Nathaniel — expressing a deeper part of ourselves

Wednesday, November 15, 2017

Each time I come to this, except when I know I will pose somebody’s question, I wonder, what today? So far there has always been something, and even when the result seems to me the most personal, I see that someone posts a comment saying that the session hit home with someone besides myself. Not that everyone draws the same conclusions I do, or interprets the information the same way, but – since I was given the notion that words are sparks rather than precision implements – I have ceased worrying about that. We’re all on our own, and we can only each do our best.

So, Bruce Moen died yesterday, apparently peacefully, after many months’ slow approach to his transition. I presume that he was as well prepared for it as anyone could be. My friends, any comment on that?

You are finding it more difficult, these conversations being neither private nor public, but a mixture of the two.

Indeed I am. I presume my difficulties are no greater than others may experience.

Each person’s experience will be slightly different from anyone else’s, as they [the individuals] are slightly different. Each will be similar, as you all have many things in common. This is so in all aspects of life, so of course here as well.

Very well. A sus ordenes, as always.

Well, not noticeably! That is, yes, you are very willing and cooperative; however, we should not care to predict the result if we were to try to give you orders.

It isn’t your place, after all, to give orders to 3D personalities. We may labor at some disadvantage vis a vis those not 3D bound, but we are no less immortal and self-sustaining (if you want to put it that way) as you. I know you know I know this; it is for the studio audience.

And, you see, part private, part public.

I don’t see what is to be done about it.

Who said anything is to be done about it? Be aware of it, make the adjustments as the need for them indicates. What else could you (anyone) do?

Very well. So, today’s theme? [Pause] Yes, I get that. I will center.

You must now learn to express a deeper part of yourself. This means letting it well up within you, thoroughly mixing with what it finds as it does so.

I get almost a visual metaphor, but I can’t quite find words for it. Quite simple words they will be, I suspect, when I find them. The image is of something boiling up through a liquid, roiling and mixing as it rises, sort of tumbling things in waves. Can’t find the words for it yet.

It is a good image, conveying process, steadiness, disruption becoming transformation, injection of additional energy, plasticity of form.

I keep thinking “ice cream” but that doesn’t have any of those characteristics. Strange. It is a fermenting, slow-boiling process that is just out of reach.

Not everything that may be perceived or conceptualized need be named. The important point is that they be followed. Fingers pointing to the moon, not the moon itself, not even the finger itself.

Yes, I get that. Life precedes understanding.

Well, sometimes. Like most such couplings, it is a reciprocating process, sometimes one leading, sometimes the other. But this is an example of the fact that the work can proceed even in the absence of clear understanding, certainly in the absence of precise description.

Another image that comes is of a river rapids. It’s all water; it is all water of the same salinity, chemical composition, etc. The difference is in what happens to any given part of the water as it is tumbled. Some gets aerated; gradually I suppose it all gets aerated.

Wild ride, sometimes; perhaps even [wild] for water.

We have now fooled around to not much effect for half an hour. If there is a theme here, I don’t see it. We have mentioned expressing a deeper part of ourselves, but the mention is all we’ve gotten to.

You are also painting a self-portrait as we go along, and all the better since it comes out in asides and unconscious allusions. It is well for anyone doing the work to remember it is not only okay to be a normal human being, it isn’t even avoidable. Only, normal doesn’t necessarily mean typical, and typical doesn’t necessarily mean anything at all except a vacuous abstraction.

Stirring is another image that comes to me. Stirring one element into another, producing a new homogenous liquid that is neither the one nor the other. I’d say it could be solids stirred, too, only there isn’t the sense of transformation that liquid has.

Stirring will do, so will boiling or churning. The general idea is more important than the specific clothing.

There is something I intended to ask or say, and it keeps almost appearing, then disappearing again. Presumably you know what it is.

We do because you do, on an equally non-3D level. But if you cannot receive it through your own internal channel, why would you expect to be able to receive it from an “external” channel still internally received? That may apply in cases where you have not been paying attention, but scarcely when you are.

Well, you tell us. That is a puzzling aspect of things, come to think of it. It applies to the whole process.

You must remember not to fall into the habit of thinking yourself in control of the process, merely because necessarily the material must come through your mind.

It is a temptation, that’s true. Sometimes it is obvious that I am interacting with a different intelligence; sometimes obvious that it is me; and sometimes not clear at all. Despite that, there is the unconscious tendency to over-reach, to think it is or ought to be under my own control, when of course, that is the last thing I’d want, and the last thing any genuine interaction could be. But. We’re all interconnected. You and my mind are at least temporarily linked, or we couldn’t be having the conversation. So why wouldn’t you be able to tell me things like what it is I am forgetting?

The question expresses a certain lack of clarity, if we may say so.

No doubt. Abstract reasoning is not my best thing. But I am presuming that you know how to bring more clarity to the question.

Not at the moment.

That’s puzzling in itself.

Never mind. You’ve been at this 50 minutes and there isn’t really time for more.

Nor much point in it, I guess. Well, I suppose not every session can be expected to be first-rate.

You do the best you can. Besides, remember always, you don’t know, nor need to know, who will get what from any of it.

True enough. Okay, then, I guess I’ll sign off. Thanks for being there.

We could say the same thing.

Till next time.

Till next time.


