TGU — on contacting JFK, and our various connections

Wednesday August 24, 2016

6 a.m. A convergence of suspicious influences. Last night, speaking at Timeline, I was encouraged to see if the guys had a message for the group. The result was to show me my deep conflict between delivering a message – which I am always ready to do – and being seen as a performer, which I am not necessarily ready to do. [Trainer] Lee Stone suggested I look at that, as an obstacle to my being more of a messenger.

This morning I look at my email first – which I never do – and find an email from [my friend] Larry Giannou saying, “I keep getting that it is ok for you to connect with JFK. I also get that he is wanting you to. This has come to me now several times. So, this time I am passing it along. I get it will lead to some important revelations.”

So, Mr. President, are you really wanting to talk to me?

Yes, Mr. Author. I thought we got past that Mr. President stuff last time.

Well, it’s a stretch, for me. It’s still Mr. Lincoln to me, and it isn’t ever going to be Abe.

No, but do you call your brother Mr. DeMarco, and would you use a title in talking to him? You aren’t quite getting what you have been told more than once, or anyway you have been told indirectly: The connections are stronger, more direct, and closer than you think, not just to me or Hemingway but to Lincoln and Jung and others to whom you are strongly drawn for no perceptible reason. Emerson, say, Thoreau. If you are that strongly drawn to somebody, it isn’t just because you’ve heard of them. You’ve heard of thousands of people and you might always ask yourself, why these few?

But you are making the mistake you cautioned the group last night not to make, only in your case it is more subtle, which is why you aren’t quite seeing it. You are allowing definitions to creep in and bind you. You know not to cripple your explorations by asking what you are calling the useless questions, but as usual in life, what you banish in one form presents itself again in a disguised form or a dilute form. So instead of asking if you are making this up, or asking if it is a real source or if the information is accurate – any of which has the potential to shut off the flow – you are nonetheless allowing yourself to assume things about any historical character you contact, and that tries to “freeze” us into what you know or assume.’

Obviously I’m not telling you this only for yourself, as it is a common problem – but it is also for yourself. That is, it is a particularly active obstacle for you.

If you weren’t thinking of me as JFK the man and the president and the laughing presence you remember, but were considering me like Joseph Smallwood or another “past life,” you would remain open on the question of relationship. You would know to keep your options open. But you find it harder to conceive a closer-than-blood relationship to someone you have come to first externally.

Yes, that’s true.

Can you see that this is another form of “I don’t want to be seen as a performer”? Exploring a relationship with Joseph or John or David or any number of others does not convey to you a danger of your being seen as inflated; talking to Hemingway or Jung or Yeats or whomever – does. But you know it isn’t that simple, and you could go farther if you didn’t allow that fear, or that reticence, to stand in your way. Just as you don’t require us to speak in our own cadence and vocabulary (and even language for some), but recognize that we are speaking “thought” and therefore will come out in your cadence and words sometimes, and in ours sometimes, and in a mixture sometimes or even in neither (rarely), so you should realize that  you don’t know who you are or we are, and never will. The boundaries between individuals aren’t nearly as meaningful as your lives make you think. The connections are fully as important as the differences.

I think you’re saying, the threads we all share connect us at more levels than we always realize.

That, but more than that. If “we are all one” at some level, as you have come to believe, then it follows that individuals are not what they appear to be, and may be regarded as more local bits of convergences and emphasis than as even the knots in a tapestry that you sometimes see us as.

I also get that whoever I’m talking to isn’t necessarily JFK, more like TGU.

But what is “TGU” but an acronym meaning unidentified talking objects? The term is useful precisely because it is indefinite and frees you from any need to identify before communicating. You aren’t an army sentry; you don’t have to cry “halt, who goes there” in order to converse. The JFK aspect, like any other aspect – Lincoln, Jung, Bertram, anybody – is more a way of feeling than a particularized isolated person. Isolation, such as it is, is not a phenomenon that exists or can exist outside the 3D environment, and, as you know, even there the isolation is mostly misperception.

All right, so, phasing more into the aspects of JFK as you experienced him, and the aspects you and he share, which is why he was as close to you as a brother. Again – as usual – this is not just for you but for you as an example to others of what they are, and it would be well for them to remember it.

