Data vs. knowing
[April 13, 2007] All right friends, let’s talk a little about “story” versus perception as it comes to psychic exploration. I can see this as at least a post to the blog, as I think it is an important insight bearing on — that is to say, clearing up — many things that have plagued me about the process for years. This, unless you have something else in mind for us to discuss. But I rather suspect that this is you knocking on the door anyway.
True enough. You will notice that it was in rereading one of Joseph’s posts — knowing that some of it has to be wrong — that you felt the urging to get off the screen and back to this journal book.
Anything you know, you can know only relatively. There is no such thing as absolute knowledge, and beware of anyone promising it to you. Everything existing in context with everything else, there is no room for anything to stand alone, unaffected and unmodified by context.
Now, since this is so of everything, in practice it may be ignored in most cases. But it is as well to explicitly restate this before considering subjects that may be explored but not proved.
You learned, in trying out remote viewing, that perceptions may be accurate but incomplete, and that regardless how inaccurate or how incomplete, the mind is always ready to connect the dots with “story” — it is the way you make sense of the world in the absence of complete data — and who ever completely knows the world?
It should strike you — certainly it is important — that the more accurate the perceptions, the greater the chance that you are going to invent “story” around them. You know they are true perceptions, and if you are open enough to perceive them in the first place, you are the sort who is not likely to deny them when it comes time to figure out what it all means.
What is even worse in a way — the fewer the blanks to be filled in, the more persuasive the story that fills it in.
[Phone call.] To resume —
This insight has many threads, each of which is an essay, each of which you have experienced.
— Data versus knowing. You have built a coherent or semi-coherent story out of Joseph’s life, and the more you got to know him, the surer you were that “if he is real, there is some data out there to objectively demonstrate it.” Yet he has become much more present and the data has gone from un-gathered to positively contradictory to his story. This invalidated both ends of your “either-or” because the facts haven’t been there, yet his reality is there. You know and can not prove — yet it is more than that: you know even if disapproved.
How can this be (and still be real rather than fantasy)? Think of your friend Dave’s explanation of how Lockheed managed leaks to defuse them.
Yes, I see that. A mixture of fact, distorted fact, and invention, so that even if the entirely correct story were leaked, observers would have to weigh one against the other, which would blur the outlines and reduce certainty.
[Another phone call.] Curiously interrupted session. Maybe I should have started earlier, in the time when no one calls except in emergency. You were saying —
There is no intent from our side to deceive but otherwise the process is similar to the one your friend described. That is, this is how you receive the information — true and distorted and invented, all jumbled together. And so it is then up to you to unscramble the story as best you can.
This says worlds about those who claim to be giving you unvarnished truth. With the highest integrity and the greatest perception, they are not going to have it entirely right. It is beyond human possibility.
It is true of scripture, too, and the writers of scripture. Someone describing God is going to describe perceptions that are accurate and distorted and entirely false, all mixed together, probably inseparable. Does that make the scriptures any less valuable than your scientific theories and structures? Obviously not. But it makes the use of them somewhat different from the general way they are used. If you wish certainty, if you wish absolutes, you are in the wrong place for it. You will not find them in three-dimensional mental space.
This seems to be about all I can do for the moment, which is disappointing.
Persistence is all. Send this out. There will always be more, so long as you are ready and able to receive.
[I emailed this out to a list of friends, one of whom, by asking the right question, elicited a little more information on the subject of communication from the other side.]
> I have seldom read such an accurate description of the psychic and future telling information which we have always been exposed to or brought in our selves. Yet I am haunted by one loud question. Why???
…Why on the 3rd dimension are we given true leaks of real expanded reality and half confusing truths and cockamamie stories???
Well I thought that was understood in what they said. It isn’t that anyone intends to deceive us, it is that our perceptions are incomplete, and our mental processes fill in the blanks. I think we can learn to do less of that, which ought to result in more reliable information, but it sounds to me like they are saying it can’t ever be entirely eliminated merely because
Come to think of it, I knew this but they didn’t explicitly say it: It is the nature of language that is the problem. Words convey information only in distorted form. There is no way to overcome this, hence any information that is passed on verbally shares the distortion.
[They seem to have promised other essays about other aspects of this “story versus perception” theme, and if receive more, I shall pass it on.]