Saturday, April 11, 2015
[Omitting my talk with Rita held April 10, as inappropriate for the public at large.]
F: 2 a.m. Okay, Miss Rita, I can’t sleep – a cup of coffee a few hours ago, I think – and I hope I’m not too tired to do this.
Yesterday’s session seemed not entirely you. Nancy Ford mentioned, too, that it didn’t sound like you. If it is a long story and you’d rather discuss other things we can skip it, but I’d be interested.
R: It is a long story, or can be. But probably we can touch on it only briefly. It is not news to you that we “over here” or “in the higher dimensions” or however we should put it are not as individual as you persist in thinking us, because the factors that most give you the impression of individuality in the body are not operative in the absence of bodies. You are each communities rather than individuals. So are we, but we know it. Well, you can see that it is easy for us to move in and out of the forefront of a communication without ceremony.
F: I remember the guys telling us once that we are sort of tone-deaf to such transitions, although we can learn to perceive them better, with practice.
R: So there’s your answer in short, and it you resist the temptation to try to label everybody and everything, you will be better able to perceive differences without having to explain them to yourselves as, “that must have been Bob Monroe coming in,” or Alexander Hamilton or the Wizard of Oz. Weigh the testimony, not the probable identity of the witness. And that’s enough on that for the moment. There can always be further questioning on the subject.
F: All right, thanks. So, for today, more on TMI’s path to greater influence on the culture? Or shall we proceed to Al’s question?
R: That isn’t an either / or. Yes, let us move to my old friend’s communique. Only, of course, I should say “my young friend, of many years’ standing.”
F: I’m sure he got your meaning. Okay.
[Albert Dahlberg (after Rita’s 4-9-2015 message):
[The reading was very interesting and so much more than I had imagined as a starter for the Explorers sessions. There are so many directions to go even with what Rita is proposing in this initial session.
[For many years I have been fed thoughts and ideas from the other side (for which I always try to remember to say “thank you”). However, the closest I have come to the group-focus that I think Rita is proposing has come when I have been with a group of like-minded scientists talking about our respective data and trying to figure out what it all means. Not infrequently we suddenly all get the answer at the same time — a new interpretation or a new understanding of the information. I have always wondered how it happened. Certainly we all are focused at the same time but I think there is some very real non-verbal help (images, ideas etc.) that are floated in front of (or into) us by our friends on the other side. I think it is a joint effort and I would be interested in hearing Rita’s opinion on this. It is an absolutely fantastic experience and if we could learn to achieve this state more regularly there is no limit to what could be learned, transmitted, achieved. (It might even be used therapeutically for certain mental disorders – e.g. addiction, depression).
[Another example is the harmony of thought that I have experienced infrequently in what are called “gathered” Quaker meetings. Everyone seems to be tuned into the same frequency that leads to an outpouring of love energy from the heart. Here however it may be more experiential than informative, although wonderful insights and understandings can arise among those gathered.
[I just reread what I have written so far and I am not sure I have asked any solid questions. No matter. What Rita is suggesting is all very exciting and so different in direction than the original Explorers group. And add to that the fact that I probably do not even grasp 1% of what she is talking about!]
R: It is true, as he says, that this is not in the form of a question. However it serves the same purpose as a question, namely it puts a central idea sharply into focus. By holding me and you and our subsequent readers within that focus, it smooths the transition between non-3D non-sequential awareness and 3D sequentially processed words, hence (with luck and perseverance on your end) into non-3D awareness accessible to 3D-bound minds.
F: That sounds like a pretty important statement you just almost made.
R: “Almost” is about it. A little time spend pondering the implications will be profitable, at least for some.
F: That’s Charles’ forte. I’ll wait to see what he makes of it, unless you want to pursue it here. But I get that you want to address the main issue.
R: Again, not an either / or. It is the same subject.
Al’s first example – the brainstorming scientists – amounts to this: You put an idea into focus among several minds (for so it seems to you) and you then concentrate on that idea as a common topic of thought, using words as place-holders for intuition, and feeding new words into the group-mind as spurs to further exploration, until the group-mind has been sufficiently stimulated to let a new formulation appear. In effect, you grow a crystal by jointly super-saturating a pool of thought until something precipitates. The very matter-of-factness of the procedure masks the magical nature of a group mind, given that the received opinion of many or most of the participants would not even allow the concept of a group mind, temporary or otherwise.
F: I was being stretched by that one. I will have to re-read it later to see if I made sense in my formulation of it. Or rather, I didn’t formulated the sentences, and didn’t copy-edit them as we went along (so to speak), so I don’t really know how they came out.
Okay, I guess that scans. I wasn’t sure. So then?
R: So then move to Al’s second example and you see that it is the same process, only centered not around an intellectual concept or question but around what we might think of as an attitude. To meditate on love, or being love, or expressing love, may be done singly or jointly, but perhaps you can see that jointly is potentially more powerful, as it lifts each individual out of him- or her-self and into what might be thought of as higher space.
F: It sounds to me like “when two or three are gathered” in prayer. Group healing efforts, for instance.
R: Same process.
Now, what does all this amount to, and why was Al prompted to mention it? Surely you can see that these are two related examples of a process already well understood, already widely experienced, already available for further development in new contexts. You don’t have to reinvent the wheel. Rather, your task is to perceive just such relationships, so as to adapt them.
F: Sort of the way you, or whoever it was, said TMI might borrow structure from foundations or churches or universities, adapting given features to its needs.
R: Yes. The time is now, or perhaps we should say it is short; there really is no need to wait for further developments in order to take the next steps, and there is reason not to delay. This is not to hint at a doomsday scenario, but to say that the time is ripe and don’t miss the tide.
F: And I think maybe we should stop here, much shorter than usual.
R: Why not? We put out a discrete quantum of information, and you can get some sleep half an hour or so sooner, given that it will take you 15 minutes less time to transcribe this.
F: Thanks, Rita. More another time.