Well, I’ve had that feeling from the beginning – muddy tracks – that I’m just a sort of indirect example of what we are.

If you were trying to model something that was only you, or even primarily you, it wouldn’t be too useful to others. Your prime usefulness in this regard is your relative willingness to put it all out there, without discretion and without prettying-up the process, because it really is about showing people what they can do by finding out what you can do, and that of course means mistakes as well as achievements (not that you or anybody can necessarily know which is which).

What follows can be private, so as to relieve you of the pressure of dealing with those fears of being seen as performing.

Thanks. I appreciate it.

But you are going to have to deal with those fears, or cripple the final effect of the work. We really don’t want to wait till after you’re dead.

All right. I’ll work on it.

No, it isn’t a process. It is a decision. Extend your irresponsibility just a little more, and trust.

I had to pause at that, and think about it, but – okay. We’ll see how it works.

Just don’t let yourself be confined by what other people expect, or what you think they expect, and the process will work just as smoothly in public as here. If would have worked last night if you had expressed things as you feel them rather than feeling (semi-consciously) that they would have to come out in a certain manner.

All right. And I take it this, to here, is for dissemination.

It can be, and we would prefer it be – but it is always up to you.

That’s what I signed up for. I can do that.


2 thoughts on “TGU — on contacting JFK, and our various connections

  1. Thank you for this interesting post Frank. I appreciate the sharing of your vulnerabilities with your process. At times I feel like I am on the right track in learning and understanding about some of the metaphysical aspects of myself. Other times, I don’t know if I am coming or going.

    One of the most important things for me to remember is to keep an open mind and pay attention to the things that resonate with me and follow their flow. I appreciate the reading suggestions from all who contribute here. I recently read the Omnec Onec trilogy mentioned by Inger Lise. That book provided some understanding for me of an experience that happened long ago. I have also read Putting on the Mind of Christ by Jim Marion and other interesting books published by Hampton Roads as well as Simon Hay’s book and many others. I am still making my way through the Peter Ralston books suggested by Don Sanderson. I always seem to have a steady stream of books related to consciousness at various stages of reading completion within my daily activities.

    You asked for more on my last comment “Groups of spirit form a collective viewpoint or joint perspective of 3D conditions at a chosen point in time and space (an incarnation). This extends to multiple viewpoints simultaneously (our other lifetimes).”

    It’s hard to put into words but I have been feeling more of a fluidity about who I am, more like I am the focus of collective viewpoints. My other lifetimes and the related historic personalities that I resonate with represent additional viewpoints of my collective group that interact with me and provide the motivation for me to gravitate in one direction or another.

    In reading stories about various mystics from different spiritual traditions, I was interested in the common shared experience where some of them reach a point where their ego (the personality in the current incarnation) disappears and their viewpoint from a dualistic perspective is gone. Some report that who they were (the personality) in this current lifetime was like a dream, it never really existed. In those cases, it feels to me like the individual 3D perspective has shifted to a wider collective perspective (more of the All-D). Though such a radical shift may not be the norm for most individuals in our historical time period, we are moving in that direction of widening our awareness. This is not to say that in other lifetimes we are not experiencing this wider viewpoint of ourselves simultaneously.

    I am very curious about the question suggested by TGU in your previous post “What were the first 3D people made of when there were no prior lives available to act as strands?” I would like to hear more about that. It feels like it may be tied in with the unitary beings. Maybe TGU could tell us more about that.


    1. Karla? I am thinking what you have told here will be mighty interesting !

      The question: “What were the first 3D people made of when there were no prior lives available to act as strands?” It made me to recall the many Edgar Cayce Readings about “The Beginning”…..BEFORE any physical forms or what is called ” formless substance.”
      Your email have felt as “a coincidence in time.”

      Besides reading Franks` I am into some books by Franklin Merrell-Wolff.
      And one title is: “The Philosophy of Consciousness Without an Object.”
      The book is printed in 1973.
      Supposingly would not had a chance in to understand a single word of it back then…
      Hm, well, well, it is called Evolution in Consciousness…And smiling !

      B & B, Inger Lise.

Leave a Reply

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.