Thursday, September 21, 2017
[Returning to the usual format in which my entries are in itals.]
2:50 a.m. All right, let’s see where we go. The theme is that the forces in the world that we call the virtues and sins make up our 3D environment.
That isn’t quite right, but it will lead you in the right direction. The question is, how does 3D life express forces that are realer than 3D life itself.
Yes, I see that. Small difference, but significant. But maybe I’m not rested enough to do this. Getting up because I am not comfortable isn’t enough. Let me use the spray, try to sleep some more, and if that works, attack the theme then.
4:50 a.m. Woke up to hear “love makes the world go round,” not as an annoying refrain, just as a one-time statement. So I take it that is our theme, this morning? Love as an example of the forces that animate our lives?
This collaboration may be a little bit complicated. It is as if there is systematic interference between what we want to express and what you understand us to say. Or mean. Or intend.
Yes, it’s a form of static on the line, I think. It comes from the differences between your experiences and our assumptions, maybe.
Whatever the reason, it causes difficulties.
Why not continue to use Rita as intermediary, or anybody whose human experience will enable them to make allowances and understand how to compensate for differences in assumptions?
That has been done, for millennia. The advantages of the proceeding are obvious. But there are disadvantages.
Such as?
The very earth-shaped characteristics of the human or ex-human mind that aid transmission of the familiar impede transmission of the unfamiliar.
By “earth-shaped” I take it you mean “shaped in the 3D experience,” not “property of Terra Firma in the Sol system.”
That was explained to you long ago. Long ago in your terms. Everything is “in your terms” as best we can express it, because how would you follow if it were in our terms? Take all that for granted. The disadvantages are the unwanted associations of ideas, of the sounds of the words, of logically unrelated but emotionally connected incidents or thoughts, mostly unnoticed, almost always incompletely traced.
This is even on Rita’s end? The non-3D end?
What else are we talking about? The obstacles on your end are constant, it is the obstacles on the other end that are variable.
Oh, I get it, I think – the vagaries of the temporary joint mind.
We cannot add unwanted assumptions if they are not there to be added.
That’s an interesting complication that had not occurred to me.
Yes, the love that makes the world go round provides a strong bong that lasts beyond physical death, so, all to the good. But sometimes you need to learn from a more neutral force, if you wish to expand your territory.
I get the sense of pioneering, there.
Look at it this way. Daniel Boone may have been a respected member of his community in North Carolina, but what could his townsmen have told him about Kentucky? His role was to pursue the rumors of the Kentucky wilderness and bring them back to the Yadkin valley. Pioneers don’t use maps; they don’t even necessarily make maps. They cause them to be drawn.
I take it all the Daniel Boone stuff is out of my memory, not yours.
The process is not different, it is the character of the relationship.
I see, So you are going to give us rumors of Kentucky.
In a sense, yes. Only, the fewer your expectations, even in analogy, the easier the task.
Very well. So, your move.
Keep firmly in mind the larger theme: Why is 3D life only “somewhat” real? But bear in mind that this is going to bring you a long way seemingly afield, and will involve what seem to be extraneous matters, and contradictions, before we can bring in enough context to allow you to see things sufficiently differently. Even more so than in your work with Rita in which she sketched the variables around death and rebirth, we need to associate many things in your mind that have never been consciously or coherently associated by you. Much of what you need to know you do know, only you don’t know you know it, or you know it only in a seemingly unrelated context, or you know it distorted by other people’s reports.
While writing that, I had the thought, “You’re finding it easier to speak,” and then I had a flash of “You’ve connected to Rita somehow and learned how to do it,” though I don’t think that’s quite right. But, something has changed.
There are others in the mental world, call it, besides Rita, you know. But your intuition was mostly correct.
You are somehow communicating through Joseph, or someone!
That’s right. This still involves distortions, but using personalities even closer to you than someone you worked with and were on affectionate terms with and shared a vocabulary and a set of external situations with – Rita, that is – provides the link with language and assumptions, but with fewer confusions.
Can you go into why?
The shortest way to say it is that in dealing with you through Joseph Smallwood, say, we are thus dealing essence to essence on your end. That is – well, here, you state it.
It is a little more complicated than a sentence conveys. All right. This kind of communication is always essence to essence in one sense, in that it bypasses the personas that are our guardians at the gate, our pre-established interfaces with “the other.” So it is mind to mind, not mind to verbiage to reception to mind, as it would be in 3D (overlooking, for the moment, the fact that mind to mind also functions in our 3D life). But mind-to-mind between X and Joseph, say, is different from mind-to-mind between X and me, or X and Bertram. It is – it strikes me – as if each of us is a different mood of our over-arching being.
Yes, and that is enough for the moment. This isn’t the time for further speculation, although another time may be. The point is that whoever we contact, bias will have been thereby introduced. The process cannot be helped, it must be allowed for.
I get the feeling that if I pursued this correctly – or others do – we’d learn something about why people [spiritualists] used to think they needed a conductor to bring them to the one they wanted to speak to.
Don’t forget, those were early days. All the ground-rules are changed, or shall we say their ground rules never applied as universals, however helpful they were to their times.
Which is why it is a mistake to be bound by other people’s rules.
Which is why it may be a mistake to be bound by them. It is usually worth your while to try them on for size, though.
So, are we good?
Ready to stop, then? We can stop for the moment. Yes, we have a way to proceed. As we say, it will have its disadvantages, but we will work around them, as people always need to do.
I take it that who you connect with may differ depending on where we go.
