Rita on communication and secrecy

Sunday, April 5, 2015

F: 5:15 a.m. Well, Miss Rita, I trust that you are as gratified by the response this work is meeting as I am. It occurs to me to ask, have we gone far enough that you can give us hints as to what you are up to? If this is to be a book, can you give Charles and me an idea of the central theme, other than “the way it looks from here”?

[pause]

Are you there? Wrong question? Are you out hunting Easter eggs, and want the day off?

R: Perhaps it would be as well to move to one of your accumulated questions.

F: All right, we can do that. Interesting that you choose not to respond to what I thought was a simple question.

R: It is, perhaps, too simple a question. I would not care to encourage the idea that this has only one intent, or is aimed at only one expression. You naturally think in terms of a book, or books, and that is possibility, but in thinking of a future possibility, you shouldn’t let yourself overlook a present reality.

F: The blog and the Facebook exposure.

R: You don’t know who reads what, nor what they do with it, nor how it affects them. Nor do you need to know. Nor is it random, of course. That is, it is not – as it may appear to be – a case of someone in 3D happening upon information that then changes them. They may come upon information that changes them, but I assure you, they don’t “happen upon” it.

F: Communication is two way.

R: Look at it like this. In fully forming your thought – in this case, in the two of us fully forming our joint exploration / exposition – we are publishing it in non-3D, quite as much as (and, indeed, more, and prior to) in 3D. People’s 3D minds, call it, are influenced by their non-3D minds which is why they stumble upon the site and read the words, and why the words affect them. And of course you can hear in this sentence how language pulls apart what is actually one thing, pretending for the sake of analysis and clarity that a person’s mind could be divided into his or her 3D mind and non-3D mind. In reality there is no such division, of course, but for the purposes of attaining greater clarity it is useful to consider things that way.

F: Thus, conscious mind, personal unconscious, racial unconscious, according to Carl Jung.

R: Yes. He was not making hard and fast divisions, nor was he oblivious to the fact that relative distinctions were as arbitrary as they were helpful. But it is inherent in the nature of 3D that the mind has to do a certain form of processing only by sequential – therefore fragmented – examination.

F: Just to be sure we’re clear: I hear that as saying that our logical minds process through the left brain and therefore see things sequentially rather than as a whole, and therefore we can only put it back together by a right-brain perception of a gestalt. We have to pick apart a flower in order to see what it is made of, but then in order to see it as a flower, we have to remind ourselves that the whole is not the sum of its parts.

R: This is a long disquisition in itself, perhaps for another time, but yes, your understanding of my implied meaning is correct. You aren’t explicating what I said, as much as expressing the understanding from which I was proceeding.

So, to return to our main point here, it is a mistake – and a very wide-spread one – to think that minds do or even could function in isolation. No matter how isolated the individual in 3D, there is no isolating him or her from the rest of his or her mind, hence from everything that mind connects to, which is – potentially anything and everything.

F: That will come as disquieting news to those who live by secrecy and disinformation.

R: As well it should, to use your phrase.

F: Oh. Do I get a subtext, here?

R: Well, think it through. Why do you suppose you were moved to talk to Joseph P. Kennedy nine years ago, and to publish that talk on the internet in the middle of our explorations?

F: That’s very interesting! Of course. What could be more subversive of secrecy than expanding people’s access?

R: Yes, and now is the time for a few cautions and caveats.

F: I think I could predict at least a couple of them, but go ahead.

R: Yes. They all involve the proper application of abilities. It is so easy to be seduced by possibilities. The most misleading ideas are those that result from new abilities conducted according to old mindsets.

F: May I?

R: Feel free.

F: I think you mean to say, don’t think that new means to connection are primarily a means of evading secrecy in 3D.

R: You went to Joe Kennedy thinking to find out the truth that had been suppressed in 3D. it is a natural first step, to assume that you have just discovered a short-cut through the swamp, or a spyglass through the fog. And those whose life and livelihood are intrinsically tied up in maintaining such secrecy are also likely to react in the same way, from the other side of the equation, seeing these abilities as a threat. In both cases, this is a relatively trivial response. Understandable as an initial reaction, but trivial. It is as if one discovered how to fly, and thought of the new ability as primarily a way to get over a fence.

F: I see that, though perhaps not everyone will agree. Colin Wilson wrote a novel, The Black Room I think it was, about a protagonist who discovers unusual powers that concern spy agencies, and whose only reaction to the spies was annoyance and impatience that their trivial concerns were interfering with his exploration.

R: See it from our point of view. You are learning to extend who and what you are in ways that will utterly transform the human species – you are barely at the beginning of it – and yet by reflex you are considering how this new reality will affect the stock market, or the congressional elections, or the global balance of power, or the Green transition, or anything else. It’s natural, for it takes time, experience, and imagination to transform one’s mental world, but it verges on comical.

