TGU on consciousness — and a challenge to us

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.

F: Okay.

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.]

27 thoughts on “TGU on consciousness — and a challenge to us

  1. “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.”
    Something like this was given to me from the other side a few weeks ago, which I feel to be the most valuable guidance I’ve ever received. You all know about “playing in the zone” and how key the “inner game” of imagination to promoting this. Ordinarily, this is approached by athlete off-line imagining success before the competition. Now watch a super athlete in action and notice the perpetual seamless flow, no time gap, between non-sensory awareness, inspired knowing, imagining, and successful action. Martial artist Peter Ralston, who was the first non-Asian to win the World Championship full-contact tournament in 1978 and did so with ease, describes this in other terms. This not only has value in athletics, but in every facet of life. As I understand it, this flow approach is the “non-doing” described by Lao Tzu and practiced by skilled Asian hand craftsmen and artists. What I’ve noticed is that many of the everyday motions our bodies make already fit into this scheme as well.

  2. Me as one part of a continuum of consciousness is moved by a second part of consciousness (Other Parts of Me) to ask questions via a third part of consciousness (Frank) to a fourth part (Frank’s TGU). Then fourth part constructs a better question which is asked through the third part to all other parts participating, so that we all can get a broader spectrum of answers. The knowledge that flows is limited by the awareness of the participants. That’s not answer, just a description of the process. Whew, this is complicated! This will take some thought.
    John

  3. I hope the following is one of many perspectives you get on this subject.

    Question: What can you (any of you) receive via ILC from anyone you connect with, to illustrate the complex nature of consciousness?

    Answer:
    “First, all consciousness is continuous with no boundaries, yet subparts of consciousness are able to identify with themselves as an entity. Every part of consciousness has it’s own perception, and it’s unique. You, for example, will not perceive nor be perceived like any other entity.

    Second, as an example of a part of consciousness, you are simultaneously part and whole. You are your 3D self, you are your greater being and you are all, even if you are more or less aware of it. All parts are also the whole. This is not easy to grasp, especially at your stage and from your angle. You are limited by your awareness and your experience, not your inherent capability or access.

    Third, there is no way that anything can’t affect everything. All is connected to all instantaneously. Consciousness is continuously moving, changing, evolving. Greater parts providing context to smaller parts; smaller parts affecting greater parts. There is no ultimate static end and therefore there never can be any end to learning.

    Fourth, consciousness can coalesce around intent. Seek and you shall find. The seeking, the intent, the question attracts and forms the path for the intelligence, the wisdom, the answers to flow. (Thinking about the question given got me nowhere compared to when I gave up doing it myself (my 3D self) and brought in more than my 3D me by simply asking the question, expecting the answer(s) to follow.)

    Fifth, cause and effect perceivable by you in 3D is distorted and even can be completely misinterpreted by variations in how time is perceived in different regions of consciousness, and lack of visibility into other dimensions. “A” seems to be as a result of “B” in your world, but it is rarely accurate as a complete picture in the broader context.

    Sixth, there are innumerable variables associated with consciousness, many of which are beyond your present perception. Each variable can be, and is (in some part of consciousness), at any point along it’s own continuous scale. An analogy would be all shades of each color, all variations in texture from smooth to rough, etc. Every possible combination of the entire range of all the variables is possible.”

    Relative to:
    TGU “We are asking you to stick, for the moment at least, to questions that can have a practical effect on your (CURRENT 3D) life – even while we recognize that there is no way for you to know which questions lead in that direction and which do not.”

    My revised understanding of reality is changing the way I think about things, my belief system, my perception. To experience this material and learn from it I believe has an impact on my soul formation and eventual transition. In that context, questions that aid in that understanding seem pretty practical to me. Am I misinterpreting the request for practicality?
    John

    1. You say, and i entirely agree: “To experience this material and learn from it I believe has an impact on my soul formation and eventual transition. In that context, questions that aid in that understanding seem pretty practical to me.” So, are you misinterpreting the request for practicality? I wouldn’t say so, no. Everything you discuss here is practical in that it seeks to aid our understanding in a way that, say, “how many dark angels are there,” or that kind of question, might not be. (But the tricky part is — it might! This is excellent work, John. I hope you will post it to TMIE and continue.

