies by means of B's 'deficiency'. Therefore still no acceptance of responsibility; so more discomfort; resentment develops into scorn; more hostilities; and so on. A's relationship with B deteriorates rapidly and disastrously, into a state of complete alienation.
This simple sequence of events - with B doing roughly the same thing to A - is the basic thread that runs through the story of most human marriage relationships. The end result may not be a physical alienation, but a state of mutual non-contact and non-understanding.
12. A fails to impress his teachers and his colleagues at school with his intelligence. This failure is a hostile act against himself, so he feels. He may be completely oblivious of it, or he may be aware of it but not regard it consciously as a failure and therefore a hostility. Either way he rejects by unconsciousness his own sense of responsibility for having been hostile to himself. But again, unconsciously he knows, and the conflict between this knowledge and his need to reject responsibility for it, gives him intense discomfort.
The discomfort he is not unconscious of, and he associates it with his school environment and the people in that environment.
So he finds things wrong with his school, his teachers and his colleagues. He is afraid of them. They intimidate him. He blames them for his unhappiness. He alienates himself from them.
After he leaves school he looks back on his days there with distaste. Behind the distaste is shame and regret, which he does not want to look at. If he did he might have to look at what he feels ashamed and regretful about; his own personal failure, his hostile act against himself.
14 II. Simple justification. If a person cannot fail to be conscious of his hostile act and its significance, but still wants to reject his sense of responsibility for it, he tries to justify it.
15 Now his justification may be true; it may be valid; but he is trying to use a superficial objective fact to neutralise a subjective reality which is deeply rooted. However hard he tells himself that he was not to blame, that he couldn't help it; his guilt, his underlying sense of responsibility, remains. He feels basically that he WAS to blame and that he COULD have helped it, and that is what matters.
16 So as long as he tries to justify, he aggravates the conflict of acceptance and rejection of responsibility. Discomfort results and the same kind of sequence takes place as has been described above.
13. A fails to help B in a situation where he feels that he could and should do so. He is aware of the failure but he justifies it by saying that he had not realized how urgent the situation was, or he was not able to keep his appointment with B because he was delayed by unavoidable circumstances, or whatever justification seems most convincing both to himself and B and anyone else concerned.
His justification may be a fact, and it may even convince him on a conscious level. It may convince B; it may convince everyone. But it is no march for A's unconscious sense of responsibility. The two create a conflict and discomfort results.
The discomfort is most probably associated with B, and the cycle of alienation begins.
14. A boy fails an examination. He feels he has let himself down by the failure and thereby committed a hostile act against himself. But unwilling to accept the responsibility for this, he justifies by saying that he was unable to do as much preparation work for the exam as was necessary, or that he was not feeling well which spoiled his concentration, or the examination conditions were distracting, or the questions were not what he had been led to expect. But again, even if his justification is factually true, it cannot erase his unconscious sense of personal failure, and the inevitable discomfort ensues.
What he pins his resultant negative attitudes on depends upon the circumstances. It could be the subject of the exam, the environment in which it took place, the organization which set it, examinations in general, the environment in which he prepared for it, the people who helped him prepare, or even people who have passed the examination which he has failed. It could be any or, to one degree or another, all of these. And whichever he pins it on, his relationship with that or those aspects deteriorates accordingly.
18 III. Blame. The more active and in many ways more desperate form of justification. Where the hostility is committed against an individual, the blame is generally direct towards that individual, which leads very quickly into a deterioration of the relationship with him.
19 Often the blame itself constitutes another hostile act, and even if it doesn't it generally drives the person directing the blame into committing one. So the deterioration here can be very fast indeed.
15. A fails to appear for an appointment with B and feels guilty. Unwilling to bear the responsibility, and unable to find a workable circumstantial justification for the failure, A blames B for not having reminded him of the appointment or for not having made the time and place of it clear.
He is consciously convinced by this passing of the responsibility, but that is as deep as the conviction goes. Unconsciously he not only has the usual conflict - guilt versus a wish to shift the blame - but now he also has another conflict stemming from what he feels is an invalid accusation against B, which for him constitutes a further hostility.
He maintains his attitude of blame, however, and his relationship with B goes into an immediate decline.
16. A father feels a sense of failure in bringing up his child. He feels he has not given it the security or control or companionship that it requires. This he feels is a hostility against the child, and against the child's mother, and against himself.
Not wanting to carry the burden of guilt which this sense of failure gives him, and finding no convincing justification in terms of the fault being no one's, he blames the child's mother.
