Course: Psychology 459, Spring 2007, Generation
26
Instructor: Dr. Leon James
Introduction to Theistic Psychology at: www.soc.hawaii.edu/leonj/theistic/ch1.htm
My Home
Page: http://www.soc.hawaii.edu/leon/459s2007/matsumoto/matsumoto-home.htm
Class Home Page: www.soc.hawaii.edu/leonj/leonj/leonpsy26/classhome-g26.htm
Instructions for this Report: www.soc.hawaii.edu/leonj/leonj/leonpsy26/459-g26-weekly.htm
By: Kellen Matsumoto
Report
5 For Section: 1.5.1 to 1.7
I
have answered questions: 11.1, 11.2,
11.4, 11.9 &
13.1,
13.5, 13.8, 13.9
Question 11.1.
(a) Summarize Section 1.5.1 "Students
Speak Out on Swedenborg."
(b) Contrast the ideas of students in the
History of Psychology earlier classes vs. the ideas of students later in
theistic psychology. What is the difference in attitude and content?
(b) Give your impressions and conclusions of
how students are doing in studying and accepting theistic psychology.
(c) Relate your conclusions to your own study
of theistic psychology thus far. How do you fit or relate?
(a)
Summarize Section 1.5.1 "Students Speak Out on Swedenborg."
There were twenty-three total students that
commented about Theistic Psychology in the notes. Thirteen of them agreed that the concepts in
Theistic Psychology and of Swedenborg should be taught in the classroom and in
psychology curriculum in a university setting.
By including Swedenborg in a university setting an equitable
understanding would be forged in relation to the positive bias in science so
that students would be able to experience and learn about all aspects of
psychology. They would then be able to
make an educated decision about what they understand and accept in science and
psychology.
For the
thirteen students who said that Swedenborg should be included in
psychology, the first answer usually given was that spirituality and revelation
are real psychological phenomena of the mind and they should be treated
rationally and scientifically. Secondly,
two students noted that God and religion should be part of psychology and that
religion should be in a university setting because it plays such an important
role in many lives and is the basis of many behaviors we see in humans. Also, simply because the history of religion
is extensive and pervasive throughout time, Theistic Psychology would be an
acceptable medium to look at God in a rational and scientific manner.
Most students also noted that when they first
stepped into the class they thought that it was a little off the wall and not
scientific. They also had the perception
that Swedenborg was strange and a fantastic storyteller. But then they realized the rational and
scientific nature of Swedenborg’s writings and conceptualizations and came to
understand and apply what they learned in the class.
The ten students that disagreed with the idea of
Theistics in the classroom gave two reasons for its absence in academia. The first reason was that Swedenborg and
Theistic Psychology was more religion than science and subsequently should be
left out of academia as any religious or secular viewpoint would be in an
academic setting when considering science in the classroom. The second reason
was that Theistic Psychology and Swedenborg’s data were not quantifiable,
measurable, or repeatable, basically violating the major criteria for which we
understand something as a scientific and real phenomena.
(b)
Contrast the ideas of students in the History of Psychology earlier classes vs.
the ideas of students later in theistic psychology. What is the difference in
attitude and content?
When reading the perspectives of other students
as time goes on one can see the difference in attitudes and understanding with
each generation of students taking Theistic Psychology. Most of the understanding comes later in the
semester and the students warm up to Swedenborg then. With each successive generation of students
the perspectives become more rational and understanding of the material
grows.
(c)
Give your impressions and conclusions of how students are doing in studying and
accepting theistic psychology.
Although there are always a few who feverously
deny and diminish what Swedenborg claims, there are many who rationalize his
view and the number who understand and accept Swedenborg’s teaching grows with
each semester. As students study the
material further, they discover the rational and scientific aspects that
Theistics consists of.
Overall, I feel that once students give
Swedenborg and Dr. James a chance they can assume the positive bias in science
and see the rational and scientific aspects of Theistic Psychology. At first all students hesitate to accept
these new revelations, but as time goes on, they can assume the positive bias
and rationalize the life lessons conveyed by Dr. James and the teachings and
writings of Swedenborg.
(d)
Relate your conclusions to your own study of theistic psychology thus far. How
do you fit or relate?
My learning curve went much the same way as the
later generations. At first I was
hesitant to assume the positive bias in science because I have been in school
for many years exclusively in the negative bias; I always assumed that
everything I understood in science had to be quantifiable and measurable. Everything I conceptualized had to be real
and something I could see and touch or at least read and understand.
