TGU session 08-08-01 (1)

[After the August 3 PREP session, Rita Warren suggested that I could do the same thing outside of the black box, merely using a free-flow Focus 27 tape. She offered to monitor a series of sessions at her house, and I gladly accepted, knowing Rita’s unique background in such work. Not only is she a Ph.D. psychologist who had a distinguished academic career, she and her husband Martin had run Bob’s lab from the time it opened in early l984 for about four years. They had worked with hundreds of subjects, keeping in mind Bob Monroe’s goal of “asking questions that would result in information that would be of value to all mankind.” Thus, they asked about such topics as consciousness, health and healing, environment and earth changes, the nature of the universe, and various spiritual and philosophical questions. But there were lots of questions she could never get satisfactory answers to: What’s it like over there? “Oh, everything’s fine. It’s hard to explain. You’ll understand when you get there,” etc. She wanted a little more substance than that, and as it turned out, TGU were the guys to give it to her.]

August 8, 2001

R: I’d like to talk directly to the gentlemen upstairs. Can you do that?

F: I can’t guarantee that I won’t be here but I’ll relay what I get. What I mean by that is that I’ll be here, but the words will just come through like from them. I don’t ever space out entirely.

R: You don’t need to space out, you can just move over a little bit, and let them speak directly to me, if that’s acceptable to them.

F: Who cares what they want?

R: I’d like to have a little more information about them, from them. About who they are, who they relate to you,

F: What would you like to know, as a starting place?

R: Are they a group, or a solo individual?

F: Why don’t you address it to them, just because it allows a little distance.

R: All right, I’d like to speak to the gentlemen upstairs and ask them to tell me a little more about themselves, whether they represent themselves as individuals or a group —

F: Well you might find it hard to understand, but individuals versus a group is a meaningless concept– even on your end, but it’s much more meaningless on our end, because it’s a matter of viewpoints. If you look at it one way, it’s all one thing, with individual nodes, and if you look at it the other way, it’s all individuals who are closely cooperating. It’s the same on your plane, though it doesn’t look like it because you have physical bodies holding you apart, and you have the illusion that your minds are separate because they seem to you to be in different heads. You can look at us either way and be partially correct.

R: Is it so that there’s a spokesman who talks to Frank in response to a question he asks.

F: You could look at it like, —hold on a minute, I’m trying to find a visual analogy – I’m trying to understand it. [I saw a circular ring filled with marbles, as an omelet would fill the bottom of a frying pan]

All right well we’ll try this: Supposing you had a circular ring of marbles, and all the marbles were in the ring and all the marbles were touching. Any one of the marbles might be at any given moment the mot closely attuned either to the question or to wherever you are at that moment, and that will be the obvious one who will come forward. If you’re thinking in terms of a hierarchy or of a rigid structure, it’s not that way because it wouldn’t make sense. If you had a cloth and the cloth were woven this way and this way, the warp and the weft, every intersection point of the thread, one way or the other way, could be represented as an individual. There’s no hierarchy there, it’s just all interconnection.

R: Yes, I wasn’t thinking of hierarchy so much as, on a particular topic some one might be more relevant to answer.

F: That’s right. That’s right. It’s not necessarily predictable who that’ll be. And it’s not even necessarily –

There are some that are sort of permanently stationed here [chuckles] from your way of looking at it. Although of course, you know about multi-tasking; that’s what we’re doing too, but when you’re interested in talking, we’re interested in talking. But there are some who aren’t necessarily part of that, who are doing other things, who are on tap when we need something more specific. But it’s more or less transparent to you, because you don’t have the skill at hearing nuance as to who’s different.

The metaphor’s different for different people because they have different emotional needs themselves, though they don’t see it as an emotional need. Some people would be unable to function with the metaphor we just gave you, and would have to have a metaphor of individuals cooperating. And they would get a story that would be close enough to allow them to function. Someone else might be more flexible. The more sophisticated the understanding, the more sophisticated the metaphor that we can use to then stretch you.

R: Some of the energies are usually with this group, and others come and go?

F: That’s right. You might think of us as a task force, or connected individuals. Various metaphors. And of course this is not the only thing we do with our time.

R: I see. So it isn’t always Frank that you work with then?

F: Hardly. Think how often he doesn’t use us, even unconsciously.

R: So you have this kind of responsibility with other individuals on earth?

F: Yes. Not just on earth.

R: Not just on earth. But are all the individuals that you work with in physical bodies?

F: Not necessarily human physical bodies. And not necessarily aliens, as you’re thinking, but more like, if something’s in another dimension, it has a sort of a body, but there might not be a sort of a body that would be recognizable to you.

R: Would you think of the work that you’re doing with Frank and with others as an assignment that you’ve been given?