He accuses her of having spoilt the child, or of not having allowed him to discipline the child, or of having been too harsh with the child herself, or whatever is most convincing in the circumstances.
His accusation may be completely valid, one hundred percent true; she may even be feeling guilty for precisely the thing he accuses her of. It makes no difference. He is not pointing it out to her in order to improve the situation, to help her and the child; he is using it to try to salve his own guilty conscience. It doesn't work. He can only usefully and validly draw her attention to her sense of failure AFTER he has fully come to terms with his own; and that means accepting his sense of responsibility for it, and acting accordingly.
(The lesson of the mote and the beam is not a lesson in morality but straight psychology, brilliantly and logically applied.)
In this situation the father is simply shifting the burden of responsibility. As a result, according to the usual patter, his relationship with the child and its mother deteriorates, as he makes them the cause of his discomfort. And as blaming the mother is probably another hostility in itself - if not it will anyway produce several other hostilities - his relationship with her deteriorates particularly rapidly.
Remembering that both mother and child are probably enacting similar patters, it is not hard to visualize the steady decline of the overall family relationship. And there is a permutation of this basic pattern in almost every human home.
17. A boy feels a growing sense of frustration and dissatisfaction wish himself as he reaches maturity. He feels he is failing to fulfil his own demands upon himself, to come up to his own self-imposed standards of ability and achievement. He feels he is letting himself down, and quite likely he feels he is letting his parents down as well.
He feels guilty, but at the same time he does not want to bear the burden of a guilt which so sorely threatens his self-esteem. So he blames his parents. He accuses them of having pampered him, or having given him the wrong kind of education, or having been too strict with him, or having alienated him, misunderstood him, repressed him; whatever seems to fit the situation.
Again his assessment of THEIR hostility may be quite accurate. But even if it is, THEIR hostility is THEIR problem, not his in the present situation. His problem is his own hostility, and as long as he is using theirs to try to eliminate his sense of personal failure, there can only be detrimental effects.
He shifts what he feels is his responsibility onto them. Probably a further hostility against them. And the usual sequence ensues.
Once more visualize the same pattern of guilt, non-responsibility, and blame being enacted by the parents towards the boy, and you can build up what is a very commonplace picture of family alienation.
IV. Minimization of the hostile act. Trying to reduce the size and scope of a hostility or to make it not a hostility, has the same effect as other forms of justification. However consciously convincing it may be, the argument does not satisfy the unconscious sense of guilt. It simply produces conflict, tension, discomfort, and finally, where others are involved, the familiar cycle of blame and further hostility.
18. A father punishes his son for playing truant by cutting off his pocket money, and feels guilty for having done it. He tells himself that it is for the 'boy's own good'. And the logic and justice and apparent responsibility of his decision is quite unquestionable. It has no flaws - except that unconsciously he is simply not convinced. So that for reasons he cannot logically explain he still feels guilty.
However outwardly rational cutting off his son's pocket money in the circumstances might be, in his terms it is a hostile act. Unconscious agreements, as has been pointed out, are not always rational.
Discomfort, resentment, blame; and the down spiral of his relationship with his son has started.
19. A tells B something that destroys B's confidence in a particular venture, which B has planned and which A knew could be very successful.
A cannot help knowing precisely the effect he has created on B and the almost inevitable consequences of it, but he is not willing to take all of that upon his conscience, so he attempts to reduce the size and significance of it. He says to himself; "Perhaps it wasn't a very fair thing to say, but he can't really take it seriously. After all I was half-joking. Surely he can't be STUPID enough to take it seriously." You can see already the direction his attitude is taking. B must be stupid, and so on.
A might even apologize to B, but with this attitude it is only half an apology. Already the deterioration has begun.
Any justification which is used to minimize, eliminate or pass responsibility for what a person feels is a hostility that he has committed, may be perfectly true and completely valid.
IT IS NOT THE TRUTH OR UNTRUTH OF A JUSTIFICATION THAT PRODUCES DETRIMENTAL EFFECTS, BUT THE USE TO WHICH IT IS PUT; I.E., TO COMBAT A SENSE OF GUILT, WHICH, THOUGH ITSELF CONSCIOUS, STEMS FROM A FIRMLY ENTRENCHED UNCONSCIOUS AGREEMENT THAT A HOSTILITY HAS BEEN COMMITTED.
21 True or false, justifications are no match for guilt. They simply intensify the discomfort which the guilt has already produced. Far from removing it, they perpetuate it, because they do nothing towards resolving it.
