Wednesday, May 13, 2015
F: 7:30 a.m. I’m not sure I know where we’re going. Nothing new there! If I had a more analytical mind and a more industrious nature, I would be searching the material for the right questions to ask, in order to illuminate the underlying issues. Who has ever had a better resource than our working relationship, Rita? But I don’t really do much more than transmit what I get.
R: Worthwhile in itself.
F: Sure, but not what I would like to be able to do.
R: Nothing anybody does is what they want to do; more like what they can do within a range of possibilities. Happy the people whose range of possibilities covers their desires.
F: I can imagine people objecting to this idea.
R: Name three things (as you always say) that couldn’t be objected to.
R: In fact, people’s reaction to any given input could be considered to be an example of the difference between their range of possibilities and their preferences. If they like it, they adopt it. If they don’t, they change, or they reject it, or they search for a way to renegotiate reality, call it.
F: They try to square the circle.
R: Often successfully. It is in that attempt to renegotiate reality that change occurs. Adaptation. Progress, so called. Change, anyway. (There is no real such thing as “progress” if you mean gain without forfeit.)
F: Go on, then.
R: Not at this time. It is difficult to explain to you, but different times allow different concepts. You could look at it that “you have to be ready” for certain information, but that is only to treat a universal as if it hinged upon the individual. And, well, that is true as well, but here the emphasis is, simply, at this time for whatever reasons you like – your inability to add to context, or a wider disparity between context and content – I can’t get across to you certain concepts. But this is no big deal, as you would say, because the time that is wrong for some things is always right for other things.
F: Which is why the Seth material came to the culture in the 1970s and not the 1870s, say?
R: You can’t build the pyramids from the top down.
F: I understand that. Foundations must be in place before superstructures can be added.
R: Of course. The analogy is too limited, however, because what is a foundation-stone for one thing may be a capstone for another, and a gargoyle for a third. Simultaneously.
F: So what is appropriate for us to hear this morning?
R: Beware applying Psychic’s Disease to End Times.
F: Don’t think you know what’s coming.
R: That’s right, neither concept nor timing. The desire to know ahead of time is understandable – I well remember it! – but really, useless. It confuses the reason for prophecy with an advanced newscast.
F: Yes, I get that. The purpose of prophecy is not to say, “you’re all doomed!” but precisely the opposite, to say “If you don’t watch your feet, you’re going to run off the edge, so watch it, will you?”
R: Precisely. If the future were unavoidable there might be some reason to give you a preview of coming attractions, but – why? It is because you can choose among futures that freedom exists, and it is the function of prophecy to remind you of it.
So don’t go putting all your money on Armageddon, or utopia, or anything in between. You (in effect) create your future, by choosing who and what you wish to be. And as always remember that in any discussion the underlying question is “which you?” You in your present body – how long do you expect to function in 3D? Two hundred years further along, nobody will remember you and why should they? And why should you care if they do or don’t? Your immortality is not a matter of reputation; it is inherent in your having been created in the first place. You will survive and flourish; your body will not. Be glad.
F: Not news to me.
R: No, but this is aimed somewhat wider and deeper. That is, to more people at this time, and to more at future times.
F: So – “don’t think you know what’s coming.” Why is that particularly appropriate today?
R: It is not particularly appropriate in the sense that this Wednesday morning it can be said and not the day or week before or after; only in the sense that this is among the thoughts that belong to this wider time. To say it in 1950 would be to say it in a context that would probably envisage atomic warfare. To say it in 1975 would be the cold war situation of the day. And so forth. Today, 2015, the message is appropriate. That doesn’t mean it is the only time it is appropriate, and it certainly doesn’t mean it is the only message appropriate to the time, only that the two match up, as one example.
F: And yet – looking back at what we’re written today – people do get glimpse of the future.
R: They get glimpses of the future they later go to, and it’s accurate pre-vision. They get glimpses of a future they don’t go to, and it is incorrect prophecy. Same process, same accuracy, different-seeming result, because of different outcomes of their navigation, not of different efficacy in perception.
F: So, Edgar Cayce saw the widespread destruction from 1958 to 1998 that did not happen.
R: Did not happen where you are. Your very fascination with the picture – your draw to it – shows you that you are also in touch with –
No, let me back off from that and say something different.
R: Because what I will say can be comprehended and what I will refrain from saying could not, and the resulting misinterpretation is unnecessary.
You were fascinated with – almost desirous of – a catastrophic future. In the same way, you were convinced of, and desirous of, Antarctica coming out from under the ice. You do not fear or regret the earth changes, but look forward to them as facilitators of other things. Do you see a common denominator here?
F: A wish for the transformation of this society, I suppose.
R: A wish for the destruction of this society, and its replacement by a better. Does this still strike you as such a good idea?
F: I get your point. I used to believe in revolution.
R: Plus a change, plus a la meme chose. [French, or perhaps mangled French, for a famous French expression, “the more things change, the more they stay the same.”]
F: I’m going to spell-check that, but yes. Revolutions are dead-ends, perhaps the least desirable way to change. Political, military, revolution, I mean. In my lifetime I have seen my society revolutionized repeatedly, until it scarcely resembles the one I was born into in any respect. I’m not sure – or rather, I am quite sure that not all the changes are in the right direction.
R: Yes, but just because you are sure is no guarantee you are right. How can you know which changes lead to what?
F: Again, point taken. I suppose, in a way, even having preferences among changes is a form of Psychic’s Disease.
R: Not quite. But preference can certainly distort perception.
F: Enough for today?
R: Enough. Next time.
F: Next time.