When first reading the notes and Dr. James’
webpage, I had a hard time accepting the information being fed to me,
especially in a college setting. But
after a while I could see that many aspects in Theistic Psychology are rational
and scientific. I just needed to expand
my mind and conceptualize a rational explanation for why God exists and his
methodology for controlling and determining the happenings of the universe.
Question 11.2.
(a) Section 1.5.1.2 "The Negative Bias in
Science" presents an extensive quote by a negative bias mode psychologist
(Bering). Analyze what he says.
(b) Make a conclusion in the light of what you
already know from the positive bias in science perspective in theistic
psychology.
(c) How would your other professors this semester
relate to the idea presented in this class that nontheistic psychology assumes
the negative bias in science? Would you predict that they agree that it is a
bias in science or not?
(a)
Section 1.5.1.2 "The Negative Bias in Science" presents an extensive
quote by a negative bias mode psychologist (Bering). Analyze what he says.
Bering posits that organized cognitive ‘systems’
are responsible for forming illusory representations of, psychological
immortality, the intelligent design of the self, and the symbolic meaning of
natural events evolved in response to stresses when dealing with death anxiety
in the context of evolution and natural selection.
He discusses the reasoning of humans when
dealing with death as a transitional process or if humans rationalize this
event or if they simply learn the transition through cultural vectors such as
religion and familial information conduits.
He also posits that humans created ways to deal with the stresses of death
because of our cognitive advantages over most creatures on earth.
Bering then goes on to talk about the lack of
attention to this phenomenon in psychological theory and states that religion
vibrates at different frequencies throughout many cultures. His main argument in this section is that
people make up ways to reconcile their fear of death by creating social
interactions and acquiring information socially to deal with death. He says religion is simply a cognitive vector
for transferring and reasoning death along social and cultural lines that
change and evolve over time. This
directly contradicts the idea of God and his omnipotence.
Basically, he says humans conjure up thoughts of
God to protect themselves from impairment and harm. He also notes reincarnation beliefs that rely
on karmic principles are no exception because such principles require an
intelligent designer of this morality based rebirthing cycle. This overall vein
of reasoning helps to explain why people expect divine retribution for moral
transgressions only, rather than, say, for breaches of social etiquette.
He concludes that there is enough evidence to
hypothesize that there are good conceptual grounds to argue that natural
selection may have set to work on specific human cognitive errors. These
include simulation constraints leading to Type I errors in reasoning about the
afterlife, teleo-functional errors leading to belief in the soul’s intelligent
design, and theory of mind errors fostering a belief that natural events were
intentionally caused by supernatural agents.
(b)
Make a conclusion in the light of what you already know from the positive bias
in science perspective in theistic psychology.
As for myself, it was hard at first to understand
and rationalize the teachings and theories of Swedenborg and Dr. James but
after realizing that I should review all perspectives, I found it silly to
reject the idea outright.
Before I took Theistic Psychology I mostly
agreed that religion and God were cognitively constructed mechanisms for
survival psychologically and emotionally.
After I assumed the positive bias though I found myself open to the
possibility of new ideas that may be true or untrue, but no doubt, significant
for development as a human being that contributes many positive aspects to
humanity.
It is clear Bering speaks from the negative bias
in science, but I’m sure if he were to study Theistic Psychology, he would see
that it is not demeaning or unethical to observe and rationalize the existence
of God. If anything, it is a challenge
that should test the human mind to look carefully and scientifically at God
instead of believing in him blindly and hoping for him to give us immediate
satisfaction and salvation.
(c) How would your other professors this
semester relate to the idea presented in this class that nontheistic psychology
assumes the negative bias in science? Would you predict that they agree that it
is a bias in science or not?
Once the biases in science was explained, I feel
professors would generally agree that there was a pervasive negative bias
throughout the educational system. They
would agree that one bias assumes that there is God and the other bias denies
God plays a role in biological entities.
But, I feel they would rationalize that science
has been founded in the bowels of the laboratory, and God cannot be quantified,
measured, or replicate any of God’s actions.
In conclusion, I predict that most professors
would agree there was a bias but that it is justified in the name of science
and humanity. Their rationale would be
that humans affect the way we live and exist with for more implicit
interactions with earth and each other than God does so currently.
