This process of mind-to-mind communication

Mind to Mind Contact

In going through past communications with Hemingway via Intuitive Linked Communication (ILC), I came across this entry, which says much about the process that people mistake. It began by my asking what I thought was a straight-forward question: As usual, my comments and questions are in itals, his responses in Roman. The fact, BTW, that he is able to reference Star Trek is because in a sense he had “watched” the old TV shows with me, some months before. The temporary joint mind is a very efficient way of conveying knowledge. Efficient, but not perfect, as he points out.

August 7, 2010:

EH: You had a very good quotation by Sheean. You might use it.

[The quotation, from The Hemingway Women by Bernice Kert, page 48: “Years later Vincent Sheean remarked, having spent time with him when the two were war correspondents, then Ernest created outlandish stories as unthinkingly as other people breathed. Most of the time his listeners could not separate his reality from his fantasy.”]

FD: I knew this was an important clue, that didn’t mean quite what people assume it means.

EH: Yes. Some people take that to be an admission that I was an inveterate liar, or was out of contact with reality. How do you take it?

FD: Aren’t we more concerned here with how you see it, having known it from the inside?

EH: The point is that you are on the inside when you contact another person. We know what you know — why should you expect it to be different, the other way round?

FD: But in fact I don’t know, except in little bits and pieces.

EH: That’s a pretty big “except,” don’t you think? Once you’ve gone from “there can’t be any communication between minds” to “yes there can,” it’s a long way you’ve gone. After that it’s a matter of practicing and learning the knack of it. But if you expect too much, the fact that you don’t get what no one could get, could discourage you. Let’s put it into concrete terms. If you make a friend who is well informed about something and is perfectly willing to share his knowledge with you — how much of it is he going to be able to transfer to you at any one time? He can willingly answer questions, and if his range of knowledge is enough that one thing leads to another, maybe you could go a long way on a little. But he can’t just transfer it all, like Mr. Spock doing a mind meld. What he can do most efficiently is tell you what he has reason to tell you; that, and answer your questions. Sound familiar?

Now, when you emotionally or maybe we ought to say empathetically connect with somebody, you get flashes of insight; you don’t get laid-out expositions of facts. If you have the background to see the connections of those flashes of insight, all right, it’s as if you were given a lot of knowledge. But you weren’t. You were given a lightning-flash that lit up the terrain that was already familiar to you. If what it lights up wasn’t familiar to you, what you get is much less, maybe only a dazzling brightness lighting up one specific thing you happened to be looking at.

You can’t expect to know everything a disembodied mind knows, any more than you can that of an embodied mind, because it doesn’t work that way. Your physical brain gets in the way because it can only process so much at a time, and it is continually busy making the adjustments that bring it to the next moment of time. You can’t put the Encyclopedia Britannica on the head of a pin, and if you could, you might have a hell of a time reading it. Without the limitations of the physical body/brain, operating in time-space, yes, what I know, you know. But that isn’t what’s going on here. How could it be?

FD: This puts a different light on the whole process. Thanks. It gives me something to chew on, and I’ll do the chewing.