    2. Frank and John,
      TGU said “there’s no way for to know”, so I suspect their “difficult task” is in “So – ask what you will, and do not be discouraged to ask more when we decline to pursue certain rabbits.”

      For me that means asking about what we feel drawn to, then learning from/being guided by the response … there can be a lot to learn from “we’re not going there right now.”
      Jim

  4. About a year ago, at age 70, I suddenly got a passion to relearn golf after a 45-year hiatus. “Why?” I asked. “It is very useful for grounding, and it will get you accustomed to embarrassing yourself in public!” Prophetic humor.

    A repeat of the challenge question that came through Frank: What can you (any of you) receive via ILC from anyone you connect with, to illustrate the complex nature of consciousness?

    The first part of a response that came: “First, all consciousness is continuous with no boundaries, yet subparts of consciousness are able to identify with themselves as an entity. Every part of consciousness has it’s own perception, and it’s unique. You, for example, will not perceive nor be perceived like any other entity.”

    With encouragement to explore deeper, I ask, “What is it about this lack of boundaries and self identity that makes consciousness complex?”

    Here’s the further response, after a lot of work to make it as coherent as I can:

    “Let’s discuss you as a subpart, the part of you that is in the process of forming your soul. Please try to picture in your mind, or better yet, take a piece of paper and draw the boundary around that entity you know as you. (If there is such a thing as a rhetorical task, this is it.)

    Bodies are a wonderful convenience for self identification, especially when forming and solidifying a sense of self is important. You could naively draw it around the body, but you know very well by now that you are more than your body. What kind of self identity do you have with your mind when it is operating with thoughts mixed into it from other minds? Where do you leave off and other minds begin?

    It’s further complicated by the fact that part of you is in a space-time physical reality and another part is in a non-physical reality.

    The point is that while you are able to identify with yourselves as an entity each will have their own different identity. All humans are not at the same stage or have the same awareness.

    For educational purposes, we speak of you and your greater being as two entities, which inevitably leads you to think of spatial separation, roles and relationships. And to be fair, we put that out there because you have a strong in-body identification (at least initially), and because you and the region of consciousness from which you come (that spawned you) function differently.

    We have said that the awareness of a soul-in-the-making in the body is more confined than what we have been referring to as the greater being. But even with those generalizations it is not possible to draw boundaries.

    (With humor) So when some guy like you, even as a proxy for us, asks something like (paraphrasing my question), “Does my greater being determine my calling via my strands?”, you can perhaps now better see how we have to struggle to answer that directly, without being further misleading, even though you could say we led you there. So goes the ever-spiraling learning process. The question does lead us to take you further on your appreciation of the learning and teaching process.

    Incidentally all this doesn’t mean there isn’t influence and vectoring going on from higher to lower consciousness.. It just means that it’s more fluid and complex than what can be described with boundary-limited models.”

    On some undetermined timetable I am going try to do the same for each of the six previous points in the initial response. I’m finding it particularly difficult because the territory is so foreign to me. I’m going to take it one bite at a time, and see where it leads.

    1. Had no idea you were that OLD, John! 🙂 You’re all of two years older than i am, and judging from your posts, i would have guessed you to be in your vigorous 40s. Is our generation ever going to get old?

  5. In giving us the challenge question, your TGU didn’t put a limit on the response, so as long as I keep getting input, I’ll keep sharing it!

    On the list of complexities of consciousness I received from my ILC link to intelligence, second on the list was:

    “As an example of a part of consciousness, you are simultaneously part and whole. You are your 3D self, you are your greater being and you are all, even if you are more or less aware of it. All parts are also the whole. This is not easy to grasp, especially at your stage and from your angle. You are limited by your awareness and your experience, not your inherent capability or access.”

