Conversations July 16, 2010

Friday, July 16, 2010

Almost 4 AM. Papa, more? Wonderful stuff yesterday.

Better questions get better answers, you were told.

And I keep seeing it. I also see that the more I know to start with, the more I can be taught.

Well, the more you’ll understand. Just because the information has to flow from non-physical to physical doesn’t mean the process is any different. In fact, that isn’t what’s happening at all. Let me give you over for a minute.

Okay. And I recognize that although it’s someone else explaining, I don’t need to have Story about who it is.

That insight by itself is worth something to you in its explanatory value, is it not? And you continually see further application. We merely wish to take this opportunity to insert a somewhat more abstract statement than Papa Hemingway would incline to.

It is this: Communication is always from non-physical to non-physical, then down from non-physical component of the “individual” to its physical component. Given that your minds are on the non–physical end of the spectrum and your brains are on the physical end, how else could it be? But the process appears different depending upon the way it seems to occur. A tautology, that statement, actually. Let’s put it this way: If you think or if you are instructed by another person or if you observe either through scientific instruments or directly through your senses, or if you are instructed by information passed to you via dreams or intuitions or ILC — the process is the same; it is the perception of the means of delivery that is different. A mind communicating with a mind is going to do it in the only way available — by contacting the other mind directly. But that doesn’t mean that one mind can instantly pour every possible connection and ramification directly into another mind’s physical manifestation. That is, if your mind knows something but it can’t communicate it to your consciousness, does the fact that it knows it do you any good? Only if you are receptive to what it tries to tell you that doesn’t flow through your already established channels. And that’s a major bottleneck. Hence, “intuition” so-called, as a way of conveying Perception in the absence of Story.

Now, not only did I have a hard time finding words to express that (and I’m not sure I did very well at it) but I can see that the statement needs quite a bit of unpacking.

Well, that’s what you’re good at. Take a minute and try to do it. You will have to think through it, but we on this end will hold the attention to the major line of thought, to help.

All right, I’ll try. Bear in mind, this is in the context of “better questions get better answers” — which also implies, the more I consciously know, the more specifics I can be fed, or rather — the more specifics can be used to feed the information depending on them.

Hard. Let’s try again.

— Perception versus Story.

— non-physical mind versus physical senses.

— conscious mind (tied to physical in what it can process and tied to non-physical by its nature) limited but active.

Dammit, this is hard. It is ultimately a very simple concept but for some reason it is slippery. Why?

You will have observed, mystical perceptions are always nearly incomprehensible as facts until one’s mind grasps them — and then they can be (and can only be) expressed so simply that they appear to be not worthy of the work needed to apprehend them. This is but an example of that.

I have also observed over time that my mind finds its own way to present me with something in comprehensible form, but the process seems to sometimes require time. Thus, if I get how to express this, it will perhaps be only after several attempts — but I will not have been consciously thinking — that is, utilizing logic — but more like feeling, intuiting, my way to it.

You will find that the simplest way to communicate relationships like this is by analogy — which is why we use it. It isn’t that we are smart and you on your side are dumb — for that would mean we have a smart side and a dumb side. And it isn’t that things here — the state of being and what you sometimes think of as our daily life — cannot be communicated. It has been communicated countless times in countless ways. But it can’t be confined to one explanation. It can’t be accurately described by being truncated, or by having any one part of it considered in isolation from the rest — yet at the same time, your minds can hold only a finite amount of data in relationship at any one time. Hence, symbols, packed data, as a way of helping you relate larger amounts of material.

All right. Put simply, I think it amounts to this. By our study and experience, or however we do it, we construct a set of relationships in our minds. In my case, I have a feel for how the past couple of centuries relate to each other. My knowledge is broad — relational — but necessarily not deep, as it is an inverse relationship, breadth versus depth, regardless how large or small the scale of operations. A specialist’s knowledge will be far deeper, far less broad. Both are necessary to the world, both though can be related only as a trade-off within any one person-group.

If the guys want to give me a concept or rather a way of seeing things, they can most easily do it through whatever already-existing data-relationships exist. If they need me to know something, it is by far easiest for me to study it, or to be guided to some analogy that clicks, than to bring it in directly a la Seth or Cayce. Thus even if my “higher self,” my unconscious mind, my connections on the other side, call it/them what you will — even if the mind Upstairs knows it, that doesn’t mean it can be passed down to the mind Downstairs without significant distortion, as Story gets added to Perception. But it can be recognized — the “Aha!” moment — without having to fit into a familiar thought-structure. That’s why we get intuitive hits on things that have no logical or sensory basis.

And that’s the best I can do at the moment.