Question 11.4.
(a) Section 1.5.1.3 also contains a
"narrative account" in which there is a discussion with angels about
what people on earth know about heaven and hell. What is your impression of
this?
(b) Give an interpretation of the account as
best you can at this point in your study of theistic psychology.
(a)
Section 1.5.1.3 also contains a "narrative account" in which there is
a discussion with angels about what people on earth know about heaven and hell.
What is your impression of this?
Heaven,
Hell and Angels
The dialogue with the angels reveals much when
trying to understand the message and actions of God in eternity. Not surprisingly, no one on earth was aware
of the correspondences in life and in sacred scripture and the angles inform
Swedenborg of their surprise and rejoice that God finally has chosen and
prepared a human soul in the natural world to document the world of
eternity.
“The angels asked whether the inhabitants of the
earth knew anything about correspondences before. I said that they knew nothing
at all of them.”
“The angels greatly rejoiced that it had pleased
the Lord to reveal this great secret, which for several thousand years had lain
so deeply hidden. And they said it was done in
order that the Christian Church, founded as it is on the Word and being
now at its end, might be revived and
again draw its spirit through heaven from the Lord.”
My impression of Swedenborg’s conversation with
the angels is that it figures for most humans to have an animist and absolute
idea of God and the afterlife in eternity.
Most people back then probably had no understanding of what it was to be
a scientist and rationalist at the same time, considering that modern science
was at its birth.
I also appreciated the conversation when the
angels ask if anyone on earth knows of conjugial love in eternity. I like that they were happy when they heard
conjugial love was revealed to Swedenborg and they say that conjugial love is
the greatest love of all and surpasses the delights of all other loves.
(b) Give an interpretation of the account as
best you can at this point in your study of theistic psychology.
My Interpretation of the passage is that the
angels were very surprised that humans did not know of God’s design for every
person. They were astounded that we did
not know of the beauty of conjugial love and marriage and the immense
satisfaction they get from having an eternal companion in the afterlife.
For the angels, its quite simple to understand
the afterlife because they are there and it is tangible for them like reality
in the natural world is for us. They
could not understand or were surprised when they discovered that humans were
unaware of eternity and the methods and values we need to be good moral beings
and successful, happy angels in eternity.
God has given us the cognitive and emotional
skills as well as rationality and good and truth to help us reach eternity for
ourselves. This may be why the angels
were doubtful that humans were not actively working on their mental world by
being good citizens by embracing their heavenly traits and searching for
conjugial loves.
Question 11.9.
(a) Discuss your perceptions of how other
students in this class (G26) are adjusting intellectually to the positive bias in
science perspective.
(b) Read some of their reports. Do the reports
show the same thing as the class discussions?
(c) How do you stand relative to others?
(a)
Discuss your perceptions of how other students in this class (G26) are
adjusting intellectually to the positive bias in science perspective.
At the beginning of the semester most students
were quite astounded at the initial content of the class and Theistic
Psychology. Most thought it would be
information about God in the negative bias and a psychological history of the
impact of religion cognitively, emotionally, and inter-sociologically.
Many of the students looked at each other
incredulously and with shock that we were going to spend the semester talking
about God; not only about God, but about the writings of Swedenborg and the
unorthodox approach of Dr. James.
After discussing the positive and negative bias
in science though, many students felt they were exclusively taught in the negative
bias and after the first few classes were very interested in the different
approach to studying God. There was much
tension at first reconciling the drastic difference in opinion about God’s
place in science and the way we could quantify scientifically, the attributes
and will of God.
I feel that generation 26 has gone through an
incredible experience battling between the two biases and balancing the
readings with the reports, but after reviewing the progress of the class it is
encouraging to see that a class can come together and talk about a difficult
subject with respect and amicability.
The semester was quite an experience for all students involved.
(b) Read some of their reports. Do the reports
show the same thing as the class discussions?
The reports are far more detailed than class
discussions simply because we have the time and resources to think carefully
about each answer to each question.
During the discussions in class and oral presentations, many students
talked and compared ideas and concepts that they wrote in their reports, and
from there, all students had a much better idea of what they were trying to
conceptualize.
The most significant effect of oral
presentations and class discussion on reports is the ability to articulate
ideas and then transfer them to written mediums. I felt that the students that were shy or
uncomfortable speaking in front of the class still got to say what they wanted
on the reports online.