    I’ve experience an image representing all consciousness twice now, at two different TMI programs, and both times it was similar. Because it relates to the subject, I want to share my notes taken immediately after my most recent experience in May of this year.
    From my notes: “I sensed in the distance spiral shaped white light, similar to what would appear as another galaxy far away in our universe, and I was drawn toward it. I could see other parts or elements that seemed separated from me, like looking out into the Universe from the Hubble telescope. As I moved closer by simply intending to do so, I sensed increasingly strong motion and the feeling of a vortex, with a flow of the outside parts seemingly moving toward the center while tremendous energy was flowing outward toward me from the center part of the vortex. Light was emanating white, blue and orange colors and there was love, healing and life energy flowing from this source. I basked in it for some time. There were no words spoken, and I felt blissful and ecstatic and had no desire to ask questions or get information. I just wanted to be there. What kept coming into mind was this was the Source, the source of all energy, and it was unlimited love, purifying healing and power. The overall shape and essence of what I was viewing immediately reminded me of a previous concept I was given of all consciousness emanating from a single source, yet at the same time all consciousness being one and combining ever “denser” closer to the Source.”

    This image came with an understanding that consciousness becomes more combined as we move upward (recognizing of course there is no up/down outside of space-time). Our greater beings combine all the consciousness of the many “me’s” as well as the many strands flowing around me. Above that, greater beings combine, and so on, until everything is combined at one point.

    Going deeper into this, Monday I received the following download:

    “There are several ways to look at this. For a mechanistic analogy the hologram is a useful. The hologram itself is a film or plate, the result of a coherent light recording process. That physical film can be broken down into tiny pieces, and each tiny piece will reproduce the whole. Granted, the resolution of the whole from a small piece is not as great as a bigger piece, but it is all there.

    An issue with the hologram analogy is that you know that you cannot perceive everything and you are not ready to get into a discussion with yourself (much less anybody else) about whether you are actually God or not. BTW, you’re not and neither are we!

    A useful way to look at it at this stage is that you have the ability to “lose your self identity” and become blended into higher consciousness. This doesn’t imply permanent loss, it means you have the choice to set aside your individuality. Use your own examples. What was your identity when you were in those states?”

    (On different occasions at TMI I blended with all the alternate me’s being formed as part of my greater being, and on a separate occasion with the Universe. On both occasions my identity was with the greater consciousness.}

    There is a subtle but important distinction between “I am the Universe” and “I no longer am distinguishing myself separate from the Universe”, or “I am in the mind of the Universe”, or “My being is inseparable from the Universe.”

    (This was extremely helpful to me and finally gave me an understanding of the sense I got during the TMI experiences, which were NOT abstract.)

    “The point for complexification: That your mindset moves you to be where you are within the one great mind.”

    (In other words, we have within us the capability,but not yet the knowhow, to identify with and move our minds inside those of increasing combinations of consciousness.)

    “Looking at it inversely, all of consciousness can choose to identify with all combined, or with your greater being, or with you, and everything else, and there is value in doing so. Consciousness can and does choose to be all of these simultaneously.”

    {This came through as a kind of reciprocity. Just as I can learn to be in the mind of my greater being, or the Universe, so can they choose to be in my mind.}

    “They can’t help but be there (in my mind), because a part cannot ever be separated from that which formed it.”

    1. John, thank you very much.
      I`m speechless to say the least.
      Very peculiar, but do understand most of it, especially when not using the intellect too much… rather in using the intuition instead…and without hesitation, printing it out.
      B&B,Inger Lise

      P.S. Good luck with the Golf. My old Swedish friends are among the eager (if not fanatical) “Golf-Players.”
      BTW: I am not, and never have been, sorry to say !(laughter)
      I LOVE listening to Opera at a high volume when all alone in the car, and when cleaning the house (when alone).

  6. Inger Lise,
    I always appreciate your comments. Thanks.

    I’m beginning to recognize how finely-tuned these messages are. The thoughts with this last message were, and still are, so very clear to me; yet, I can see that another person could read the words and not pick up the same meanings at all.

    It’s a challenge for me to get the thoughts down as they come streaming through, and then try to make sure the words get across the whole sense of the information, which they rarely do. Every once in a while some word or phrase is there that I’ve never heard before, in this case “complexification”, and I try to go with it, knowing the meaning that was coming with it.

    This dialogue gave me another way to understand “oneness”. This “intuitively linked communication”, using Frank and Rita’s terminology, helps me recognize the presence of other intelligence in my mind, which itself is a conglomerate of minds from previously lived lives. The minds associated with my greater being and those associated with clusters of combined greater beings can be joined in the same way. That’s the general understanding I got anyway.

