Different levels of communication

Tuesday, September 19, 2017

[The following reverses what had been my custom of putting “my” words into italics and “their” words in Roman. I did that because I expected my words to be far fewer than theirs, and italic is harder to read in large blocks than Roman. For this session, at least, my portion is the lion’s share, so we’ll flip the convention and leave my words in Roman for ease of reading.]

3 a.m. While I was getting ready to communicate, this stray thought came to me, and I realized, maybe not so “stray” after all: All my reading of novels, of history and biography, and my frequent viewings and re-viewings of films may be seen in a different way, in light of the hint thrown out the other day by whatever force I was talking to. Behind all those stories of individuals are other stories of forces, of conflicts of forces, of ebbs and flows of power. And by power I do not mean power over others, but the power that flows through people for its own purposes.

This will strike some people as fanciful, as inappropriately concrete metaphor, so they will think either it is playing with words or it is being seduced by words into cloud-cuckoo-land.

That is because one level does not understand another.

And I can feel how inadequate language is. Trying to render what I just got there, the best I could do missed most of it.

Your practice has been to develop your skill. In practice that has meant, to bend your habits in certain directions in order to compensate for tendencies that would interfere.

Okay, we’re going to have to work differently, aren’t we?

We are. Express it.

Well, “express it” says it in a nutshell. Let me try to say what I just got.

The whole sequence from my initial attempts at automatic writing (imitating what I thought I understood from what I had read), through communicating with The Boss, then a personified Evangeline, then the guys upstairs, then individuals such as David Poynter and Joseph Smallwood, then historically recognized figures like Carl Jung and others, then – interspersed through the process more as exceptions than as part of a progression – people I had known like my old friend David Schlachter and finally Rita –. That’s a long process, extending from about 1989. Viewed as a process, you could say it led me along by experience, with gradually accumulating experience continually or repeatedly modifying not only what I thought I knew, but modifying my practice. It was a long sequence of events aimed in part at changing how I went about things. Correcting not only mistaken ideas but, perhaps more fundamentally, temperamentally or let’s say habitual traits that tended to interfere.

You’ve seen it, if you’ve been along for the journey. This latest course-correction was to get me to slow down, to settle in, more than I have ever done or been able to do. There are forces that can only be heard when we are still enough.

Well, just as my perceptions have changed, and my ability to work with those perceptions, so has my part in these discussions. It has been a good long time since I was only a scribe writing down whatever pearls the other side cared to (or was able to) share with us. With time and confidence and changes in interlocutors came changes in my role. Dictation became conversation. Conversation clarified into part instruction, part how-to. From the beginning, the process was never what I expected on the basis of what I had read. Instead, it was peculiar to me. It was quite disconcerting to Rita in 2001, I remember. She was not used to a process where the person communicating was right there, passing along humor from “them.” But she and I worked with the situation, and matters progressed accordingly. I don’t see how we could have done our work then, let alone our work subsequently, if we had tried to make what came to us fit into some preconceived box in format or content. And now, I think we’re changing gears once again. From the two words I’ve received this morning, I have a ream of information that I have to be able to say. It’s like we’re edging toward Bob Monroe’s rotes, where non-verbal transmission of information has to be unpacked into words, which can only be done by someone familiar with 3D restrictions of thought and experience. That’s fine, and I don’t mind, but it is going to be very different. If indeed that’s what is in store.

So, these paragraphs, all these words, have been in response to “express it.” Earlier it was “one level does not understand another,” and it was with that sentence that I realized that our manner of proceeding was going to have to change. Bear in mind, I am not complaining. I think it is a good thing. But it is different, and should be seen as a new departure.

By “one level does not understand another,” I got that we all speak at a certain level of understanding, but not everybody speaks at the same level. Some are incapable of seeing any level but the one they are used to. Some move in their lifetimes from one to another, leaving behind not only the habit but even the memory of the former level. Some – I’m one – move from level to level, partly inadvertently or unconsciously, partly upon demand as they learn to distinguish (discern) different levels. I don’t think there is any implied “better” or “worse” about it, but it is a difference in the three states. Either one, stable and relatively unchanging, or two, stable, then transformed, then stable again, or three, a stability consisting of fluidity.