Throughout the semester much improvement can be
seen when listening to discussions now that are more casual and informative
than the sterile discussions from the beginning of the semester.
(c) How do you stand relative to others?
Relatively
Me
I feel that I have been asking more questions as
the semester has rolled on and feel much more comfortable discussing my
opinions on the readings during class.
As long as I do the readings and prepare I find it easier to follow
along during the discussions.
I feel that the entire class has been making steady
progress with the exception of a few that miss a few classes. Other than that, many are taking in the new
information with a more open mind than earlier in the semester and have been
making very well thought and intelligent responses to many of the questions.
As with many of the other students, I am still
learning and can learn more with closer and continued readings of the class
webfolder. The lessons in Theistic
Psychology can be applied to life and has no problem adapting to different
religions or people without religion.
Question 13.1.
(a) List between 3 and 5 criteria that
theistic psychology should have if it is going to make it as a science in the
future.
(b) Briefly explain each.
(c) Then give your assessment as to how
theistic psychology as you know it, stacks up against these criteria.
(a)
List between 3 and 5 criteria that theistic psychology should have if it is
going to make it as a science in the future.
Objective Reality. The facts of the proposed
system must come from objective observation, and must be verifiable by others.
Operational Definition. The proposed theory
must offer concrete measurement procedures for assessing the magnitude of effects
indexed by dependent measures under various known independent conditions.
Empiricism: Every step of the explanation or
theory must be capable of being understood and verified by the person's own
experience or self-witnessing observations.
(b) Briefly explain each.
For Theistic Psychology to be a serious
mainstream science, it must first meet most of the criteria set forth by an
established scientific institution.
Decidedly, Theistic Psychology will be at the mercy of the definition of
‘science’ that main stream scientific communities dictate.
Because of this stringent criterion, many
theories, including ones in Theistic Psychology, will be relegated to the back
burner of current psychological academia.
Objective reality means that a theory can be
observed objectively and be replicated by others in the same way and results
must be verifiable.
Operational definition means that the proposed
theory must offer concrete measurement procedures for assessing the magnitude
of effects indexed by dependent measures under various known independent
conditions.
Finally I feel Theistic Psychology needs
empiricism: Every step of the explanation or theory must be capable of being
understood and verified by the person's own experience or self-witnessing
observations.
If Theistic Psychology can meet all these
criteria I feel it has a good chance of being taken seriously as a science and
as a successful model of how to live life and prepare for our death.
(c)
Then give your assessment as to how theistic psychology as you know it, stacks
up against these criteria.
Objective reality is clearly seen in Theistic
psychology when referring to the direct observations of Swedenborg and his
relative status in the scientific community at the time.
Swedenborg's system is based on a universal law
between the natural and spiritual worlds called "the law of
correspondences" (see Section xx).
Although others cannot verify what Swedenborg saw because they were not
able to transcend like he did, the fact still remains that Swedenborg as a
scientist recorded his findings scientifically and objectively. The notes say that this is no different than
what is done in the field of anthropology and sociology.
In reference to operational definition, Theistic
Psychology may not seem to stack up well, but, as Swedenborg and Dr. James
noted, the fact that we will be resuscitated and find out for ourselves of
eternity is enough to be a suitable explanation. Because the existence of the mental world
goes beyond time and space there need not be this scientific criterion for the
existence of eternity.
Finally there is the criteria that states a
theory must be capable of being understood and verified by the person's own
experience or self-witnessing observations.
This again harkens back to the fact that we as humans will be able to
experience this for ourselves when we make the transition to the afterlife and
eternity. If Swedenborg is right we will
all be able to self explain eternity just as the angels that talked to
Swedenborg were able to understand the methodological process that God has in
place for everyone in the universe.
Question 13.5.
(a) How do you react to the idea in Section
1.6.8 that "Sacred Scripture Is the Source of Scientific
Revelations"?
(b) Explain the importance of the distinction
between the literal sense of Sacred Scripture (religion) and its
correspondential sense (theistic psychology).
(a)
How do you react to the idea in Section 1.6.8 that "Sacred Scripture Is
the Source of Scientific Revelations"?
Sacred Scripture is the external source of
access to communication with God and our human conscience is our interior
source of access to communication with God. Both our external and interior
sources provide the individual with a higher or purer rational thinking and
reasoning about self, society, and eternity.