    I had to first become aware of the availability of this intelligence, and then get the “knack” of recognizing it and connecting with it. I’m surmising joining greater minds would involve similar awareness and learning, and the greater the affinity, the easier it would be.
    John

  7. Okay,seems fun so I’ll play.

    “The question: What can you (any of you) receive via ILC from anyone you connect with, to illustrate the complex nature of consciousness?”

    Me: Well, how about it?

    Not-me: Your designation for us has the advantage of being sly as well as inaccurate.

    Me: Yeah well, it works for ours purposes.

    Not-me: It does differentiate. We’ll give you that. As you began to type you felt us urge you to answer the question “all by yourself.” Our point to you, others may or may not benefit, was that this process of thinking-feeling pulls together a very vast array of sources, beings, energies, and intelligences–physical and non-physical. In other words, for you to “answer” this question a coordination of multitudinous connections must be configured and continuously re-configured based upon feedback and input. Thus in a very real way, the question, along with your and others’ attempt to answer it, brings a new world and new possibilities into being.

    Me: I think either I or you are losing the plot here.

    Not-me: Not at all, young apprentice. The point is two-fold: the use of “consciousness” effortlessly calls together what you would rationally perceive as a staggering, but momentary collection of physical and non-physical elements. Whereas your rational self would perceive this as an incredible complexity whose coordination seems fundamentally miraculous it all happens as a matter of course. Second, this complexity appears so mostly b/c you perceive yourselves as individual and objects as discrete. This both is and is not the case. However for the present, consider that unity and oneness are the rule while individuality and difference are interesting exceptions.

    Me: Fine, but the above doesn’t seem to address the question directly.

    Not-me: To be honest, we are not “answering” to or for you.

    Me: Fair enough.

    Not-me: Put very simply, what is being called “consciousness” is, to speak oxymoronically, a basic substance common to everything but capable of infinite variation and difference. Sounds simple enough but to experience and know this is another matter. Now we may move on to your bailiwick.

    Me: Mine?

    Not-me: Yes. Do you want to state the problem?

    Me: No, go ahead please.

    Not-me: Very well, but it is possible we may not address it just as “you” would.

    Me: That calls a thousand questions to mind, but go on.

    Not-me: The term “consciousness” has very local, very human connotations such that some of you, many of you, presume human “consciousness” to be the fundamental starting point of comparison or understanding. This is exacerbated by certain historical-sociological arcs which have deemed human consciousness to be radically unique relative to the rest of the universe. Now, this presumption is rapidly breaking down and/or actively being dismantled (this forum is but one example), but old habits die hard as the saying goes. Human consciousness is not unique. The human relationship to consciousness is more so.

    Me: How?

    Not-me: First, in the presumption that human consciousness is unique! Or rather that consciousness is itself unique to humans.

    Me: Well, don’t you think you’re preaching to the choir a little bit here? I mean, most people reading this thread will already know or at least be aware of this.

    Not-me: Are you sure? This goes directly to the point. It may be that the particularities of us/you stating it thusly will strike someone in new ways or link more viscerally to their consciousness of “consciousness.” What we are pushing toward is an active realization of the commonality of what you are calling “consciousness.” One might call it the “alive-ness” of all things except that “alive”, being the opposite of “dead”, connotes physicality and the continuing integrity of the physical form.

    Me: Again, this is already presumed here if not known.

    Not-me: Very well, discard consciousness and replace it with the synonym “mind.” Does it not have a peculiarly human ring to it, even if applied to animals, plants, other beings, even the non-physical?

    Me: Yes, and?

    Not-me: Mind is actually better for our purposes b/c though consciousness has definite shades of this mind explicitly brings the problem out into the open.

    Me: Which is?

    Not-me: The duality of mind/body, but also the duality of those with minds (traditionally this has been humans, though one knows well that many humans for many reasons have been denied having “mind”) and those without (pretty much everything else). Descartes thought he was simply emphasizing the primacy of the most fundamental thing (mind, or what you today are inclined to call consciousness) when he issued his famous little dictum: Cogito ergo sum, “I think. Therefore I am.” But mind or consciousness is not a defining characteristic of humans. It is far too commonplace for that. Though it is, strangely, a defining characteristic of the “I” or modern human ego.