22 GUILT CAN ONLY BE RESOLVED BY A PERSON BECOMING COMPLETELY AWARE OF WHAT IT IS HE FEELS HE HAS DONE WRONG, COMMUNICATING IT WHEN AND WHERE APPROPRIATE, AND DOING WHATEVER CAN BE DONE TO RIGHT THE SITUATION - IN HIS TERMS.
23 This is responsibility, and responsibility is the only way through guilt. The question; 'Whose responsibility is a breakdown of contact between two people?' is irrelevant.
24 Responsibility is not an objective quantity, which IS in one place and is NOT in another. To say that so and so it responsible for such and such tells us nothing useful.
25 Responsibility is something that people feel, consciously and unconsciously, within themselves. A valid question is this; 'IN A BREAKDOWN OF CONTACT BETWEEN TWO PEOPLE, HOW MUCH OF THE RESPONSIBILITY WHICH HE FEELS FOR THE BREAKDOWN, IS EACH PERSON PREPARED TO RECOGNIZE, ACCEPT, AND ACT UPON ACORDING TO HIS DEMANDS UPON HIMSELF?'
26 The criterion is comfort and discomfort, satisfaction and dissatisfaction, positive attitudes and feelings against negative attitudes and feelings. IF WE FEEL POSITIVE IN OUR TERMS, THEN WE MAY HAVE COMMITTED HOSTILITIES BUT WE ARE TRULY ACCEPTING THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEM WHICH WE FEEL. IF WE FEEL NEGATIVE IN OUR TERMS, THEN WE ARE IN SOME WAY OR OTHER UNAWARENESS, IGNORANCE, JUSTIFICATION, BLAME, MINIMISATION REJECTING THE RESPONSIBILITIES, WHICH WE FEEL ARE OURS.
27 If we lived by that rule, we would stop destroying one another, mentally, spiritually and physically, both on a personal level and on a group and mass level.
28 If we lived by that rule, we would halt the cycle of blame and hostility which perpetuates itself in a dwindling spiral because of our refusal to see it; we would eliminate the conflict between individuals and between groups, because we would eliminate the conflict within ourselves.
29 If you are feeling bad, you can serve no constructive purpose by simply pointing out someone ELSE'S failures and hostilities - either to him or to a third party. Do this by all means if you want to do it. Express your feelings and your attitudes. Recognize your instinct to blame, and given vent to it if you feel that it is the right thing to do. But at the same time recognize that:
30 THE ONLY THINGS THAT CAN MAKE YOU FEEL BAD ARE YOUR OWN FAILURES AND HOSTILITIES TOGETHER WITH A REFUSAL ON YOUR PART TO ACCEPT THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEM WHICH YOU FEEL.
31 IF YOU ARE FEELING BAD AND YOU WISH TO DO SOMETHING CONSTRUCTIVE ABOUT IT, THEN LOOK FOR YOUR OWN FAILURES AND HOSTILITIES, NOT SOMEONE ELSE'S.
32 If someone ELSE is feeling bad, THEN there can be a constructive purpose in pointing out his hostilities to him - in order to help him, if he is willing to listen and accept the sense of responsibility which he is not rejecting. (In this case an even better way to get him to look at his hostilities is by relevant questioning rather than by simply telling him.)
33 But remember you need a sharp awareness to direct someone's attention to his hostilities. What you are looking for is not what he has done, which YOU would feel guilty about had you done it; that is compulsive identification; but what he has done or failed to do, which HE feels guilty about and for which he is unwilling to accept his guilt.
34 Now you may feel it is your duty to help a particular person to accept responsibility for his hostilities, and that it would be a hostility on your part not to do so. You may feel it is your duty to help many people to accept responsibility for their hostilities, and that it would be a hostility on your part not to do so.
35 Excellent. And where this is truly and genuinely so, it is quite possible for you to feel bad - not directly because of the hostilities of others, but because you feel that you have failed or are failing by allowing them to commit hostilities, or at least by not doing everything you can to prevent them from committing hostilities. In this case part of doing everything you can to right a situation which you feel responsible for having helped to make wrong, could be to help others to look at their hostilities.
36 BUT - learn to tell the difference between this perfectly valid and constructive attitude, and a need to blame and to express your blame in order to avoid looking at something which YOU have done or failed to do and for which you are unwilling to accept the responsibility that you feel.
37 You are your own judge in this matter. If you judge right, you will feel right. But if you allow yourself to deceive yourself, you can only suffer an even greater dissatisfaction.
As it is, so be it.
October 1969 ROBERT DE GRIMSTON
THIS MATERIAL IS THE PROPERTY OF THE PROCESS
Return to Logics Return to Process Teachings