Theodore Reik, to whom I owe much more than I can write about.

"I saw not with the eyes of the body but the eye of the soul." Theodore Reik,

In his Fragment of a Great Confession quotes Goethe's description of an event of precognition.  Page 188 , Freundliche Vision (Friendly Vision)   Farrar, Straus, 1949 

On that page Mr. Reik writes about how Goethe describes that he met himself riding one day  wearing a certain 'dress', passing the image of himself on a path that he later did ride on wearing the same 'dress'. The fact that he recognized this was a 'vision', created within his own mind but somehow was externalized as a 'real event' could have been obvious to him WHEN it happened, but that's not likely. The fact that it was a 'pre-vision' of a future event could only have become obvious to him WHEN in the future, he really wore that 'dress' and rode along that path, to that exact location at which point in time, the memory of the way he had 'observed' meeting himself was retrieved. Then he would 'remember' that he'd had a 'pre-vision' of that day, or he might not have remembered the actual pre-vision exactly and experienced it as a 'deja vu' . That 'sense' creates the thought: "I've been here before."                         

                                          888888888

Mr. Reik describes in that book, in a chapter titled In Small Packages, he only example I've come across anywhere of the kind of 'double bottom thought' that I began to experience sometime in 1983 as best I can date it

 He's thinking about last night's bridge game, trying to reconstruct in his mind the bridge game he had watched. He tried to construct every hand as bridge players seem to love to do thus his 'thought' contains the terms bridge players ordinarily use to talk or write about playing bridge.  At certain points he notices that his mind seems to linger, even become 'stuck in place' on  certain words ordinarily used to think about a bridge hand, "I was the dummy." "She passed away..."; "She was weak in hearts.." It seemed to him the words had a 'hidden meaning', there was a 'double bottom' in those places. He pondered over why his mind seemed to be 'stuck' on those terms.  He dismissed their personal significance to his real life, thinking they were 'magical thinking'  because he was a psychiatrist. He was a close friend of Sigmund Freud whom he adored. This is where he missed a cosmic level opportunity to 'get the message' that was being 'spoken' to him, through those words. He was being told a detail about his actual life with his wife. He was of course aware of the way the events in his life related to those 'terms' but the process that 'highlighted those details' was dismissed or ignored.

This mechanism that created information over a span of 5 years, between 1984 and 1989 was quite distinct to me only when I knew how it operated, i.e. creating a 're-hearing' and/or 're-viewing' of content in a flash of time so small it took three years to be really certain it was happening. It created 'second sight', literally of that material, and a new context formed automatically, so the term 'second underlying contexts' actually came to me only when I understood every moment in that 'double context'. I could not decide which was real! The first context was my 'normal' way of understanding, the second eventually paralleled my normal, and was equally valid. Both contexts existed for a period of almost 15 years.

In my own experience it was the words, terms and ideas connected to learning advanced and challenge levels of square dancing that began to develop a 'secret meaning', a 'double bottom' so to speak. But another term came to me eventually that is an exact description of the process: 'second underlying contexts/second under 'lying' contexts'. The doubleness of context took a very long time to be certain about, because it emerged so rapidly.

Mr. Reik could have recognized the personal reference to an actual detail about his life but it's likely he would have had to understand 'meaningful coincidence' in a way that Sigmund Freud did not seem to understand it himself. Carl G. Jung went into the depths of mind and became aware of where the coincidences find their origin.

The terms of the bridge game took on a 'second underlying context', but his professional training did not permit him to consider there was a significant detail about his real life with his wife that was being 'said' in that 'reflection of content'.

I heard at one point in time, words  one would ordinarily use to talk about a square dance formation, or a movement in the same way he heard 'I was the dummy." and he was not talking about being stupid...unless that 'double bottom' or 'hidden meaning' that he did recognize was to taken seriously as  a valid statement given to him to alert him to how a mechanism of mind was at work. The mechanism that creates 'self observation' was at work but he did not 'get the message'. 

                         88888888888888888888888888

 Theodore Reik had an obsession with Wolfgang Goethe such that he'd read everything written by Goethe by the time he was 18 years old. He does not tell anyone about this secret obsession however, until many years later. I believe the reason he didn't tell anyone about his deep interest in Goethe was that all this activity took place in a memory that was very remote. He experienced being driven by 'compulsions/obsessive interests' and although the 'drive'  was visible to him and it was all connected to an event in the future, information that was stored away for future use. I've experienced this myself, being 'driven' by a powerful force that was visible but literally beyond speech.

There are depths in the mind, where thought emerges that not be 'related to' for decades. I've experienced certain memories that flashed into my mind, that took years, decades to notice and wonder about!  It can be an event, complete with every detail, it's really a regeneration of the original event, or it can be just a couple of words, thought words quietly murmured for no reason.

In 1984 I experienced my first 'mindquake' but I could not relate to it a year later when I wrote part of the information I'd received July 31, 1984 thru August 11. I typed it one day, read what I'd typed and put the papers away, not ever curious about why my fingers had typed something I'd not intended to type. It was the message with it's 10 items  and a decent report of  what had happened in the preface to it. This was the visible part, and it had to be a very large 'packet' of information, mostly memories retrieved and aligned in 'movie like form' that conveyed meaning instantly.  That event opened up in a literal sense the reality of the life I was living at the time, according to ideas written down in 'history', all of it and none of it related to my real world life as a real world woman.

After I'd read Contact in July of 1985 I remember a thought come into my extremely busy mind: "It was a message. I got a message."

You see I had to discover it later, literally word by word, idea by idea, concept by concept in some way in the exterior world although this discovery happened in an apparently random way when I found myself compelled to read books I'd no interest in and that ordinarily I would not have   persisted in reading. Some sense of being 'controlled' and unable to choose NOT to read them emerged as words, they were thought words, that rather 'wafted' from 'sensed words' to being real words the way a fragrance often precedes an object but which identifies the object before its visible. The 'sensed words' became 'real words' quite gradually in a visible way which I watched and remembered when distinct words emerged one day while I was trying to get interested in a book by Wilson Van Dusen: The Presence of Other Worlds: "Pay no attention to whether you understand the words, read them anyway."

Theodore Reik's book, Listening With The Third Ear is a book I suggest because he writes about intricate processes of thought and memory retrievals that led him towards insight into his patients problems.