    Me: Ahhh! This is already gone on long enough, but the last sentence is like a riddle. (For those that don’t know: Rene Descartes, 17th century French philosopher and geometer. To my mind, his philosophy is the initial iteration of many now common-sense, modern assumptions about how the world works and how to go about gaining knowledge of it)

    Not-me: So leave it a riddle. And we’ll leave the collective with this: Ask yourselves, what are you speaking of or referring to when employing the term “consciousness?” How is it different from and/or related to what you are speaking of when you employ the terms “mind” or “intelligence” or “awareness” or “being” or “living”? In considering the question you begin to sense how complex consciousness can be. But do not forget that it is unified and thus simple, common to everything, and perception of it can be quite direct.

    1. Excellent. I think this shows some of the potential of this method of joint-and-several exploration of the same theme. What seems obvious to one is not at all obvious to another, and even times when you bat something back and forth, thinking “why are you wasting our time with this non-answer?” help illuminate the subject. Do share more if you get more.

  8. Cat’s paw,
    Wonderful and interesting. I related very much to the first part, as that dialogue for me was an eloquent and illuminating perspective on the topics of the first and fourth points that I picked up.

    Your last discussion and question are useful to think about. I know I am somewhat lax at throwing these terms around without really thinking about how they differentiate aspects of consciousness or how they are perceived. Seems like we could use a glossary of terms that at least for us have the same meanings and connotations.

  9. Since Frank asked for more…

    Not-me: Yes, we were not quite finished but your fatigue compelled us to stop.

    Me: It did seem to me I was losing concentration which was affecting the quality of the translation.

    Not-me: Not as much as you think. Two relevant points on that however.

    1.We must, rather have to, follow your attention. So, for example, if you become tired your attention and receptivity may and usually does shift direction and focus. We happily follow you and so redirect our attention, focus, and the content of the conversation to remain “in tune.” The slight unease you feel/felt is not an issue with translation. It is your sense that “we” had something else in mind to say but your increasing fatigue slightly changed the nature of the conversation.

    Me: Okay, and #2?

    Not-me: We have retracted the request for #2.

    Me: Why?

    Not-me: We want to move along and avoid fatigue. Now will you please offer a synopsis of the issue you have been thinking through for some time.

    Me: Really? It’s all very interesting to me, but it’s practical value for others is questionable.

    Not-me: Do you know exactly who the “others” are? The others are not just the individuals involved with Frank’s blog. To use Monroe’s phrase, their “I-there’s” are waiting expectantly to hear this and see what unfolds from it and in relation to it.

    Me: Fine. Lots of questions, and I can actually feel/see what you mean which both comforts and awes me, but I’ll bracket them for now. What you are asking about is something at once very concrete and basic yet highly abstract and metaphysical: the relationship of unity and difference…now I’ve lost it.

    Not-me: You are trying to imagine what we “want” you to say in addition to imagining what would be most “helpful” for others to hear. This is blocking you. Relax and collect yourself.

    Me: For me, I am endlessly fascinated by all manner of differences–natural, cultural, political, however one wants to categorize them. But the risk of valuing or over-valuing difference is…let me rephrase this. Balancing or oscillating between recognition of and respect for difference and remembering the essential unity all things in their difference strikes me as one of the great ethical challenges humanity faces moving forward.

    Not-me: Genuine respect of difference(s) is recognition of unity.

    Me: Yes, it is crucial to grasp the sense in which respect is used here. It is not merely a word, but an orientation which guides perception and behavior.

    Not-me: And thus, “consciousness.”

    Me: I was wondering where this was going. Now I see a little bit.

    Not-me: There is “consciousness” but we noted previously that there is obviously the state of being “conscious of.” Consciousness expands/contracts (or changes, transforms, shifts) in relation to what one is conscious of. A simple truism. However, the nature of one’s “being-conscious-of” is shaped and affected by one’s orientation–as you called it. So, respect, reverence, curiosity, skepticism, shame, contempt, fear, any of these, any combination of these, or much else besides, also determines the nature of one’s consciousness of something. You desire to follow up. Please do as it will set up our next point.

