CHAPTER EIGHT
A Person in Agreement
A person in agreement is a real phenomenon. An agreement between two individuals is more
than merely an agreement of their minds, their individual wills. Now, we can know that
this agreement also encompasses their total personalities at infinity, their greater
personal realities. A person in agreement is in agreement both with the mind of another
and that other's greater identity. Thus, a person in agreement is the phenomenon of
agreement between personal realities, between real identities.
In the mind, this agreement can be either conscious or unconscious. Conscious, it had been
approached willfully, accepted, and thus
chosen to be an act of agreement. Unconscious, the parties had been drawn to each other
unwillfully, perhaps moved by curiosity of the other, or drawn to sensually, attracted to
physical appearance or movement, or perhaps they had been brought together by what appear
as chance circumstances. Such approach could be naturally, unconsciously in agreement
until one or the other becomes cognizant of the approach; then there can result either a
conscious acknowledgment of agreement or an expression of disagreement to stem further
approach.
An agreement in a person courted unconsciously is approached naturally, much as an
attraction in response to movements of the body, like in a dance. The agreements form of
themselves, spontaneously, and the attraction between the two bodies becomes more intense.
One gives to the other, mutually, unthinkingly. The agreement may last only as long as the
desire drives the two together and dissolve as soon as that desire is satisfied.
Unconscious, agreement is almost beyond our control, fleeting, mercurial, and often
sexual. Yet, it occurs, and can be very strong at times. It is exciting, thoughtless; it
can be unreserved and even communicate in increased attraction without common words. It
predates us as a species and had exited before we developed a conscious mind. Agreement
can have an almost predatory quality in its natural form, but as an old value, it reaches
down to the very drives that sustain our life, and that had been indispensable to our
species.
Conscious, however, we have the power to either accept or reject an approach. We are more
complex now and our needs reflect that more complex existence. Our agreements are more
sophisticated and serve our needs in more subtle ways. What used to happen naturally can
now occur also thinkingly. Where an agreement was an almost raw attraction between the
natural needs of two beings, it can now have the added value of being an act conscious of
itself. A mind conscious of its being is also conscious of when that being is in agreement
with another. It can still respond to the same natural drives, but it need no longer be
done to unconsciously; it is now a doer, aware of its actions, and thus is aware of when
it is being done upon. A mind aware of its identity has a need that did not exist while
still unconscious. It needs the right to consciously accept or reject an agreement. In
effect, it needs the right to either agree or to disagree. Now, why is this
important? It is because an unconscious mind is not as forced from its reality, or its
agreement, as is a conscious mind. The unconscious mind will tend generally to accept,
provided there is some form of compatibility. It will generally yield when pressed or
quickly weaken in its conviction and submit. The definition of its identity at infinity is
not as distinct and can be easily modified to suit the new needs. As sincere and as
beautiful in its naturalness and innocence as that mind may be, unless it is naturally
stubborn, it will tend to lack strong conviction and thus be more submissive. Its cry for
freedom will be genuine but it would lack will and thus become quick to accept the
trespass. Without a conscious mind, its identity still lacks a definition in real terms,
at infinity, to define it as a real personality. Rather, it is reflective of those
personalities around it, easily modified, and quick to adapt itself to the dictates of a
new authority. Its definition at infinity, as it is still formative, can be easily
influenced but it cannot be easily disturbed; if temporarily inconvenienced, it merely
retreats into its more comfortable level of unconsciousness.
When fully conscious, however, we have a real need for our identity. To be forced from it,
to be forced against our agreement is a real suffering that transcends our immediate
discomfort. It is the pain of a soul that is being forced to be other than itself. A
conscious mind is not slavish; it can yield, it forgives, but it cannot submit; its
actions are deliberate, not forced, and it cannot bow from its right to itself, its right
to seek agreement. A conscious mind aware of itself and in agreement with its identity
does not seek to trespass; it is not tyrannical, nor driven by fear; rather it seeks
mutually beneficial agreement. A real personality is advanced by successful agreements,
but it is neither forced against nor forces another against his or her agreement. There is
no advantage in disagreement since one party must exert effort to keep the other in
submission; that same effort can be used far more effectively on other things when acts
are voluntary and mutually beneficial. A conscious mind seeks to do things, no matter how
difficult, in a voluntary manner because it chooses to do so, since it does not do things
because it is forced to. Forced against its agreement, a conscious mind holds firm in is
convictions and rejects the trespass.
So, to seek agreement is a natural act. It is to seek those conditions of reality and in
the reality of another that are compatible with the conditions that are part of our mind
and reality, in our identity. If we are in agreement with our identity, then we seek to
preserve this agreement because it is a real demand by our reality as defined by the mind.
