Nathaniel on perspectives

Nathaniel on perspectives

Wednesday, November 8, 2017

1:50 a.m. Very well, let’s proceed.

You wish to pose your question about your friend’s take on things.

Not if you have something else you’d rather go after.

A few words on the subject, anyway. State the problem.

My friend Jim is convinced that we in 3D are – what? Victims? Laboratory animals? He sees human suffering as being designed by non-physical powers to cause suffering so as to produce what Bob Monroe called Loosh, which can be used by these higher beings (call them that) for their own purposes. Everything you have said that I take as evidence of our interaction he seems to take as evidence of our being manipulated for the benefit of others. I think this is a fair summary of his position.

And your part in it?

I’d like to show him that that isn’t how I experience it, but words are so clumsy that we all attach our own meanings to what we read. Plus, I have come to see that there isn’t really any persuading anybody about anything. As you have pointed out, words are sparks, not law.

So, where is the problem?

Yeah, I know. he has a different view of things and so what? But I can’t help thinking if I can’t say anything helpful, still maybe you can.

But why would we want to do that? If his life has led him to his own conclusions, presumably there is a reason for it.

There ought to be a way to show the this-then-this-then-this process that happens somehow. We need some kind of super exclamation point, to show when we experience a fast concatenation of realizations.

Lacking that, center, slow down, and trace them out, not trying to reproduce the sequence, only to sketch where you came to.

Well, when you said that I jumped several wires, or let’s say I connected several insights, each of which led instantly – faster than memory could record – to new ones. It was nearly instant, didn’t take more than a flash, but reoriented several previously unconnected ideas.

  • We don’t come to our ideas without a reason.
  • Our ideas express our own psychic realities; they are not really data-driven.
  • They are necessary to our overall development; they cannot be accidental or irrelevant.
  • Our lives are not meant as expressions of some ultimate or abstract truth, but as expressions of who and what we are. As part of that, we entertain only the ideas we can and (one might almost say) should, ought to, entertain.

Now why do you suppose a simple question would realign all that?

Because I was ready, I suppose, and your rhetorical question – or not so rhetorical, I guess – sparked it.

And that it all you can do, need ever do, should ever do. Your ideas, your ways of seeing the world, your prejudices, your hunches, your unreasoning or seemingly baseless certainties, are all part of you, and you embody them for a reason.

This is not to say that there aren’t ideas that are more right than others – or, let’s take that back and say exactly that: No ideas are better than any ideas for a given person.

No, it’s all tangled up in words. May I?

Try, anyway.

I think you mean, for any given person, some ideas are going to seem right and others wrong. So there’s no judging another person’s ideas without in effect judging the person – and we have been told for years that we never have the data to judge anyone else, or even ourselves. We are here to express what we are, and of course our ideas are part of that expression.

Correct so far.

Whether our ideas are more accurate or less is something we also can’t guess, because we don’t have that data either. A heliocentric view of the solar system is right in terms of physics and a geocentric one is right in terms of psychology, say. (I’m not sure I actually agree with this example, but let’s go with it.)

I think you will find, when you look at it, that most of your social and ideological and political problems stem from the idea that there is a right and a wrong, a correct and an incorrect, and everybody and his position should be judged by how closely their position agrees with somebody’s idea of what is right. Since everybody’s ideas are different, anything other than “live and let live” – which is itself an idea – leads to chaos, which is what you are experiencing. (This ignores, for simplicity of statement, complicating factors such as greed, manipulation, etc., but they too stem from what people are, both individually and in packs.)

I can sort of see it. This assumption that there is one truth leads to assumptions that (of course) wherever we are is nearer the truth than anybody else, or else we would move. And, it invalidates other ideas, hence invalidates other people themselves who hold these ideas.

Well, isn’t that what you see all around you?

It is, for sure, particularly in the poor excuse for a country that used to be America. Liberals and conservatives are tearing it to pieces in the name of fighting to preserve it. I have been saying for months that they’re all crazy, acting identically only around different ideas. But I hadn’t thought, until now, to see that it is fueled by each side feeling that the other side is invalidating them as what they are. Obvious, once I see it, but it wasn’t obvious before.

