Friday, August 13, 2015
F: 4 a.m. Planted or not, John Dorsey Wolf asks some interesting questions here. Shall we explore them?
TGU: Why not? Produce them in sequence and let’s see what we come up with.
[“Is there intentionality on the part of greater consciousness in the ‘callings’ we have, and is the strand composition a significant factor in designing those potential callings into our being?”]
TGU: Hard to decide whether this question shows understanding of what has come to this point, or not. It may be either a naïve question designed to elicit more, or a question demonstrating misunderstanding of the concept. We suggest that it may function as both, clearing up elementary points while simultaneously providing clues to more subtle understandings.
F: Very efficient of somebody.
TGU: Yes, isn’t it?
Very well. As an example of the potential of language to obscure reality, this question can hardly be bettered. That doesn’t mean it was a bad question to ask – it means, it is an example of how easily the symbols that words are can get in the way of clarity. The symbols are meant to be verbs, in a sense – that is, to move understanding forward. In practice they may become more like nouns, pinning reality down to one static thing.
F: Assuming an unreal – well, you tell it.
TGU: Just because a thing may be given a name does not guarantee that it means anything real. It is a logical discriminator designed to wall off one thing from everything else – a cow is a different thing from a non-cow, strictly common sense and there’s an end to it – and this may serve to silently destroy or disguise identical things because they are given different names, or may serve to obscure essential linkages.
F: That’s awfully abstract language.
TGU: What you are is what you are called to. The combination of strands that is you – a unique combination of previously unique individuals co-operating as a new unique individual – is the creative input from the non-3D. Everything else follows, as the result of choices made in 3D, one moment at a time. The question is rooted in false distinctions. It is like asking if being born with red hair inclined a person toward being red-headed.
Anything in your life stems from what you are, interacting with your deliberate and also inadvertent choices. Next question.
[“Do our strands perform a significant on-going role in our experience, beyond the `seeding of our soul’? For example, are they a primary linkage to our non-3D self and beyond? Do we experience, for example, ILC, visions of non-3D, and dreams through our strands? Are they the means by which by our thoughts and experiences enter the non-3D network? What roles beyond our initial composition do they play in our soul development process?”
[P.S. to my questions above. I sense these as planted questions, either as worthy of pursuit or to clarify potential misconceptions coming out of the previous material.]
TGU: Yes the strands comprising you continue to link you to everything they connect to; not necessarily or even usually consciously.
As to dreams, that is a different story. Let us defer that question until we dispose of the rest, which come to think of it won’t take more than a sentence. The questions are all based on a misinterpretation and will be useful in making that misinterpretation obvious so as to clear the ground.
F: I’m feeling the need for some coffee, here, but it’s awfully early for that (4:22). Should I defer more until I’m more wide awake?
TGU: That is up to you. if you can sleep that would be well. If you cannot, you have to do something.
F: I’m going to try for a little more sleep before we go on with this.
F: 7 a.m. All right, then, off we go.
TGU: Perhaps not so easy until you take more than a few sips [of coffee]. Although it seems to you that you got more sleep, it has only been two hours since you gave up and went back to bed.
F: The sun is well up, and so am I.
TGU: Just take a minute or two enjoying the sun and the early morning.
F: I can feel the shortening of the day. Already nearly two-thirds of the way to equinox; it’s taking the sun longer to come round to wake us. And I seem to feel autumn’s chill in the air, often enough, though we are not half through August.
Are we ready, over there? Over here, up there, however we should think of it? If not, I can wait some more.
TGU: Just sip your coffee, and think how much of your past-life review will be you filling the coffee maker and later throwing out the grounds.
F: Or commuting in traffic. Let me know when you’re ready. I take it you don’t need prompting. I mean, I know where we left off, so I presume you do. My attention on the particular spot lights it up for you, right?
TGU: That’s a way to think of it, good enough for a mental image.
All right – now, although this seems a diversion to you, a question – can you feel the difference between when we said wait, and now?
[And in fact, I could, very clearly.]
F: I think so. It is as if I am suddenly clearer, more alert. It is almost a pressure, almost a headache, even, at the top of my head toward the front.
TGU: Just as you (one) need not accept any mood which happens to present itself, so you needn’t think that every moment of consciousness is either waking or sleeping.