Tiring, isn’t it? Welcome to our world. If we want to give you a new concept that extends what you know, it’s vastly easier than giving you a new concept out of any context and then trying to help you see it as we mean it. Hence, in effect, specialization of the one brain, as humans become each a cell in the brain, on the left side, that is, the sequential processing side.

Even your use of “the one brain” will confuse, but I can see why you shied away from “the one mind.”

We shied away?

Point taken. Maybe it was your humble scribe/translator. Anyway, I’m tired of trying to think. I’d rather go back to receiving. Papa, you were saying?

I wasn’t saying, actually. We hadn’t really gotten started. But this thinking stuff is an important part of the process, and it’s only you can do it on your end. We can’t. That’s why so much non-physically-derived material is ultimately unsatisfactory: It needs to be thought about, not merely presented as scripture. And yet the thinking must not reduce it to less than it is. Your friend Jim, the engineer who uses psychic input, is a good example of the right way to use this tool. First he perceives, via his own or another’s psychic input, then he relates the new information to what he knows, and weighs it, and objects or proposes alternative ways to see it, and then he comes back for more input. That’s how to use the data-base of what you know to weigh and make practical what you get from the other side. It is the very opposite from Psychic’s Disease.

He’ll be glad for the approval, but I don’t think it will tell him anything he doesn’t already know — and suddenly I am getting the strongest sense that we have already had this exchange.

It isn’t the time for an explanation of déjà vu phenomena, and you aren’t the person for it anyway. Find a person steeped in psychology and it can be brought forth easily.

Okay. You mean that rhetorically, I take it. You find them.

Well, you may act as an advertisement, you know.

Hmm. I guess Papa Hemingway and I aren’t destined to speak this morning.

We can talk whenever you want to.

It’s just that you keep getting your show pre-empted.

There is always time, and we don’t have ratings week over here.

Television never really became a big part of your world, did it?

No. Like the man’s quote that you remember, “things that are fake don’t interest me.”

Whenever I say that or any equivalent to that, I get, “Oh, but there are a lot of good things on television!” and I can’t ever seem to make my point, so I’ve stopped trying.

Well, you’ve stopped trying except for when you don’t stop trying. There isn’t any point in dragging me into it. The sentence I quoted stands up by itself.

No point in discussing it?

No point in what will seem to people like your attempting to use me as an endorsement of your point of view — which will only add to their doubts about the process.

“Probably he’s just making this up.”

You can’t complain about somebody doing that to you, when you’ve spent years doing it to yourself.

No, I guess not. And I suppose that the different nature of this entry is by design — certainly not by my design!

You enjoy bringing in the information. You don’t so much enjoy thinking about it and working out the relationships — which is why you find it so hard to do that kind of a book, and so easy to do The Sphere And The Hologram transcriptions, or Chasing Smallwood. But you’re going to have to put the theoretical structure into place if you’re going to serve the process, for otherwise people will guess at it, and guess badly, often enough.

So that’s the background message I’ve been sort of dancing around, not quite getting. Diligence, like what I bring to this process, but devoted to thinking rather than whatever this could be called. Translating, I suppose. It isn’t dictation, exactly.

Yes. This has produced a nice habit for you to lean on. Now produce another one during which you think, and start putting into words what only you know because only you have the relational database that is the basis of the structure. Then people can translate from yours to theirs instead of finding it wildly incomprehensible (however attractive to them it may be) because not anchored anywhere.

Even my e-mail correspondents are unconsciously moving me toward this, as I find the process of explanation increasingly impossible as it’s too long to keep reproducing.

Well, Dances With Words — dance!

Yes, all right. Who’d have thought that I’d ever come to the point of saying how much easier it is to talk across the veil than to phrase what I hear.

Any skill presents periodical leaps in ability needed — and you either take the leap or you lose ground.

I get it. Well, I suppose it’s just a matter of scheduling, as this became.

Lean on schedule and habit as best you can. Not only does it help you be productive; it keep you oriented. You’re not as likely to fly off into space. When you’re dealing with messages from heaven, so to speak, it’s important not to lose contact with the ground.

All right. I guess this has to be it for today.

But do the work as you did when you wrote Babe In The Woods. I helped you structure it and consider content you wouldn’t have thought up — but you had to do the work, and you did it in just this way. Every day, you sat down to do it, and it got done. How else could it get done? That’s what the sentence means, “God has no hands to use but our own.” We on the other side can inspire and we can guide, if you wish it, but we cannot do it. Only you in the physical can do it, and if you don’t, it doesn’t get done as you would have done it. In another way by somebody else, maybe — but not your way. What might have been added into the physical, wasn’t, and that is a true loss. Having it translated into the physical is a multiplier many times over. But — it’s your choice to do it or not do it. It’s always your choice. Till next time

Leave a Reply

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.