    Me: About Descartes and my little blurb about his work in the last comment: I want to point out that I think he was fundamentally wrong and that many of our modern “common-sense” assumptions about knowledge and mind are also mistaken. It wasn’t an endorsement.

    Not-me: Yes,the allure of the academic caveat is too irresistible for you to withstand (they are teasing me).

    Me: Well, I want to be clear. Descartes is a seminal expression of modernity, representing its potential force and power while also being exactly that which we have to overcome (not abandoned, but overcome).

    Not-me: Why?

    Me: The total lack of respect it embodies in the presumption that there is no intelligence in things, only in the mind which of course is uniquely human. And since things lack mind or intelligence they are to be manipulated and used in any way the human mind sees fit. Total lack of respect. Not to mention, despite the simplicity and power of their uses and effects, modern knowledge practices are something of a travesty insofar as vast realms of knowledge have been deemed not to be so.

    Not-me: You are avoiding mentioning it so we will force your hand. You have come to respect the lives of insects in the last few years. Not, mind you, be curious about or even particularly interested in, but respect, yes?

    Me: Yes.

    Not-me: And what is the content of that?

    Me: Well, I do not kill them carelessly or without thought or consideration. I feel (really feel) they are living beings, no less than I, whose lives and meanings I do not understand, but are no less worthy of consideration than any other living being. I sense, only in a distant way, that were I capable, despite the vast differences, I could communicate with them. That, in other words, they are capable of such communication (here I think of Rita asserting that all of 3D has expression in non-3D which would be what for insects?). Since I live in the American West, and very near a major western river, I observe the successive hatches of flying river insects during the summer. They crowd my back-door light at night and I often watch them. As a result I have recently been taken with their beauty and strangeness. They seem genuinely alien. More pertinent, I sense their intelligence which is not at all like mine, but I feel it is there.

    Not-me: We will say it since you won’t. In certain moments you have loved them. This respect and love orients your consciousness of these little beings which in turn affects your greater consciousness.

    Me: Yes, I won’t deny it. Still, there is a tinge of the saintly in this. A bit too close to, “aw, that’s so sweet!” which is quite beside the point. Nor do I want others to get the wrong impression, I guess of me, but really of this material.

    Not-me: All is not up to you. You may say it exactly as you mean it and still the impressions will not be just exactly as you meant it. In any case, the meaning is clearer than you think.

    Me: So, I think I’ve had enough. One last point from the Not-me’s?

    Not-me: Yes, in the context of this conversation and the larger situation of this forum consider: consciousness is capable of infinite complexity. One way of grasping this is to translate infinite complexity as unlimited differentiation. Modern humans, which is all of you reading this whether you like it or not, have proven quite capable in assimilating and comprehending difference(s). Now the task before you is to comprehend, really remember, the unity from which the differences originate.

    Me: Man, I don’t want to continue, it’s enough already, but your statement for “consideration”…I mean, I agree with the overall thrust, but have Modern humans proven themselves “quite capable” of assimilating differences? Really?

    Not-me: We of course understand your incredulity and we needn’t explore that now. The short answer is yes. The longer answer would obviously be heavily qualified. But yes, despite obvious shortcomings, in the aggregate Modern humans have come to the point through basic scientific training, democratic political groupings, and diversity of economic productive activities–to name a few broad developmental processes– that the principle of difference is both tolerated and generally accepted. There are also forces, if you will, coming from non-3D which are augmenting this.

    We will say this and then be done. Up until now the modern notion of “universality” meant that the universe should conform to particular human conceptions of it regardless of facts, as you would call them. However, this dynamic is in the process of being undone. Universality as principle shall soon indicate something very different. What is universal will no longer be so local, so human, and referring to only certain kinds of humans at that. The universal is common to all, of the all, and one with the all. And the all is very, very many.

    Fare thee well. We watch, and participate where we can, with anticipation to see what unfolds.