F: I wouldn’t have said sleeping is a moment of consciousness.
TGU: No, and you wouldn’t have said you weren’t ready to do this, either.
Consciousness is not on / off. Neither is it – well, to put it in positive rather than negative terms, it is an infinite gradation.
Well, no, that is misleading as well. We were moving toward saying it is a bell-curve, or a sliding scale, but it is more like a ratio of many sliding scales.
You probably remember that we used the globe with its converging and diverging lines of longitude as a visual analogy to a situation in which many qualities move along different scales but all point to a common (positive or negative) pole?
F: I do, although I don’t think it quite works.
TGU: It hasn’t been elaborated sufficiently. But it will serve to illustrate any point involving many characteristics to be measured simultaneously without their being in competition.
TGU: That is consciousness: many characteristics that may be (might be) measured simultaneously, each variant of which is distinct. So it is not merely a one-scale progression between awake and asleep, nor even between alert and distracted or between focused and receptive. Long disquisition possible here, but yours is not the best mind to bring it through.
F: Are you asking someone else to get it for us? Maybe we don’t do requests.
TGU: Maybe you are learning how to do so, and it’s going to open up a world of new possibilities.
F: Very well, if you will phrase the question for us, I’ll see if anybody wants to take a stab at it. I must say, I’m starting to get a little bit excited, here. I can see that I might flush out a fox here but you might prefer to use an engineer to pursue it, rather than a history major.
TGU: Yes. Don’t criticize our analogies, by the way, until you can improve on that one.
F: Smiling. So, your question for someone to connect to you with?
TGU: First, let us remind you (all) that it is not a question of “Frank’s TGU” and “someone else’s TGU” as some continue to think of it. But each of you has unique access to a common library, put it that way.
The question: What can you (any of you) receive via ILC from anyone you connect with, to illustrate the complex nature of consciousness?
F: This is a fantastic idea. I can’t wait to see what we get. And I can see, this [approach] eliminates the whole anxiety about whether one’s results are consistent with those of others, and the question of “who am I talking to” and even that perennial favorite, “probably I’m just making this up but.”
TGU: You’re welcome. Now to resume on the subject where we (or someone – does it matter to you who?) left off a while ago before you had to change forms of consciousness.
All 3D experience comes in the two forms of sensory and direct experience. However, this doesn’t mean quite what people might think we mean, at first blush. Sensory, obvious enough. Direct as opposed to sensory in this definition, the non-3D’s input directly fed into 3D via mind in its widest definition. In other words, not only the brain and nervous system or the extensive communication among cells and organs, but all apprehension of 3D reality that does not rely upon physical senses. Intuition, yes, but not merely intuition in the sense of “highly intuitive”; more in the sense of responding to everything directly rather than by reflection through the 3D.
F: As you said earlier, outer aspect experienced through the senses, inner experienced through the mind.
TGU: Another analogy is your favored 1/30th of a second delay.
F: Yes, the dead present we sense because our senses report everything only after the present moment has been fixed, as opposed to the living present that we can never sense (that is, that our senses can never report) because of the delay.
TGU: So, examine the questions through this filter and reflect that everything that you are includes these strands you have been examining. Do not consider them as if they were separate from you, but as part of you. Your questions [as phrased] could be paraphrased as asking if your skin tone participated in your experience of dreams, if your muscles did, or your DNA. Do you understand?
F: Pretty sure I do. You mean once we are forged as an individual in 3D, we function as an individual.
TGU: We didn’t think we had quite gotten it across. What you said, yes, but it is more like this. Analysis of the course of an impulse as it progresses along your nervous system is all well and good, but if carried so far that you forget the overall functioning, even the careful analysis will mislead.
F: I know you aren’t objecting to the form of the question, so –?
TGU: We’re setting you (all) a difficult task, in a way. We are asking you to stick, for the moment at least, to questions that can have a practical effect on your life – even while we recognize that there is no way for you to know which questions lead in that direction and which do not. So – ask what you will, and do not be discouraged to ask more when we decline to pursue certain rabbits, or, in your mangled analogy, foxes.
But this must do for the moment.
F: All right, thanks very much.
[And, in transcribing, it occurs to me, they didn’t mean analogy, they meant metaphor. So satisfying to have the last word.]