And this leaves you in something of a dilemma. By nature, you are going to believe in some things. You couldn’t function without beliefs. (Sartre lived on his belief that belief was meaningless.) Naturally you want to defend those beliefs, or, at minimum, live by them, as best you can. So how can you at the same time live your beliefs – in tolerance, say, or in everyone’s right to life, or in freedom of action, or in the value of community – and at the same time respect the beliefs of others that may be directly contradictory, especially if those “others” place no value on tolerance or “live and let live”?

I get a glimpse of where you’re going with it, but I can’t state it. Waiting for you.

In any dilemma, remember context. Dilemmas, like paradoxes, always resolve at a higher level and – like contradictions, usually – only at a higher level. So here, you need to remember (a) you exist beyond 3D limitations, (b) the 3D plane is only somewhat real, but is somewhat real, (c) no accidents, no coincidence, no ultimate separation; that is, everything is one.

That is almost too concise, and could do with some unpacking.

Feel free. We will assist, if necessary.

I guess your first point means, whatever we manifest in 3D, it stems from our All-D being, which implies a greater awareness. I’m not sure how this applies.

It has many ramifications. Who you are connects to who you are not just in this one lifetime, but to “past lives” in all their ramifications. Your actions and thought are less under your conscious 3D control than you sometimes think, because what psychologists call “unconscious” content – and we might call beyond-your-3D-only content – often puts in its oar. This isn’t interference by some “other” – in that it is part of you, after all – but it may frequently seem so.

Your second point, I take it, is that what we do here does have consequences, but at the same time isn’t the whole story. We can’t ever see the whole show, for reasons we’ve gone into more than once.

That’s right; and it also means that the rights and wrongs of a situation look different when seen from a longer or deeper perspective.

And I guess your third point is merely that we have to try to remember and keep real to ourselves the fact that “us v. other” is at most a relative distinction.

And there’s your hour. Notice, we used your question as a starting-point to make points of our own. Nothing wrong with proceeding that way.

Nothing at all. Okay, thanks.

 

8 thoughts on “Nathaniel on perspectives

  1. As usual very good material about the many concepts among us, Frank.
    Not easy to comprehend all the many concepts rolling back & forth, as a tide-wave, that`s for sure.
    But I do believe in a learning concept to each of us when it comes to the Awakening in Consciousness.
    I have not really THOUGHT properly in us to have a animal nature. Mostly all esoteric/methaphysical teachings have told our physical (bodily)attachments “to overcome.” The animal Nature.
    I have never accepted Darwin’s view upon our physical bodies, but of course, the same Evolution explaining God & Man as well, as the souls “diving” into, or “melted” with the physical environment.
    According to E.C. (excuse me but the E.C. teachings are so to speak “imprinted” upon my mind eternal, I cannot get rid of them)—-in US, as souls were NOT meant to Interfere with the physical bodies upon the Earth. “We intermingled with the Earthly Physical Bodies Without Permission.”
    And because BY FORCE, the souls creating IMPERFECT bodies, they had “to work” their long road back home to PERFECTION again — hence “where they came form.”

    Another (rather funny) thing this morning, before opening up your blog, Frank, thinking about all the many Concepts in the world. I have thought there is demanding a highly developed Spiritual Master not to judge anything.
    I`m comforting myself with another Reading by E.C., which says: It is good to be good (for something), but not as “goody-goody” as much as to become used as “a Doormat.”
    I love that last one ! (smiles)

  2. Back in the 1990’s when I first read Bob’s books, I remember being blown away and depressed when I read about loosh and earth being set up as a loosh farm. I thought Bob was implying that the Creator had set it up this way, and that didn’t fit with what I understood at the time. What God, what kind of Being, needed that kind of energy stream to feed on? It sounded predatory, like an emotional vampire or scavenger, and that did not make sense with me. What made it worse was that Bob’s INSPEC never refuted the story but simply said that it was a different way of looking at things.

    I’m glad Nathaniel and company are discussing that we and the ET’s are related. The concept that humans have not original to the planet and were genetically engineered by ET’s is not new. Zecharia Sitchin suggested that early humans were bred as slaves to work in the mines for masters from the 12th planet. Humans as the barnyard animals in a loosh farm is about as attractive an idea as being a mine slave. Both seem to be a very crummy reason to seed life on a planet. I guess you have to start somewhere. And it seems to me that ET’s have continued to refine the homo sapien form so that it could better sustain and support sentient beings on earth. But for what purpose? And has the purpose, or purposes, changed over time, and are there many agendas involved here?