  10. We don’t have large sample size here, but what we do have is extremely interesting to me.

    Looking at Frank’s initial input and the subsequent information, it seems some important principles are not just being discussed, but demonstrated. For example, wisdom, non-attributable, accessible to all, but personalized and responsive to the intent of the inquirer. I really believe it would benefit us to discuss our understanding of what’s happening here, and Frank I hope your workshop comes together to enable such discussion.

    Meanwhile, to add more to the pile on the complexity of consciousness I would like to submit the following. I was exploring further on two concepts received earlier: 1) “There is no way that anything can’t affect everything”, and 2) All is connected to all instantaneously”.

    It’s becoming more and more difficult for me to differentiate between sources. All I can attest to is that this is a product of a mixed mind. I notice the pronouns, which might indicate which source is dominating the thought, but otherwise, I’m trying to move myself beyond attribution.

    From the mixed mind:
    There exists “torrents” of information flowing in “real time”, unfathomable to our being. Initially the mental picture was information flowing from us, from me in the physical to greater consciousness. (Later I realized of course that there is no such thing as a one-way link, even if we are unaware of the reverse flow from our greater being to us.)

    We (meaning in this case, me) can comprehend isolation, at the opposite end of the connectivity spectrum, easier than we can comprehend the degree of connectivity that actually exists. That’s because in our Earth bound experience we are more aware, by design, of life as an apparent isolated being.

    The “probe” analogy was used (we are a probe from the mother ship) and that analogy is useful for describing the nature of your purpose relative to your greater being; however, that is not as useful an analogy for discussing connectivity. A probe brings remoteness to mind, and connections to that are often pictured as a single link or “tether”. It would be more accurate to picture our connectivity as the opposite of that.

    Imagine that every single cell, every sub-particle, every part (all the way up and down the line) of your body is connected. The “experience” of the tiniest imaginable part of us is being registered, being absorbed and affecting what it’s connected to. How many cells are in a body? Imagine every one being connected.

    But there is even more. Every one of our thoughts and feelings are also connected instantaneously and all of this input is never lost.

    Does this mean that we are like a puppet on a zillion strings? No, it’s more like a being with a zillion sensors to absorb every aspect of every experience. Greater consciousness does not experience all this in the same way we experience it. For example the information is integrated over time, whereas we experience it in each moment.

    (As I was thinking, “wow, this really does border on unfathomable”, the topic diverted somewhat.)

    You are thinking, is this really the situation?  It seems so far-fetched, so out there. Do you really think that you, isolated in some way from us (which is not possible) could ever have some wild idea, itself isolated, and not reality?  Is there anything that you can think of that is not a possible reality?  The mere fact that you can think of it makes it potentially viable.  (Looking back, this implies that thoughts are a reality themselves, different than but perhaps related to our objective reality).  

    What makes a thought crazy? It’s “unobtainability”?  It’s position outside of your zone of acceptability? How would we be able to consider all possible ways to expand, to create, if we arbitrarily limited our thoughts? Consciousness is unlimited, and every new thought you think is a form of creation.  The problem in your thinking is that you subdivide thoughts from reality, and your reality is an objective one.  Outside of physical reality, it’s subjective: it’s a world of thought!!!  

    1. John, ditto, and agree. It is a world of thoughts !
      Thanks a lot.
      AND it is absolutely amazing all of it.

      …Always,Inger Lise.

      P.S. My practical earthbound husband and I are painting the house at the time being. Luckily our three sons came along from every corner of the country to help us out to finish with the house painting.
      My husband is the kind personality who ALWAYS does everything by himself, and never asks anybody for help but me:
      I have told him it is the LAST TIME in helping him with the heavy physical working at the property!
      Before took it humorously but no more that`s for sure. (rather to become a space-traveler, to focus elsewhere, laughing)

  11. Glad to hear others find the offering stimulating. I know I’ve been stimulated by what I’ve read here.

    I will say I didn’t know how it would come out. As I said before Frank, I began doing this in 2011 after reading your blog for some time in response to a personal crisis. That being the case, most of the material I’ve produced is of a highly personal nature which would mortifying to share and of questionable utility for anyone else.

    For what reason I don’t know, but I did find doing this more tiring.