12 thoughts on “Nathaniel — expressing a deeper part of ourselves

  1. One reason these sessions work so well for me is that they often describe exactly where I am, before I actually get it myself. I’ve been struggling with exactly what Nathaniel mentions–“You must now learn to express a deeper part of yourself.” Seeing the tree outside my window touches something deep within me that then connects back with the tree, who then becomes my teacher–“it is a reciprocating process, sometimes one leading, sometimes the other.” The work we do together proceeds “even in the absence of clear understanding.” I’m working on a piece of writing that expresses the teachings we’ve exchanged (though the tree knows a lot more than I do, about everything). It was important to me this morning, too, that Nathaniel said what he said about being normal, which doesn’t mean typical, which doesn’t mean anything at all. All of this reminds me of the National Association of Colored Women’s Club’s (1896) motto–“lifting as we climb.” Thanks again.

  2. Reading this blog post reminds me of the discussions with Rita that talk about us being both fully human and fully divine at the same time. I am searching, giving myself permission, as you will, to perceive-become aware- of the fully divine part of my consciousness in the midst of the fully human consciousness.

    Without that perception, without that awareness, at times in the past I have seen myself as the powerless, inconsequential victim. For me the churning, boiling, mixing metaphor is accepting my new, intuitive, non-sensory input and folding it, stirring it in to with my “sensory” input, all the while living the “mundane” world of Real Estate sales, cars, homes and cats. The effect of that, of course, is that I CHANGE, I MUST change, my results change, even my “mundane” world looks and acts differently. I’m looking to live in the All-D.

    I must let go of the sliding board edges you and Rita discussed so much. I can’t change and remain the same, and it feels like a loss and a gain at the same time. I saw where holding on got me, and gets me, and I refuse to do it anymore. While I choose the new- the change- the fully human – fully divine – it feels as if it’s coming REALLY fast. I know the answers are there. I am challenged by my willingness to listen and take action.

    1. This is great. Rest assured, it may come faster than we think we’re ready for, but we cope. And BTW I’m in the same fix you are in — we all are, I suspect. We’re all trying to realize how much more we are than what we assumed when we were younger.

    1. Ditto. And more than ever what Andy told…..both human and divine. It became more and more obvious until to finish with the reading “Babe In The Woods.”
      I have oe to see no books/novels, are “fictions”…. It is only a cover-up for “the saftey” by the write/author …. each book or novel is done in “the image” of the creator/- or the author, or the artist, or whatever it is “made of.”
      Jesus words all over again….”My Father & I am One.” The realization of it among Men. Then your view upon living your life cannot but change….no way back to the old.

      1. I agree with your overall sentiments, but not that the form of fiction is protection for the author. In fact, the author’s beliefs and being shows through, or should. But there are things that can be said only by way of story; there are truths deeper than fact, that can be given indirectly, but not directly. Glad you liked the book, anyway!

        1. Thank you Frank, but what I meant to tell is Science Fiction as such cannot be termed as “science fiction”, because it is as “real” as any stories or novels to become written ever, all of it told by us as humans. Such as all we see by our physical eyes…. all will be coming from “the inside of us”(termed as the unseen forces). All creation is done from “the inside and out”…. coming from the Inner Data/within us…..I am thinking that it is no such thing as “science fiction” because then all physical creation can be termed as Science Fiction(my opinion of course)…Smiles.

  3. You both remind me of a comment more than one author has made–they start writing and just try to get out of the way of whatever wants to come through. That’s how I feel when I write (two books published; six more written). All except one are in the category of science fiction (or “contemporary fantasy”), something I didn’t know I was going to write, but I always felt that from another perspective they were not fiction at all. Once the books were written, and were on their way “out there,” I certainly did feel exposed. They were written in the image of a larger, different me (babies die in these books!), probably more authentic than I had ever been. I could see this being true of the Bronte sisters and Jane Austen and other works of fiction, too. There are things you could write but couldn’t necessarily say (which I think is what Frank was saying).

    1. Wow Jane. It really sounds RIGHT, and thank you. As Frank asking; please what`s the titles of your books ?

      And I simply LOVE the Bronte sisters and everything about Jane Austin likewise. Never tired of them. But we have had an extraordinary norwegian author once; Sigrid Undset, who wrote the historical novels. Sigrid Undset have got the Nobel Price in literature long ago.
      Myself, as a youngster back then, reading Sigrid Undsets` hitorical SETTINGS and the individuals, seemingly, expressed as science fiction,” because the personalities in the book became REAL to the readers who lived in the Scandinavian countries back then. Sigrid Undset was a friend of Alfred Nobel, and Alfred Nobel insinuated Sigrid to Channel her books. She had a way with her particular VIVID outlinings about the medieval times that could not only(obviously) coming from one source only. Too much “personal” knowledge from “back in the mediveal times” in Scandinavia…. I`m convinced Sigrid Undset MUST have “got it from elsewhere.”
      Later on in her life Sigrind Undset converted to Catholicism, which gave a public shock to the three Scandinavian Countries Fundamental Lutheran State Churces…. A famous lady as Sigrid Undset converted to become a Chatolic. But after reading her books it is not surprising me at all. Either Sgrid Undset was the front-figure in th book herself or she became ” a Medium” for another soul “on the other side of mthe veil,” being in contact with hers.
      I would have EXPECTED Sigrid Undset to become a Chatolic as the books are filled up with the Catholic religion, and how the peoples around LIVING it in their daily doings back then….In the 13/14th century.
      When to read many books throughout the years, is it in a way easy to “intuit” a book as such when to read a novel, the FEEL of the book(s) more or less to had become ” a channeling.”
      A sort of (oftentimes) to have felt it as “a training-lesson,” the use of “something.”

      Thank you very much again, appreciating it very much.

      1. A Good Morning All.
        After yesterdays rambling about the author Sigrid Undset….Came upon the idea in looking it up on Wikipedia about her name….And there it was, the whole story about her life. A good one too. Why am I always forgetting Wikipedia until afterwards ? Sigrid Undset had a pretty exceptional life.
        LOL, Inger Lise

Leave a Reply

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