Thursday May 5, 2016
F: 7 a.m. Rita? Care to continue?
R: Let’s go into even deeper waters. Remember your friend Maureen’s experience.
F: I was wondering when we would get into that. Maureen Caudill was a convinced scientist who turned into something entirely different, though still remaining a scientist, because of the experiences she had in [the Monroe Institute’s] Gateway. I assume – I feel – you want me to talk about her experience in retrieving a machine.
R: Of course.
F: That shook her world! In essence, she went out to do a retrieval – that is, to connect with any discarnate intelligence that might be lost and needing assistance to get “with the light” or however one would choose to describe it. In short, we find someone stranded and without a clue, we give them a lift. To her surprise and dismay she found herself giving a retrieval to the soul of a machine! It was some probe we had sent to the surface of Mars, if I remember correctly. I’m not sure she even believed we had souls, at one point. Certainly she didn’t believe machines did.
R: You were concerned lest, in your exercise for your weekend course, anything you tried might be “a bridge too far.” Imagine how she felt.
F: The whole Monroe experience was a salutary shock, as far as I can see. As you know, eventually we published her account as Suddenly Psychic. That was several years ago, and I’ve lost track of her, but it was interesting, working with her on it, as she learned to balance her old way of seeing, and the experiences that changed it, and her new tentative conclusions. So in terms of the relevance to us –?
R: You were stretched by the idea that a fictional character might be a creation as real as its own creator. The idea that a machine might have its own consciousness – and that the consciousness might continue – is even more of a stretch, nor is it the limit of the distance your rubber band is going to have to extend to.
F: Or snap. Or snap back to a smaller size.
R: That is always an option. Continue to stretch, or reach one’s limits (for the moment), or over-stretch and find that an entire regrouping is necessary. Not a tragedy in any case, just an alternative chosen. At some level.
F: “All is well, all is always well.”
R: Isn’t it?
F: Seems to be, except relatively. Any given moment could use tweaking, from our limited viewpoint, probably. But to stay on point –
R: Any creation partakes of the consciousness of its creator. Everything – thus, every thing – is consciousness. There is nothing else around; hence, there is nothing else to make anything of. But consciousness is interactive, and that is what I have been edging us toward. Also, consciousness is qualitatively different depending upon the limits of one’s environment. Let’s look at those two points.
Consciousness is interactive. No one who has ever had a baby or a pet should need to have this explained. A baby, a puppy, a kitten, a field mouse, even (so to speak) is born with innate intelligence – an operating system, so to speak. But how much that intelligence develops, and in what ways, depends upon the being’s interactions with its surroundings. Parents who give a baby an interesting environment may develop the baby’s intelligence considerably. Correspondingly, ignored children – particularly emotionally starved children – may fail to thrive. Pets to some degree may be said to live up to the level of intelligence expected of them. And you are finding in the news day by day more examples of heretofore unknown depths of animal interactions among themselves and with humans.
F: Emotional depths.
R: Yes, emotional depths indicating as well greater reasoning ability and communication ability than had been realized.
F: I have taken to saying it wasn’t so much the animals being dumb as our being deaf.
R: All right, but let us hold our thought here to the interactive nature of consciousness. Everything is consciousness and interaction will reveal greater depths to those engaging in the interaction.
F: You mean, I take it, greater depths revealed to themselves as well as to each other.
R: Yes. As you extend to others, you broaden the potential to extend to previously unsuspected aspects of yourself. It’s a natural progression. It is the same process of expansion.
But – my second point – consciousness is qualitatively different. You have seen specifics of this, but I want to generalize just a bit farther. It is true, as you have said, that various systems within your body have their own consciousness and that consciousness is focused on – which in practice means limited to – their specific function, be it processing sugars, regulating feedback or whatever. But now look a little farther. A machine knows [what is within] its mechanical limits. Like the intelligence that regulates your blood sugar, it does not read mystery novels or follow political developments. It does what is real to it in the little corner of the great world. Just as you do. Just as I do, as anyone does.
F: It’s always interesting to me, to sort of know what is coming and then to see clearly what has been presented, when I didn’t see it that clearly beforehand.
R: That is the value of communication, to assist clarity.
So, hold this in mind.
– Everything is made of living material, because there is nothing “dead” in the 3D any more than in the non-3D, despite appearances.
– Therefore, everything has consciousness, again despite appearances – and we may have to come back to this, to explain how a grain of gravel can have consciousness, but not now.
– That consciousness is tailored to the thing in question, or perhaps we should say each type of thing naturally has its own attendant form of consciousness.
– That consciousness may potentially be increased, or broadened, by contact with other types of consciousness, as is happening to you as we do this.
– No interaction changes only one end of the interaction. Once you begin to communicate with animals, for instance, your own practical intelligence (as opposed to your potential intelligence) must rise.
F: Oh, I get it. So as we learn to communicate with more and more disparate things, we change and in effect the universe changes.
R: The universe you live in changes, yes, just as changes in other beliefs change it. Our learning that all is well, for instance.
F: And as we realize that everything is alive, we see the terrific damage that has been done to the earth around us by a civilization that saw it all as dead and available for use in whatever way we wished.
R: Yes, but this doesn’t mean that industrial civilization, say, is a mistake in itself. Iron ore being smelted into steel isn’t a tragedy or a violence. I know you, Frank, aren’t thinking that, but this is, as you would say, for the studio audience.
F: Iron ore is aware of what’s happening but doesn’t care?
R: Not the way to look at it. As I say, we are going to have to go into the question of how matter at its most “inanimate” perceives the world it lives in, then other relationships will become clearer. Animism isn’t exactly “wrong” – whatever “wrong” means – but it has its limits like any other way of seeing.
F: But this is a topic for another day.
R: That’s right. This is a nice unit as delivered.
F: Thanks as always.