    Also, thinking over what John brought in here, and of course Frank, I get a real sense (not really ILC as much as a perception) that “they” are really deeply interested in what what is happening here. I get a sense of many observing, watching, or checking in with the greatest anticipation and curiosity. There are a lot of things that could be said about that–my baseline feeling about it is as I said both comforting and awe-inspiring–but one takeaway is that our actions and what we do is of tremendous value and interest “there.” It’s somewhat as if, I presume b/c of the 3D conditions, our actions are intensively effective and creative in making all kinds of new possibilities.

    Anyway, on a more personal level for everyone here, we can feel so small, inconsequential, ineffective, and lonely, but we are not perceived that way at all from non-3D.

  12. Sorry, one more thing. I think “they” are prompting me to say this. In my last post I was sort of emphasizing the value and “utility” of what everyone is doing here re: non-3D. “They” agree, but also wanted me to give it this spin.

    What is happening here is also something akin to a good show. An event, a confrontation, a happening, or a performance for which one says to oneself and others, “I’m not gonna miss that show.” The “show” is useful and valuable, but for some it’s more like, “Hey, check it out! That’s pretty cool!”

    As if there’s no immediate utility outside of the interest and “spectacle” it provides. Which is just as valuable as any potential utility that comes from it, if you follow my drift. I guess there’s a real aspect of play to all this.

    1. I have printed all of it out to study more closely later on the material done by Cat`s Paw !
      It is all incredible and absolutely fascinating material.

      On page 260, 261 and 262 in the Early Sessions, book 8, by Jane& Rob& Seth:
      Quote Seth:
      “Now as far as our own material is concerned, it has taken short shrift for some time. There are loose ends dangling in many areas. We shall try to add some continuity and consistency, therefore. You have still been given but a sketchy outline, in truth, but we have to fill it in. For that matter, the outline is scarcely completed.

      We will want to deal overall with the nature of reality as it exists within your camouflage system, as it exists in other systems, and with the overall characteristics that pertain to it, regardless of any given manifestation. That is, certain characteristics belong to reality, regardless of the methods by which it brings itself forth.

      These methods themselves will vary. The systems vary, the systems being the manifestation of reality as it shows itself in various forms. The methods by which it manifests itself also vary. Certain characteristics however belong to reality regardless of the very methods and the various manifestations.

      Since you are naturally interested in your own physical system (I am Not sure about that if you ask me), we will deal about thoroughly with the methods by which reality turns itself into CAMOUFLAGE.
      Also, we will deal with other methods used by you, that will allow you to perceive more clearly the basic nature of reality, in quotes “showing through” physical camouflage. (smile by Seth).

      Involved in this also will be the interrelationship that exists between systems of reality, including certain points of contact that CONNECTS THEM ALL.
      The last should be underlined. For these various apex points can be mathematically arrived at, and will in some distant future of yours serve as contact points; in some cases taking the place of space travel.

      I am trying to give you an idea of the direction in which we will be moving. Questions such as pertaining to life after death, in your terms, will be covered perhaps in a consecutive number of sessions, in which such matters will be covered in a body of material.

      This portion will deal with practical considerations, in your terms, and will be a part of a larger portion concerned with the practical utilization of our material. The practical utilization however must follow and understanding of the material.

      AND here comes my favorite “theme” — Seth says: “A large segment will also be concerned with that portion of reality that has time connotations for you.” Etc.etc.

      B&B,Inger Lise….I have to run,the outdoors work calling!!
      BTW:Thanks a whole lot Frank, John, Cats-Paw & All.

      1. It occurs to me, editing this comment, that our connecting is the important part; the explanations are less important, because the universe can’t ever really be explained in words; but it can be felt, if we are in connection. Probably ONLY when we are in connection.

  13. My take on non-3D “interest” is that our current activity falls into the category of what we would call “prototyping”, as an early stage of learning on both sides about what “life connected” would be like if everyone was functioning regularly in knowing connection with non-3D. In a fully functioning mode, I believe it would have significant effects.

    So I agree that at this stage the connection aspects to the non and to each other are perhaps more vital than the information content on the links. Not to say that it’s not useful, especially to those of us seeking answers and understanding.

Leave a Reply

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