Depending on many things, many of them unsuspected on your end. And remember,
Oh, is that a correction I just sensed, of something I got from the guys when Rita and I were first contacting them?
It is a sort of correction, yes. A slight readjustment of your understanding.
I had been thinking the guys had said that they took turns speaking to us – that sometimes even in the middle of a sentence, one phased out and another phased in, usually unnoticed by us. It strikes me now, what they may have been saying is that the intent remained constant, but that the minds that they were silently connected with as intermediaries might fluctuate. Small difference, but significant. Did I get that right?
Remember always, in this work: Many, even most, of your misunderstandings and misstatements will go unchallenged. In the course of time, contradictions and errors will emerge [to be corrected], but if we were to be correcting every misstatement, it would involve so much tedious restatement and spelling-out of context as to make any coherence impossible. When you get something wrong and it is going to make a big difference, we have to correct the statement, and the correction itself is part of the learning. But if it is minor and has no great consequences, we let it go, in the way that you, say, might not correct every slip of someone’s grammar for fear of inhibiting them from saying anything at all.
I understand. That makes sense. It has been an hour. Shall we continue, or resume another time?
Not enough time and stamina to begin a major theme here, so, next time.
Okay. Thanks and we’ll see you then.
Last night I was at choir practice. I thought about this when the idea came up of different voices coming through in the midst of a sentence. If I listened to Hallelujah chorus focusing only on the tenor part, say, it is a different (and much less rich) experience than relaxing into the fullness of all voices. The message is still there in either case, but the wholeness of the ‘chorus’ multiplies the message.
I eagerly anticipate this communication/conversation. I am reminded of my introduction to Abraham through Esther Hicks and my sense,whilst listening to her channel, this very thing of a change of”voice” all for the purpose of addressing the situation at had. I hear this when I listen to Paul Selig channel his Guides as well. I have heard snippets of that same energy in your conversations as well, Frank. It all leads to cooperation, love, and More Than Love configurations that keep us open and in free flowing communication and connection to our non-local energies and learning how to be in collaboration for our growth as individuals but also collectively.
I am on the edge of my seat here, Frank. Waiting to hear what will be revealed.
Also found this part very helpful for my own understanding of the communication process,
“Remember always, in this work: Many, even most, of your misunderstandings and misstatements will go unchallenged. In the course of time, contradictions and errors will emerge [to be corrected], but if we were to be correcting every misstatement, it would involve so much tedious restatement and spelling-out of context as to make any coherence impossible. When you get something wrong and it is going to make a big difference, we have to correct the statement, and the correction itself is part of the learning. But if it is minor and has no great consequences, we let it go, in the way that you, say, might not correct every slip of someone’s grammar for fear of inhibiting them from saying anything at all.”
Fascinating, Frank. I’ve been thinking through (pondering is probably the better description) a couple or three connected concepts/ideas your work has touched on of late.
1. Our reality– or we ourselves– are only somewhat real.
2. An expression or play of “forces” more accurately describes the 3d world with the consequent implication that human personalities– or our individual “I”– are less fundamental than we imagine.
3. The (apparently) new/unknown/alien (?) interlocutors. Interestingly, I get an agitation in using those groping adjectives above. The feeling is that none are accurate, or they elicit impressions which lead in the wrong direction. Yet I can’t find a word that would better fit their relationship to you/us/this ongoing event.
1. It occurs to me that several strands/lineages of Buddhism and other closely related traditions have explored the reality of this claim thoroughly. As with any idea that seems to stand conventional experience on its head, it always pays to actually experience what the idea merely conveys. And that is, as always, easier said than done. I guess I offer this only to note that there are schools and traditions thousands of years old dedicated to establishing the veracity of Rita’s claim. If it seems outlandish or even incomprehensible hold out a little space in one’s being for the possibility.
2. On the one hand, I agree wholeheartedly with this. On the other, perhaps b/c my agreement is a little too complete, I feel I’m missing some of the significance of this reformulation. Maybe you could say a little more some time about how this is a reorientation, Frank? For the sake of symmetry with #1 I’ll also throw out that I’ve found many indigenous traditions to be clearest and most matter-of-fact in seeing local 3d appearances as a play of much more varied All-d forces.
3. Re: the recent interlocutors: the following excerpt is from Frank on 9/10–I think?
“That was quite an experience. The response I got was a deepening of communication, in a few waves of difference, as if my mind settled, bit by bit, into a deeper, calmer place. And this wasn’t during the reaction, or because of the reaction. It was the reaction. Whoever I am in communication with is well beyond words, and needs my access to words if it is going to communicate at all.”
I had, I believe, a similar experience once. The last sentence describes what I remember most clearly about that experience. First, b/c it was so utterly novel to be in direct communication with something whose only means of communication were the words, concepts, ideas, feelings, memories, and experiences available to me–nothing more or less. Second, despite being in “communication” the something/someone did not really have a particular interest in communicating, much less teaching or offering guidance, so much as an interest in me as something strange and unusual and thus eminently worthy of intense but passing attention. (that is, unless there are elements of the experience I’ve forgotten or wasn’t consciously aware of). So the communication was direct, crystal clear, and obvious, but I was always very aware that it was necessarily metaphoric and analogous in nature. It had to be. Being so beyond the range of human (presumably) I was the only means “it” had of speaking “human.” I say this to note that such a process must become exponentially more complex when the “communication” has a point or intended direction, and needs to be translated into a written coherent narrative form.
Anyway, I should write up that experience, which was only part of a larger experience, in more detail someday. Looking forward to hear what comes next.
Write it up and I will publish it here as a post.