In this way God gives us the guidance and information in Sacred
Scripture for us to make rational laws that guide our everyday life and
morality.
But is Sacred Scripture part of scientific
revelation? And why is it called
scientific revelation?
Many have tried to rationalize God in scientific
ways throughout the centuries including people trying to find hidden meanings
and codes within the Bible (the Old Testament) and also try to figure codes and
symbols within numbers matrixes as seen in the writings of many prophets or
psychics throughout history claiming to know all that happens and to know the
date of the end of time. This is silly
because only God knows the exact date because he is omnipotent, omniscient, and
omnipresent. Also I don’t see why he
would destroy the world we live in presently just to see his hard work vanish
from the universe, especially since humans are the only rational beings
around.
Swedenborg discovered Sacred Scripture is Divine
Speech incorporating a scientific message from God to human beings. Wow.
What an incredible revelation!
Instead of God speaking directly to humans, he has created a way for
humans to save themselves and to make themselves better in the process of
finding eternity. This is amazing and
rational because God would not create humans just so that we ask him to save
us. He has created us as rational
entities that are quite capable of rationalizing his existence and subsequently
become self-rational and independent of his direct influence.
Swedenborg discovered Divine Speech is perfectly
rational but its rationality diminishes from perfection as it descends through
the layers of every human mind. The topics and meanings of Divine Speech are
closer to perfection in the upper levels of the mind, and diminish in
perfection as Divine speech is translated into lower forms of correspondences,
the lowest being the natural-corporeal correspondences of the Old Testament
Sacred Scripture
My reaction to this revelation is simply that
God is also rational and that he has figured out a way to communicate with us
that gave us direct power over choices and actions that we take and gives us
accountability in our everyday lives.
As discussed in class all the communication
happens in six discrete levels that humans prepare for and ascend until we are
ultimately angels.
(b) Explain the importance of the
distinction between the literal sense of Sacred Scripture (religion) and its
correspondential sense (theistic psychology).
When thinking and studying God’s teaching
through the Bible and other Sacred Scripture literally, God comes across as
‘complaining, vengeful, petty, self-involved, unsure of his works, and favoring
this individual over that solely on the basis of race and blood line. This is
the level of thinking about God when it is done with
natural-corporeal correspondences. The New Testament is written in
natural-sensuous correspondences, which are at a higher level of
abstraction.’
If we take God’s word literally we are taking
him for granted and not taking it upon ourselves to become enlightened and
reach eternity through rational thinking. The actual content of Divine Speech
is about how the human mind works, how it is to be regenerated and prepared for
heavenly life in immortality. There is no other subject mentioned by God in His
Divine Speech to mankind. Therefore
there is no reason to think of the content literally. Through correspondences in the scripture we
can achieve eternity and find peace after death.
By studying Theistic Psychology and the writings
of Swedenborg, we assume the positive bias and cease to accept religious norms
and begin thinking rationally. We can
then move forward through correspondential rationale and reach eternity the way
God meant for us to reach it.
(a) Study Section 1.7 on the resuscitation
process.
(b) How do you react to this new information?
(c) Share it with some friends. How do they
react?
(d) What is your conclusion?
Answer to Question 13.8
(a)
Study Section 1.7 on the resuscitation process.
Resuscitation
For Me and For You
Done
(b) How do you react to this new
information?
When positing about the way we die and the
feeling associated with death, Swedenborg describes for the layman what will
happen after death through his own experience with ‘the end’.
Resuscitation is described as a process of
"extracting the spirit" from the physical body. The spirit or mind is
in its own spiritual body.
I also feel that the process is very descriptive
in the way it is pictorialiazation in the statements from Swedenborg. The descriptions of angels also makes it
easier for me to imagine dying because there will be somebody there to help me
with the transition from near-death to eternity.
The
angels are responsible for the medical process attended by the wisest and most
advanced minds who live in the "Third Heaven" and have earned the
title of Celestial Angels. It's also clear that they are able to communicate or
influence our thoughts directly by a kind of telepathic exchange.
I find the details of Swedenborg’s discovery of
resuscitation interesting and of great use for humans so that they may
understand what is to come in eternity.
(c) Share it with some friends. How do they
react?
I shared this information with my roommate that
I have been conversing with regularly about Theistic Psychology. He was very receptive to the information and
noted that no one has a very descriptive sequence for what happens when we
die.