F: I’ll tell you what verges on comical, Rita, it’s the difference between what you’re saying here – that I totally agree with – as opposed to your concern in life with politics and ideology and the whole CNN world.

R: I wasn’t wrong to be concerned and to cast my mental vote in favor of certain values, but of course you can’t expect to see things the same way when your everyday reality has been transformed — including your definition of everyday”! 

F: So it would be a mistake to advise people to lighten up in their obsessive concern for the political, economic, ideological, ecological, theological dramas playing out all around them?

R: You mean, I think, advise everybody to be just like you?

F: Very funny. And, in fact, that was very funny. No, I don’t expect everybody to become just like me.

R: But – don’t you? Not just you, of course, but everybody? Don’t you all expect, subconsciously, that others will become more like you to the degree that they clear their heads?

F: Maybe so. That wouldn’t speak well for our intelligence, if so.

R: It isn’t a matter of intelligence, it’s just human nature. You assume homeostasis in everything, and one of those things is “what it is like to be functioning normally.” Naturally one’s definition of functioning normally is going to be based on one’s everyday experience – and there’s that word “everyday” again.

F: Enough for now? It has only been three-quarters of an hour, but we’ve galloped through nine pages.

R: This is as good a stopping-place as any. It gives people food for thought.

F: That seems to be your specialty. Okay, Miss Rita, till next time.

11 thoughts on “Rita on communication and secrecy

  1. Wow…I wanted this morning’s conversation to go on 🙂 Rita’s energy/words continue to urge me to keep coming back around to the whole, to transparency and allowing the possibility for much more of our being to wake up/make itself known. Yet even these new possibilities need new paradigms to function if I am getting that right.

    In affirmation, I just read this quote in today’s NY Times by choreographer, Tywla Tharp, “I loved all the their answers (great dancers before her), but I needed my own question. I didn’t want to synthesize them or rebel against them. I wanted to respect them and find a way where what I’d learned would be valuable to me. It wasn’t ever for me about breaking their conventions. It was always about working in tandem to a new point.”

    Not sure if that relates for others to this material but did it for me. Challenging and exciting to try to hold and assimilate it all.

    Thanks again Frank…so appreciate your work (just about ready to pick up the pen myself :)and I really appreciate your and Rita’s humor…and thanks for sharing the story about your mom….

    Blessings,
    Kate

  2. Frank,
    Your dialogue with Rita and your joint dialogue previously with “The Guys” have a candid quality with no “pollyannaism” that I really appreciate.  On one hand it brings incremental believable and approachable increases in understanding about reality.  On the other hand, it is also revealing the naiveness of my previous beliefs.

    Every once and a while I find myself asking the rhetorical question, “Have I really been that naive?”

    Today my “Exco” friends ignored the rhetorical aspect and answered:
    “Becoming less naive is a form of gaining wisdom. Not necessarily the fun part. The same can be said of increased awareness.  To become more aware is also to become more informed about intentions that may appear more secretive or seamy or self-serving, or….

    Did you think becoming “more aware” was only going to expose you to more of what you call “good” versus what you might call “bad”? Awareness is awareness.  As you (meaning all of us) broaden or expand your consciousness, you take in more of what is (in the combined 3D and non-3D reality).  But at least it is seen for what it is.  There is no bushel to hide under. 

    Don’t jump to the conclusion that exposure will necessarily change behavior.  It might eliminate purposeful misperception and deceit, but doesn’t necessarily eliminate the intent (that’s underlying). (The source of that intent will also become more visible.)” 
    John

    1. Amen to all of that.

      Here’s the thing I can’t get around. My generation was the baby-boomers, and we — particularly the college-attending boomers (I can’t quite call us college-“educated” in light of what we now know of the systematic indoctrination and mis-education that passed for education — thought we knew so much; we thought exposure to massive amount of input was the same as education. We acquired some very bad habits in those years, and it seems to me that many people never unlearned them. One such habit was the thinking that we were responsible for, and adequate to the task of, re-shaping the world.

      We were so naive, and we were played like fish at the end of a line. But DeMarco’s Law famously says, “they always go too far,” and that’s what happened. John F. Kennedy’s murder was the first bit of evidence that wouldn’t go away, and then evidences of conspiracy kept coming to light, and even though some were disinformation deliberately intended to discredit “conspiracy theorists” in general, others were not. And over time, people’s awareness changed. Every conspiracy that the powers that be engage in is one more nail in the coffin of what used to be widespread public assumption that they were usually being given the truth. Today, I would bet that most people assume, instead, that they are usually being lied to. That is a huge change, and it has consequences.