F: [pause] Too many definitions. “That we’ve been given,” particularly. You could say it’s more like a location that we gravitate to. It’s somewhere between a hobby and an endearment. It’s a way of fulfilling our own nature. It’s not a one-way street. The giving is the receiving, you know? So, we once told Ed Carter we’re teachers. He understood it that way, and we knew how he’d understand it. That’s close enough. We do it for the satisfaction of the doing it. There is the nuance, now that I think of it, of being assigned, but it’s really more like we sort of gravitate toward a new – If there is an over-arching assignment pattern, we don’t necessarily notice it. [pause]

Interesting thought. We might think about that ourselves.

R: With respect to the work you’re doing with Frank and with others, do you have other activities that you’re involved in that are very different from this particular activity?

F: [pause] We don’t mean this in any disrespectful or impatient way, but it’s nearly impossible to talk about it because our and your frames of reference are so different. Frank always says we go around the barn, but sometimes it’s necessary to take a long perspective. Let’s try a metaphor.

If you were to ask a similar question of the human body, the liver or the pancreas or the white blood cells or the functioning this, that or the other, each of them might have an entirely different concept of what it is they were doing, because they might not know the whole thing. But depending on their mood at the time, they might say, “well, yes, we do x,” or they might identify with a different part.

Supposing you had a muscle cell. That muscle cell might define itself one time as muscle, another time as part of the right arm, another time as flesh, you see. All those are true; they’re all inadequate. In our case, you must remember that we extend. You all tend to think of us as being in focus 27, or in somewhere; in the INSPEC. But that’s only sort of true.

R: Are you there rejecting the notion of place, or space?

F: More, rejecting the notion of limitation. We’re everywhere as you are everywhere, and we would say nobody really moves; it’s a question of where your attention is. Perhaps you ought to think of us as a localized part of all that is, or of a larger thing even. There is a part of us that is your physical matter reality and part of us that isn’t.

Just as you’ve been told that you exist in every dimension because you couldn’t have a dimension that you don’t exist in – you know, it would be like saying you exist in height and depth but not in width; it’s not possible — well, if reality is 30 dimensions, let’s say – we’re not claiming that but as an example –everyone must be in all 30 dimensions. So it isn’t really true from our point of view that you are there and we are here, but it’s that we are – there’s not even a word. We’re in the only place there is. We’re all in the only place there is, because there’s only one of us, maybe, or maybe there’s a million of us. Definitions.

We know that sounds vague, but it’s the best that can be done. It’s in fact worthwhile to break down the unconscious assumption that there’s a “there” and a “here,” there’s an “us” and a “them,” there’s a “now” and a “then.” It’s all one thing. It’s all the only thing there is, but it can only be experienced as separations and distinctions.

R: I think I see what you’re saying; however that leads me to difficulties in thinking about —

F: (We did warn you. [chuckles])

R: –when Frank speaks to you, it’s as though he thinks you are seeing things from a somewhat different perspective than he is, or —

F: Oh, so we do!

R: — perhaps a higher perspective than he has. So the different perspective suggests that there’s some separation there.

F: Think of it as a difference in emphasis. If you are partly in time-space and partly outside of time-space, if you move your emphasis, you move your experience. We-–meaning what he calls the Guys Upstairs–are primarily outside of time-space. You are primarily in time-space. We both extend both places, because there’s no other way it can be. There’s no place we can’t be. Everyone’s the only place there is. But if our emphasis is over here and your emphasis is over there, it is going to change the point of view. We would suggest to you, though — which will shake up everybody’s concepts, we hope — that we can slide our point of view down toward you, and in fact we do it all the time, and you slide your emphasis up toward us, and you do it all the time. As would have to be, because it’s the same thing!

It’s difficult for us to explain how it is, because everything you see is divided by time slices. And that’s the nature of the beast, but still, a reality that’s experienced in time-slices, or space-slices, can only be experiences as either sequential or fragmented. That’s okay; there’s nothing wrong with that. But it’s hard—

Like, we once showed him that it was difficult for us to kind of remember where he was, because if you had a five-foot long fish, and you had to find one scale on the fish, you could have occasional difficulties finding that scale on the fish, you see. [they chuckle] We already know that he doesn’t like the analogy much, but that’s too bad.

R: Were you available to Frank before he recognized that consciously?

F: Oh, certainly! It would not truly be possible to live in 3D Theater, as you call it with only the resources that you have. It’s just that you don’t recognize the help you’re being given every minute. I mean, you can learn to, but you don’t necessarily.

R: Was there an effort on your part to get Frank’s attention?

F: [laughs] We would hardly say an effort! [they laugh]

Frank: I think they’ve insulted me enough, we can go on. [they laugh] They were implying stubbornness, if you didn’t hear it. [they chuckle]

F: Well, and in fact one of the things that makes him the most valuable made him the most difficult, and that is because the repeat, repeat, repeat, “I don’t want to be fooling myself, I don’t want to assume something’s true which may not turn out to be true, I don’t want to be a dupe, I don’t want to be victim of wishful thinking,” and it required demonstration after demonstration after demonstration. But that exact trait also makes him a better witness, because it gives him a place to stand. Nobody could possibly be as stubborn resisting him as he was resisting us.

R: That sounds in character, there.

F: [chuckles]

[continued in July 5 post]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *