Saturday, August 14, 2010
4:30 AM. Finished making notes, and noting themes, through January 2006. Tremendous amount of work to do yet.
I have two alternate questions, but am open to suggestion.
The question from Jim and Carol is a good one to address.
All right. Jim and Carol are friends of mine who communicate with you guys, sometimes through me but much more often directly, to see if they can help people. Recently they have been remote-viewing people’s health conditions, much as Edgar Cayce did up to his death in 1945. Jim has devised an ingenious technique derived from dowsing practice. They get good and consistent answers (each dowsing separately, as a check on each other).
The question is, why does the process sometimes not work. No, a better question is actually a set of questions:
— What are the limits on the process?
— What factors may interfere with it?
— Does the recipient’s attitude affects the dowser’s ability?
— What factors affect identifying the right person? Name alone? Address? Date of birth? Other things?
Plus, what else should we be asking you, but haven’t thought to ask?
A good way to go about this, that set of questions. We can always ignore any or all specific questions if they don’t go to the nub of it, but the phrasing of the questions focuses your mind.
Their approach is a nice corrective to Dr. McCoy of Star Trek, who trusted only to instruments and implements. Sensory function, you see. They [Jim and Carol] bring in the intuitive function, in order to make the sensory function at first less necessary, by pointing them in the right direction. But of course it would be unwise to rely on only one function. It would be the equivalent of Psychic’s Disease. First get your intuitive diagnosis, then check to see if the diagnosis is accurate.
Now, we recognize that this is not yet your question, but it is vital background for questions beyond medical techniques or dowsing techniques. In other words, it has much wider implications.
To employ intuitive and sensory functions each in the appropriate place and time, using each to support and backstop the other, is the correct use of human ability. This is entirely analogous to employing both thinking and feeling.
Dr. Jung? For, I heard you at the door, so to speak.
Far more of medical practice is intuitive than is realized, in the same way and for the same reasons that your friend [Ed Carter] told you that the decisions made at the highest levels of corporations are always made on an intuitive basis: If they could be made on sensory data, they would be made earlier in the process. It is the function of intuition to supplement and sometimes supersede sensory data and reasoning dependent upon sensory data.
But clearly the use of intuition cannot safely be reduced to guesswork! Its proper use is as a light in the darkness, guiding you to the right place. But one does not operate on a patient by the illumination of lightning bolts, but by steady electrical lighting. An analogy, but — if you will pardon the pun — an illuminating one. Sudden certainty is the gift offered by intuition; careful checking of that certainty [that is, the ability to check] is the gift offered by the sensory routine.
But the specific question was, why do the dowsers sometimes get the wrong individuals, and how can this be avoided?
As so often happens, what seems a simple question actually contains within it many a complication, some concealed by the nature of language, some
Sorry, lost it.
5:30 AM. Resuming. Hoping to be a better conduit this time. There sure was a lot of static on the line earlier!
And of course that is a major variable factor in communication of any kind. Recipient needs to be able to hear and understand. Needs to be able to stand clear of the information, in a way.
More on that?
If one is too close to the information he received, it needlessly becomes entangled with peripheral or even irrelevant materials that “happen to be” present in the consciousness.
But on the theory that there are no accidents, how can that be a problem?
The “no accidents” mantra will not always serve you well, if misapplied. It is meant to indicate that nothing in the universe is by chance (despite appearances) and nothing is disconnected, as by nature it could not be. It is not meant to indicate that every causation is meaningful or significant.
I’ve heard that before, but where do you draw the line?
Gurdjieff drew it — as you have never understood — by saying there was the law of necessity and the law of accident. We might paraphrase it by saying there is the law of what matters and the law of little things. Not every placement or relationship is meaningful. Who cares what you had for breakfast on the 13th of November — except in mystery novels, where little things become realized as significant things. No one can draw the line ahead of time between what is significant and what is not — nor, indeed, always after the fact. But the difference is there. (And of course what is significant to one may be not meaningful to the life of another.)
If we were to give you a rule of thumb, it would go somewhat like this. Those things closest to you polarize events most; those less important to you, less; those to which you are indifferent, not at all. But remember, everyone is in the same boat. So your fields produce cross-eddies.
Therefore — and so you see, we were not wool-gathering even if you thought we were, and even if you were — therefore, there is chance in human affairs. Your everyday experience tells you that; your metaphysics denies it. Here is how to tie the two. No important event in your life — no important thought — no important person — no important decision — occurs by chance. They respond to what you are; they result from what you are. And if life were only one timeline, your lives could be said to be predetermined, for obviously anything stemming from what you already are is in that sense predestined, each “inevitable” event being built upon what preceded it. It is only in that you move by changing timelines that you exercise the free choice that is — as we have told you many times — the point of your existence.
But which leaf falls on which side of the fence does not matter, and so falls under Gurdjieff’s Law Of Accident — unless it does matter, in which case it falls under the Law Of Necessity.
A moment’s thought should show you that what is under the one law in one timeline may be under the other in another. Same person, same event or decision or whatever, but a different relationship because other things are different.
Now, to dowsing. Suppose you are to find Joe Smith. Do you need his date of birth, or social security number, or ZIP code, or what? Do you need only the clear intent to connect with him? (And why should you need more? It is mind to mind, is it not?) The answer lies in the difference between The Law Of Necessity and The Law Of Accident. Can you guess how?
No. I do think that a prospective psychic diagnosis — a dowsing of conditions — would fall under The Law Of Necessity always, if by that you mean something of importance to the individual.
Ah, but does it? Think for instance of how many people go to fortune-tellers, they know not quite why, and therefore hear predictions they don’t really put any stock in, yet do not forget. Some come true, some don’t. What is going on there?
I suppose, insufficient desire leads to lack of polarization? But what if it’s a bad medium or an outright fraud?
If the polarization is strong, do you suppose you would be led to a bad or fraudulent medium?
Then — in the case of dowsing — is the intent of the dowsers not enough?
Clearly not, or anyone could know everything and anything.
Then what is the variable? The intent of the person asking? The intent of an intermediary?
Variables — vary. It could be external circumstances, or the viewer, or the recipient’s mind, or anything or nothing — if the polarization is absent. If not absent, nothing can interfere.
So it boils down to — whose intent?
Not quite. It boils down to — nothing and no one is infallible, and this is by intent.
I don’t understand. Whose intent?
Then let us say, by design. By the design of things. The way things are and must be.
You don’t get that either. Let’s try again. If an event is a conjunction of a significant number of timelines, is increasingly under The Law Of Necessity. That is a tautology, in fact. If the coin comes down sometimes heads, sometimes tails, though, which timeline you take determines which you will perceive, and the less determined it is, the less it is a part of The Law Of Necessity. Again, a tautology.
How are you to distinguish ahead of time what you are dealing with? You can’t. You can only do your best and see what happens and then deal with that.
So, if the dowsers get a request, they can’t know ahead of time that their best efforts are going to tell them the situation. The better they are and the purer their intent and the more they are attuned, the better they’ll do, but any given reading may be wrong for reasons way outside of their control?
Does this not agree with your experience of life?
Yeah, it does. It’s the same way with doing this. No guarantees and check your work.
That’s not so impossible a set of ground rules to follow, is it?
In practice, no. So, to sum up — do their best, don’t look for a magic formula that would convey infallibility because it doesn’t exist, and check everything derived by intuition, using whatever sensory checks are available.
Yes. Well received.
Thanks. It’s 20 after six, so I’ll sign off now. Till next time.