      Waking up is worthwhile in itself. It doesn’t mean you are any more able than before to change what happens, but it means you can see more clearly, and in an undivided universe featuring an undivided human mind — well, you can add up what it means as well as i can.

  3. Hi I just ‘stumbled upon’ your website a few days ago, wanted to say I enjoy reading your blog & thank you.

  4. FYI Frank, you’ve noted several times that people attempting to do the work you do here is more gratifying than the appreciation expressed in the comments. I began doing this process in 2011, using your blog as the example, more or less from need in the face of an existential crisis. Just thought you should know.

    John wrote: Don’t jump to the conclusion that exposure will necessarily change behavior. It might eliminate purposeful misperception and deceit, but doesn’t necessarily eliminate the intent (that’s underlying). (The source of that intent will also become more visible.)”

    Re: increased wisdom or awareness and the above; all I can say is, don’t I know it. Increased awareness is one thing, and very important. But acting on it, changing direction, however slightly, is a whole other matter. So much so that, at times, I’ve felt as if there is a gulf between awareness and the knowledge or capacity to act on that (greater) awareness. I guess what I’m saying is wisdom or awareness does not automatically give direction as to what to do, or it does not inevitably overcome inertia.

    Frank, your comment here and the posts on the elder Kennedy and Reich are useful coincidences for me. Consideration of politics and the indignities of our contemporary social order with a “non-3D” perspective in mind presents real difficulties; it redounds to your and John’s points above.

    One thing I’ve been mulling over for the past year or two is the antiquated, now almost socially meaningless, concept/feeling of honor. There is hardly any space in our society in which one can
    openly act with honor, reverence, or respect towards one’s self or anything else. This seems to relate to the points discussed above, though I haven’t made the concrete connections quite yet.

    1. You say, ” I’ve felt as if there is a gulf between awareness and the knowledge or capacity to act on that (greater) awareness.”

      Isn’t that what we would expect? Isn’t that why (even how) we set goals? Our reach exceeds our grasp, not necessarily because we are failures, but as an encouragement to us to increase our grasp. At least, that is what struck me when i read when you wrote.

      And, this is wonderful: “I began doing this process in 2011, using your blog as the example, more or less from need in the face of an existential crisis. Just thought you should know.” Obviously i had no idea. I often think i’m talking to myself when i say “you can do this too; it’s just a matter of doing it.” Thanks for letting me know.

      But this one is a puzzle to me: “There is hardly any space in our society in which one can openly act with honor, reverence, or respect towards one’s self or anything else.” Why can’t we? What’s to stop us? It’s just a matter of going our own way, regardless of people’s opinion or their approval or disapproval. Isn’t it?

  5. But this one is a puzzle to me: “There is hardly any space in our society in which one can openly act with honor, reverence, or respect towards one’s self or anything else.” Why can’t we? What’s to stop us? It’s just a matter of going our own way, regardless of people’s opinion or their approval or disapproval. Isn’t it?

    Well, it’s a bit of a puzzle to me also. And what you say is true enough. I suppose, to be honest, there is some self-pity in the sentiment, but it is not only a matter of that.

    To encapsulate it I would say that honor, reverence and the like are inherently, though of course not wholly, social. I mean to say, these states of being are not dependent on (social) recognition, but they are conditioned and brought about by forms of (social) exchange and circulation. In other words, it isn’t ego boosts or individual recognition that is wanted, but opportunities and chances to enact or embody such states of being–and for that other beings are usually required to participate in some way.

    Anyway, it’s true; one must go one’s own way. But it’s also a shame that, imho, we live in a cultural time where wild animals and trees recognize these states of being more readily that many human beings.

    Just a perspective, take it for what it’s worth.

    1. “To encapsulate it I would say that honor, reverence and the like are inherently, though of course not wholly, social. I mean to say, these states of being are not dependent on (social) recognition, but they are conditioned and brought about by forms of (social) exchange and circulation.”

      This is an interesting discussion. I am am gravitating toward seeing honor as applying my own values, and reverence for my own being, my own life. When I try to extend those characteristics beyond myself in any broader “social” context, I get into judging.

      The more I learn, the more I realize that I am in no position to judge others. I am willing to state my views, but that doesn’t mean they are right for anyone else.

      So for me, it boils down to simply being “true to oneself”.
      John

  6. John and Frank,

    I do not disagree, for a number of reasons. I would only note that judging is precisely antithetical to the states of being and potential actions or acts I’m referring to.

    The key or the hint into what I’m trying to say, which connects with your points above, is just how much humility is necessary to act “honorably” or reverently; conversely, that healthy amount of pride that enables one to “be true to oneself.”

    So, (moralizing) judgement has no place in it, really. It’s just a power-play, seemingly designed to weaken those upon whom the judgement is placed–nothing honorable about that.

Leave a Reply

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