As we mold the reality around us, our immediate environment and circumstances, we project
our personality into it. How we handle things, how we possess them, and how we create new
things are all indicative of the level of agreement between the self and its greater
identity. But the materialization of the self need not be insulated from the identities
and realities of others. We can be enhanced by things that belong to another, that are
handled by and part of another's reality. Then, there can be formed an agreement to
exchange goods between the two personalities who find benefit in such agreement. The goods
of each other's realities, or services, brought into each one's sphere of influence can
then formally change hands, as agreed upon, with each to enrich the other. If both benefit
from the exchange, the agreement is a successful one, since both identities are then
enriched with the presence of a new thing that is more compatible with their respective
identities. Thus they are satisfied.Generally, we each seek to
exchange something we desire less for something we desire more. Based on that is the act
of agreement that occurs between personalities. The success of such agreement then becomes
part of their now enhanced, greater personal identity realities. Each is enriched more by
surrendering what is, to the self, less for what is more; but, if he or she wills it, each
contributes of the self to the reality of another more than he or she receives. It is
always a conscious act, entirely within the domain of how the self wishes to express its
definition at infinity, for its own benefit. To be thus enriched is always an entirely
personal act, to be judged by none other than the self, and judged truly, really, only at
that self's definition at infinity.
So a pattern unfolds: When we interact with other individuals, if they are conscious, we
can depend on their act being also beneficial to them. An unconscious being may or may not
be aware of the benefits of its acts; however, nor is that awareness, unconscious, of
great importance, since its reality will accept more readily. By contrast, a conscious
being depends on the act being beneficial if for no other reason than that an unbeneficial
act will detract from his or her reality and force the mind to turn its attention to that
loss. It distracts the mind from other, more beneficial pursuits, requires attention and
support until the error is corrected, and can potentially cause damage to not only one's
own reality but also the reality of another. A condition of agreement is self supporting;
it, through mutual advantages, insures its own perpetuation since it is in the interest of
each to keep it so, and allows the mind greater freedom to pursue other needs. Since an
agreement, properly executed, sustains itself since it is also endorsed by each other's
reality, to a conscious mind, the element of agreement has an additional benefit of
liberating it from the chore of having to continually preserve a state of conditions that
are beneficial to the self. In agreement with another conscious mind, the act is itself
self-supporting and self-perpetuating by the virtue that it is mutually beneficial to both
parties and sustained by each other's realities. Thus, neither party trespasses against
the other and, on the contrary, the identity and reality of each is mutually enhanced.
As opposed to an unconscious mind, a conscious mind is a mind that is continually
conscious of its responsibility. It is responsible in its behavior both to itself and to
another. In agreement, it seeks like mindedness, since it needs confidence in the
responsibility of the other. Then, agreement can be formed and both can benefit from the
exchange; if no confidence of like mindedness is found, no beneficial exchange can take
place. If entered irresponsibly, in error, the agreement with a still immature mind can
run the risk of unconscious disagreement and possibly trespass. A still unconscious mind
can be a liability detrimental to one's reality if sought on equal terms. Given that
mind's still formative identity, it can reverse its posture through a loss of conviction,
it can be easily swayed in its thought, and even possibly given to dishonesty and steal
for a quick gain. Then, the mind thus trespassed is thrown into a disadvantage, is
betrayed in its agreement, and must seek its reparation to recover its position within its
reality, to reestablish its presence in its identity. An unconscious agreement, even if at
times appealing, can become a serious risk to a conscious mind, even dangerous. It is a
danger for which a conscious mind must be responsible and watch for.
Thus we see that there is a principle to agreement. It is that a mind is free to be
itself, free to seek agreement as it wishes, as it
consciously will, provided that it is conscious of its acts. A mind is free to occupy, or
seek to occupy, its identity provided it does not
seek to trespass on the identity of another. As long as we do not force another against
his or her will, as long as we are not the author of such force, then we are free to seek
voluntary association as we please, and as it is agreed upon by the parties who enter such
association. Provided they are in agreement, then all concerned are better occupying the
value in reality that is their identity. To occupy this identity in agreement is a natural
act of our conscious mind. It is a conscious act to recognize the value of another's mind
and his or her conscious identity. Conscious of this act, not forcing another against
their will, not forcing a mind from its conscious identity, seeking the benefit of
agreement over the destructiveness of disagreement; then the mind is conscious of the
principle of agreement. Conscious of this principle, acting out this consciousness in its
interaction with other human beings, interacting willfully only through agreement, it is
itself by definition: It is naturally free.