Now, those of us who are able to move among levels – and I don’t think there are only two levels, in fact I think the concept of level is itself a metaphor – I think we are here as translators, stitching together different levels of understanding, so to speak. I’ll bet that anybody who has been following the Rita material is one. And as I was writing that, I started to look for a name for what we are, and I was reminded that the Indians called Joseph Smallwood the commuter, the man who alternated from one world to the other. That referred to him going back and forth between Indians and white worlds, but that same habit of mind that could translate different ways of seeing things might persist, I suppose.

Or might be an effect of prior training.

Hmm. Such as Joseph the Egyptian, you mean?

[Pause]

A man of few words. Okay, I’m sort of the strong silent type myself. J

Well, the point I’m taking such a long time getting to is that what is obvious reality to one level is fantasy to another. We see it in our 3D lives and it is also “as above, so below.” It just depends upon how far you care to extend it.

So, an example. If I say that our 3D lives are only somewhat real because we are the embodiment of forces beyond the 3D level, some people are intuitively right with me. They get it. In fact, it is more like I am agreeing with something they already know than like they are hearing anything new. But others have to wrestle with it, at first having to take on faith that I am not speaking nonsense, then seeing what they can make of it. And others not only can’t make anything out of it, but you might say won’t. It is self-evidently nonsense, and they aren’t going to waste their time. The different levels don’t translate.

And this brings us back to the thought that came to me as I sat down to do this: Dramas in whatever form are stories, and stories are, shall we say, peepholes, or entry-points, or, better, doorways into other levels of meaning. But doorways are only doorways if you walk through them, and in this case a safety-valve (to severely mix the metaphor) is that those who are not ready to go through the doorways never even see them as such.

And I think that rounds out what we are going to get from these two cryptic expressions. This is a very interesting development. I will say, pro forma, to the energy system that is communicating to us, thank you. But my sense is that he is far beyond such human interaction.

 

15 thoughts on “Different levels of communication

  1. Just repeating myself by sayin’ so interesting! The different layers: being able to see/catch some layers and others not so much – that is something I’ve been chewing on lately. Because it feels like one can move from one layer into another. Lose the interest for a certain domain of life. And develop a lively interest for something completely different. And mobility, an interest and willingness to move, both in inner and outer realms, seems to be something like a push nowadays. Not only in my life, everywhere.

    The layers not communicating: that download/thump one gets every now and then, accompanied by a feeling of seeing a wide open view for the first time, graspíng everything and then some, while not being able to really make it into words. And then having all that drift away like a dream, like a wisp of fog in sunlight, just gone. Layers getting close, but no cigar…Nailing a vision into words – frustrating even at best. Flattening the living insight into stale trivial words. Rilke always comes to my mind at this point. Honing on his verses for years and years, to let the words be the paintbrush that paints entirely new landscapes. Oops, getting into the frustrated by words-groove. Completely useless. Gotta go with what I have. How to help layers communicate when/if necessary? Can I be of some use in that?

  2. I found Kristina’s comments of use. Yesterday, while driving from Albuquerque to Montezuma (a beautiful, low-traffic drive), I got “a wide open view” of energy operating through human form situated in a specific human context, a picture of exactly how that works, applied to me as energy in my context. I tried to make notes about it as I drove, but though I could feel the truth of it, I couldn’t capture the words of it. I can feel the significance of it and can feel that it’s somehow connected to layers and your post. It left me believing that you, Frank, are making a significant level shift yourself here, while inviting us along. And it left me feeling that frustration that comes of trying to nail a vision into words.

    1. I’m beginning to see that although humans in bodies need to communicate partly in words, any real learning comes from us connecting wordlessly with the material (essence to essence, I call it), so I wouldn’t worry much about being unable to put it into words. Even when we do, I think the non-verbal interchange is probably more important in conveying information than the words we use to get each other’s attention.

  3. Yes, yes, yes, Frank! Just love that you are writing out your process and sharing it with us. It fits so well with what I am getting in my own communications.