He said the resuscitation process was
interesting but its validity is in question because only one person,
Swedenborg, has been able to experience it.
He made the point that if resuscitation is possible and true, that we
will only be able to experience it in death.
He also said that there is no harm in applying the concepts of Theistic
Psychology because we would all be better people for doing so. He believes that sacred scripture is
important and that the correspondences are a rational way to understand the
hidden meaning of God and that it provides equality and tolerance for all
religions.
Another roommate I talked to is Christian and
still believes that the word of the Bible is the word of God and is
indisputable. I explained
correspondences and hidden meaning in Sacred Scripture to him, but he still
believes that the literal translation and understanding of the Bible is noble
and right.
But, he conceded that Theistic Psychology is an
convincing way to make God a scientific study and rationality particularly
interested him because he also is a university student and believes that the
study of God must be rational to be taken seriously. His conclusion is that Theistic Psychology
does not hurt his religion or demean God in any way, so he feels it only
benefits Theistics.
(d)
What is your conclusion?
My
Conclusion
My conclusion as far as resuscitation is
concerned is that it is a process that we all go through when we die. It also explains the period after we die when
there is much doubt in religious and scientific circles of what actually
happens when we die. This explanation
fits in well with what we have been studying and is rational and verifiable
when reading the accounts of Swedenborg.
My final conclusion is that we all will not know
the validity of Swedenborg’s discoveries until we ultimately die and experience
eternity and death for ourselves. Only
then will we be able to quantify and objectively posit about eternity. Hopefully a modern day figure will be able to
exist simultaneously in the mental world and the natural world and only then
can we continue to understand God and eternity.
Question 13.9.
(a) Why is it important for God to talk to or
communicate with human beings?
(b) What does God intend to talk to us about?
Why?
(c) How does God talk to us or communicate
with us?
(d) Is there anything relevant you'd like to
say about your relationship to your conscience and to Sacred Scripture?
Answers to Question 13.9
(a)
Why is it important for God to talk to or communicate with human beings?
I feel God’s communication with humans is to
prepare us for eternity and does so through correspondences and hidden meanings
in Sacred Scripture. He does not do so
literally or directly contact or communicate with us because the sensuous
nature and irrational atmosphere it creates does not help humans better
themselves as an independent entity. If
God took care of everything for us we would not be in control of ourselves and
be totally dependent on God’s instruction and care.
God has created the rational human so that we
can make our own choices and create our own heavens and hells. This is the most efficient way to moderate
human behavior and morality. God did
this for a reason.
(b) What does God intend to talk to us
about? Why?
But
Why?
God, if he could talk to us, would tell us to be
heavenly and treat each other how we would like to be treated. He intends for all of his creations to be
able to affect our heavens and hells and to ultimately be happy with the
choices we make. We therefore are able
choose our own destiny and be able to find our eternal partners and fit into a
community after death.
God basically talks to us through Sacred Scripture and correspondences to
prepare us for this eternity and wants to see all his children be happy. He talks to us in correspondences and hopes
that we become rational and study Theistic Psychology to understand the
methodology of his actions and the consequences of ours.
(c) How does God talk to us or communicate
with us?
God communicates with us through scared scripture
given to prophets worthy of his message, including Swedenborg. He speaks rationally and his message is
translated into our human natural language.
It is our job during our lives to be rational and understand that he
wants us to find the correspondences and hidden meanings in all Sacred
Scripture and live our lives accordingly.
Through Theistic Psychology we can understand the hellish and heavenly
traits we want to live by and we have the choice in the afterlife of our
creation. God simply builds the road and
we travel freely on them to our ultimate destination: eternity.
(d) Is there anything relevant you'd like to
say about your relationship to your conscience and to Sacred Scripture?
I have not been very religious in my life and I
always had the assumption that Sacred Scripture was to be taken literally. I still model my morality and conscience
after my parent’s and I feel my morality and conscience have been somewhat
affected by the Bible and also by Buddhism.
The Golden rule I live by is to treat others the
way I want to be treated. This has
ultimately been a successful model for me to live by because the quality of my
life is dependent on my actions. Also, I
feel the way I live somewhat resembles what God wants. I feel if I study correspondences in Sacred
Scripture more closely I will be able to build my mental world effectively and
find my conjugial mate.