There is no social tribunal that can define whether or not a human being is free. We are
all free by definition until we break this definition and step from freedom by breaking
the principle of agreement. The principle of agreement is a law all unto itself. We are
defined as human beings, conscious of our acts and conscious of the human value of others
as long as we obey the principle of agreement. As long as we do not trespass on another,
do not force another against his or her agreement, then we are free as minds within our
identity, as human beings conscious of the Law of Agreement. To break this law, and to
force another against his or her agreement, is to be unconscious of the value of the
freedom of each individual mind, of each person's identity in the universe, and thus to be
less than consciously human. Not human, we are not free to be ourselves in a human
society, and then we are subject to those laws that seek to restrict our freedom of action
within society. We are free only while we are conscious of our acts, while we obey the Law
of Agreement, and while we are in our mind. Unfree, we are not a definition at infinity
unto ourselves, are amiss with ourselves and others around us. Within human reality, we
are free by definition until our acts prove us unfree; then, we must stand before a social
tribunal and seek to regain our freedom which will be granted only after we have paid our
dues to society or the persons we have injured.
From the above we can conclude: A man guilty of trespass is not unfree until tried by
social law and found guilty of trespass against
another, since an accusation does not condemn. But a man or woman who is so accused, if he
or she be a conscious mind, will stand
defense, in his or her mind, until either proven guilty or remaining innocent. A mind
conscious does not submit to tyranny. It cannot be accused lightly and be expected to
surrender. It is not slavish. A mind conscious of its acts and believing itself innocent
will persevere if trespassed upon by false accusation until it is proven innocent. In this
lies the strength of the Law of Agreement as it is within Habeas Mentem.
So in the end, freedom is a responsibility of the conscious mind. A free society can exist
only if the individuals within it are conscious of their identity, and of their actions.
It cannot be formed for the benefit of a servile population, for they would be unconscious
and could not defend themselves against the advances of tyranny. Freedom exists only when
each individual is conscious of his or her mind and of his or her value as a human being;
then they have the strength with which to defend this value when approached by coercion.
In that is the strength of a free society. It is composed of individuals who are free
because they allow other individuals to be free, because they interact with each other
only when there is a bridge between them of mutual agreement. But where this bridge of
agreement does not exist, they do not advance and force themselves onto another, not until
such agreement is reached. In that is the responsibility as a social mind: A conscious
mind moves forcefully, boldly, but it does not trespass and is not trespassed against,
because it is responsible first to its greater identity in its universe.
Thus the definition from the universe that communicates to that mind and its reality is a
definition from a universe that is working
compatibly with its identity. This compatibility between the mind and its universe becomes
physically apparent in both the structure and disposition, uprightedness, of the mind and
the elevation of the reality that is then its environment. The materialization of this
definition socially, within its immediate reality, is a real definition of circumstances
and forces that are now working with it as it moves in life. To be in agreement within
infinity is to be one with one's identity at infinity; it is also to be in agreement with
a universe that now has the bridge, the medium, with which to materialize its greater
definitions within our life: Conscious agreement. When formed between individuals, it is a
materialization of universal order in the realities of their lives and the realization of
our mind in our social reality. When our physical environment moves with us in our
agreements, our society reflects more clearly that value that is our human identity. We
are the channels, through our minds, between the universal order and the order of things
in our society here on our planet. But we can open these channels only when we are in
agreement both with ourselves and with each other. To seek these agreements genuinely,
consciously, responsibly, forcefully, is to materialize the value of our human mind, our
definition, in the if seemingly inert reality of our planet. Thus in the Law of Agreement,
in Habeas Mentem, is the bridge from our unconscious past into our more conscious, more
living, future in our reality; in them is the social law that has embodied in itself the
universal law of its own self defined order as it can be translated from a universal
interrelationship into our human reality.
So where does this leave us? It means that a man or woman in agreement is in effect a
person in tune with the principle of his or her
greater identity. To find agreement where such exists, is to materialize in the self and
in that self's environment the image of that self's greater identity, both within the mind
and without at infinity. To have the mind is to be in infinity as infinity is that mind in
its Earthly reality. Can the mind know when it is itself in infinity? Yes. It can be
itself when it is conscious and free from trespass. Can it be conscious and free from
trespass? It can be so only if it obeys the Law of Agreement and is protected in its mind
by Habeas Mentem.
Can the Law of Agreement and Habeas Mentem be a social reality? Yes, when they can work in
our society. Then, our social order
reflects the principle of our human being in tune with his or her greater identity, and
then the universe reflects its infinite order in the materialization of our Earthly
society. Can we know what that materialization is when it becomes our reality? We will
know it when our planet becomes a richer, more beautiful place in which to live. Then
reality will materialize in us the answer to the question: "We are Who?"
* * * |