    I do know that my I-There cluster, my SAM, has used earth as a good place for creating compound beings. The earth life system seems to be excellent for that, and it seems to be a favorite of my I-There. But I also look across the cluster and even at my guides and see many faces who are ET’s and lots who never were physical beings.

    After reading Nathaniel’s excellent response to the earlier post on Nov 8th, I revisited my thoughts and feeling on the loosh farm idea. Whereas Nathaniel affirmed Jim and his studied opinion, not being pulled into ‘correcting the record,” my guidance came at the issue from a slightly different direction. They offered that the earth system sure did produce lots of emotional energy. And on a farm, nothing ever goes to waste.

    Hrumph! Thank you very much! Moooooo!

    1. These are all very interesting ideas — yours, Jim’s, others — and I am glad to hear them, but I’m not necessarily signing off on them. My motto is usually, “we’ll see.”

  3. **Nods, in agreement.**
    My guides seemed to be playing a joke on me, even if they might be serious. They were basically telling me to lighten up, laugh, no worries.

    I still don’t know what to make of the loosh idea. Seems to me that beings of a higher vibration wouldn’t need that source of energy. Definitely not God/Creator/All That Is. I reason it would be a group of energy vampires, unless there was an exchange that we didn’t know about. Either way, there’s not much I can do about it, so why give it any more thought? My SAM continues to use the earth as a place to construct compound beings, and I implicitly trust my SAM.

    1. I don’t think it’s a vampire situation, nor a case of our being exploited. I think Bob Monroe was trying to express a hierarchical relationship in a way that made sense to him (he being a committed non-follower of religions) that people are reading a lot into. Like you, I trust my guys, and my SAM. I think that perhaps trust is not only a decision but a self-reinforcing one.

  4. Thanks… I really love Robert Monroe`s book ULTIMATE JOURNEY … My book from 1994(cannot recal where to buy it though, since no Internet or Amazon knowing about back then) to have a comment by Elisabeth Kubler-Ross, M.D., upon the front cover: “The best of Monroe`s books.”

    Or else also to have “Far Journeys” translated into Danish from 1987(printed in Copenhagen). Picking the books up again from time-to-time always to have felt useful.

  5. …indeed; very interesting to read the “streams of consciousness” presented here. I will have to go back to learn what a “SAM” is (other than the more-recent sound technology used at TMI); I’m guessing it’s what I’d call “Source Self”–and that is a term I borrow from Jane Roberts, because it resonates w/ me, vs. “higher self”, say.

    Again, “it’s no coincidence” that I came upon this discussion today, for I have been working w/ reconciling the MANY varied and different opinions/viewpoints we Humans have cooked up. “Reconciling” in the “live and let live” sense; I don’t feel I have the physical-based time, or capacity to try and understand ALL viewpoints. I’m still “undoing the damage”, as it were, of NOT allowing myself to have a viewpoint (which is, yes, in itself a “viewpoint”), which led to a great distrust of my-self. So, I “take what resonates”, and work w/ that, and hope I’m not becoming “stagnant” in my worldview!

    I’ve read all of Bob’s books several times, and recall feeling profoundly depressed at reading one of his tentative conclusions in “JOOB”: “What happens to the laboratory animals when the experiment is over?” This view seemed to be based on his encounters w/ some kind of alien intelligence, which he took to be “God”, and was most upset w/ their seeming amused indifference to his emotions of the time.

    The “Loosh farm” idea had its challenges for me, as well; I recall that Bob felt like, after returning from some of his journeys, that he “had to wash his hands”, after doing a very dirty job all day, such as a pipeline worker. He had, as I recall, been given a ROTE which was something like a brochure one would pick up at an historical site, which explained the “purpose of Humans”. Later, when going over it w/ his INSPEC, and doing a lot of self-examination, he came to a point of acceptance. Reminds me of a line from a Moody Blues song, “Question”, which I may misquote here, but it was something like “…that all the love you’re giving…Has all been meant for you.”

    Still finding much resonance w/ the “Seth” material, and less w/ the ideas of “spiritual hierarchies”, and even less w/ the idea that we are Souls melded w/ a human animal (which leaves open the question of “soulless humans”–a very disturbing proposition to me). “No closed systems…” It works for me; I continue to question and explore…

    Craig

Leave a Reply

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