    It is something like the rotes that Bob Monroe describes. I think of it a bit like zip files that need to be unzipped to be understood. The thing is that we here on the ground, so to speak, are the ones doing that unzipping translation.

    Re Levels
    I have done a lot of teaching. When I teach a private one-on-one music lesson (violin) the challenge is to get something across to that person in a way that they can own it themselves. That means tuning in to their unique patterns of thinking, their ways of understanding, skills they already possess, openness in that moment, willingness to comprehend… I can teach the same concept to 4 different people in one day, and the way I teach them will be different for each. Each one is at their own unique level – with all that level’s attributes, references, and vocabulary.

    What I have found with the wisdom I get through my own channeling is that not a lot of people really get the breadth of what is being said. However, if I translate it again into examples, concepts, etc that suit their “level” it can be really worthwhile for them. Sort of like the difference between a 3 year old, 8 year old, 15 year old…

    As an example, I knew my mother’s mind quite well. If I could explain something in such a way that she would understand it, then I knew that would be understandable to a lot of other people, ones who shared her “level,” so to speak.

    It seems that the wise ones in the spirit world are wanting many of us to utilize our “on the ground” perspectives and skills in reaching those who don’t have a foot in both worlds. We may think we want to bring the beautiful wisdom through as purely as possible, and of course that is great, but another step is for us to also communicate to others here what we ourselves embody from that wisdom – put it into our own words and find our own ways to communicate it in ways that a wider group can take in.

    When we move to the more profound teachings, we aren’t going to get them in nice neat logical sentences presented in linear formation. They are coming as packets of information. Absorbing it into ourselves is part of the process, then explaining it to ourselves (what was that?) – sorting it out into linear thought – then communicating it to others who have varying vocabularies and receptivities.

    I think if everyone could link to a few “levels” that are not their own default mode, it would enlarge all of us as a whole. That’s probably what the ones who assist us are aiming us toward now. Cheers!

  4. Hi Frank:

    It sounds like you are entering a transition period or what might even be called a transition state of consciousness. The transition emerges when “perceptual markers disappear”. The old way of doing things (e.g., like communicating with own your guides or former known humans like Rita or Papa) no longer exists or changes radically (e.g., now communicating with an entity or group who has never been human or bogged down in our languages). When these old perceptual markers disappear (e.g., human language and experience) and new ones arrive, you enter a null zone in which your old reality no longer exists, or has changed radically, while your new reality has not yet come into existence.

    Please note that I am borrowing broad portions of my language above from a message by the Hathors to Tom Kenyon. If what I am saying resonates with you, I can save you some reading time and suggest that you only read only two sections – (1) The Message & (2) Personal Transition States – of the original Hathor message from 2011.

    http://tomkenyon.com/transition-states-of-consciousness

    I was reminded of this (very articulate) 2011 message this morning when I was remembering the loss of my computer and now shifting my focus to listening to you dialogue with the newer energy and their message (without being able to take notes about it).

    Hopefully, this language about transitional states can be helpful to you as you make adjustments and figure things out. If not, just ignore it. It’s not intended as a prescription.

    1. Thanks for the offer, but I find that my process works better when I don’t front-load it with other people’s information. Better for me to stumble along in the dark, seriously, than to acquire another set of filters that might make me think I know what’s going on, but at the cost of reducing the immediacy of impact.

      1. Frank ?
        I do agree with you, but it is first by now to see it more clearly.
        Rudolf Steiner said something like yours yesterday….about the intellectual “thinkers” in opposite to the clairvoyant “know-how”—
        Actually, I had never thought about it in that way before ?

  5. Ruth expresses this challenge of explanation so beautifully! I wish I was her music student. And what we attempt with our visions: maybe art would be one possible form of expression for the visions. I have thought for a long time that these experiences are just a private experience, an unusual form of perception that cannot really be shared. But typically if I express what I see in some way – journaling or writing here or talking to someone who might at least try to understand – these attempts typically turn out to be very fruitful. Getting further in the insights, getting stepping-stones from others’ comments. Expressing what I got seems to amplify it. So finding words or some other form of expression seems to be a good thing. It may enable others to ride the wave of insight. Sufficiently good expression that the magic has possibility to open.

Leave a Reply

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