Pinpoints and probability-clouds

[This entry progressed rapidly. First I was talking to myself; then I thought I’d talk to Hemingway if he was available; then I was talking to – someone. Who it was, hardly matters. The material conveyed will resonate or it won’t; will be found helpful or not. Attributing a specific source is unnecessary, which is just as well, given that it can never be proved.]

Pinpoints and probability-clouds

Tuesday, February 27, 2018

7:10 a.m. I got a real sense this morning of how Martha Gellhorn was a major bad influence on Papa’s career. If they hadn’t met, he wouldn’t have been tempted farther to the left than his center of gravity naturally was; wouldn’t have found the Finca; wouldn’t have left Pauline, maybe; wouldn’t have been so trapped at the end of his life in a life too comfortable to leave, to constricted to be really good for him. I don’t know where he would have wound up – not Key West anyway, maybe, given how the causeway had changed the island – but maybe the right version of To Have and Have Not, and no For Whom the Bell Tolls, true, but maybe something [even] better.

Not living in Cuba, maybe no Q-Boat operations, certainly no Crime Shop. If no Spanish [Civil War] involvement, perhaps [he might have been accepted in US Army] Intelligence in World War II. No China tour in 1941, but maybe other things, better things. Maybe a second safari before the war broke out, though maybe not. Maybe he would have ended his days in Africa or, like [his son] Pat, lived there some years.

I do wonder, Papa, what those possibilities would have been.

Okay, here is a lesson in how things are, if you want it.


When you go to thinking about how things might have gone, it is always vague and fuzzy, never crystal clear and never even as precise as your current version of your own life seems to be. (I say seems to be, because it’s a lot hazier than you ever realize while you’re in it, but that’s another discussion.) Why is that, do you suppose? Is it because you have a failure of imagination? Is it – Well, forget the rhetorical questions, here’s why. You are trying to take a precise picture of what is actually not an object at all, but a cloud.

A probability cloud.

Yes, but that isn’t the end of the discussion but the beginning.

Lower my energy [i.e., slow down], I get it. Okay.

Where you are at any given moment – anyone, of course, not just you Frank – seems a fixed point. You came from a past, chose among a cloud of probabilities and even possibilities and made one choice (or combination of choices) your reality. In so doing, you established the launching-point for your own next choices – that is, for your future possibilities. Choices foreclose some paths and open others.

That’s how it seems. But it’s more productive to factor in what Seth told you [all]: When you decide to change timelines you pull in a different past as well as different futures. There is no way to make sense of that – if you really think it through – and still reconcile it with the way things seem to be. Your sensory reports tell you that you are in a fixed point emerging from a series of fixed points, with the possibilities ahead of you waiting to be chosen and fixed in turn. Face it, that’s the only common-sense way to see your lives.

So how can the two be reconciled, the appearance and the reality Seth tries to explain to you? The answer is, you have to (or get to; it depends upon your attitude whether you see this as a constriction or a freedom) give up the idea that you are on a fixed point or ever were; that you are a point of definiteness among a cloud of probable other-realities; that you exist in order to choose not who you wish to experience being, but who you are going to be, absolutely.


Instead recognize that a cloud is a cloud and doesn’t become a pinpoint. But what you perceive, may.

Our vision funnels down from the cloud that exists to one path?

Think of your life – we’re going to go back to an image you were given some years ago now – think of your life as a laser beam focused through a crystal. The angle at which the beam is aimed determines what is illuminated. Change the angle of vision, the crystal remains what it always was, but the illuminated appearance differs, perhaps radically.

Did changing the angle of vision change the crystal even temporarily, let alone permanently? It did not. It changed what you saw, it changed what you experienced. But all the other ways to see it remain, because the only thing that changed is your energy focus, slicing into the crystal that is your sum of possibilities, lighting up one possible path.

You are so accustomed to thinking of your lives as fixed points, it can be hard to understand that the sum of the possibilities of a life is fixed; the individual appearances, depending upon how the beam is focused and directed, are essentially countless. Thus, a cloud, thus a fixed reality. As so often, it is all in how you look at it.

So, you see, the limits of what can be perceived are not so much in any external, but in the habits of the person trying to perceive. If you can’t think of your present moment as other than the only way things can be, given past decisions, you can’t go any farther in understanding. If you can’t think of a present moment – no, again, skip the rhetoricals. It slows us down.

The rhetorical questions stem from a mental habit of mine?

Well, whose mind and linguistic habits are we employing? They are, let’s say, the reflexive channels your mind goes to. I mean, in the largest sense, all your mental processes contribute to the flavor of the communication. That’s why frequently someone attempting honestly to channel someone famous will produce an inadvertent parody of the person’s speech patterns; they are trying too hard, trying to be what they aren’t, not realizing that what they may be thinking of as interference or even as partial failure is merely inevitable blending.

So, to resume the thought: What you assume about reality limits what you can experience. This isn’t a tragedy or even an unfortunate fact of life. It is just life, for life is limitation, else it is shapeless. The question is, which limitations do you allow to shape your lives?

If you think the present moment is a fixed point, the product of past fixed points, you will feel that either you are the child of predestination or, at best, that your choices will create a series of future fixed points. This lays great stress either on predestination or on free will, or on some combination of the two – usually a very uneasy combination.

If you see that what Seth said means that your past changes with your present decisions, you may be drawn to think of life as a plethora of alternate time-lines, sort of parallel, that may be chosen – jumped to – in the process creating a zigzag path that is a given version of a life. It still has a tinge of predestination in it, in that it is a form of choosing among pre-existing futures. It has the very real disadvantage of seeming theoretical rather than actual.

Yes, I’ve experienced that. This is more or less the view I have been holding.

And it isn’t a bad halfway-house. But the image of the laser shining through the crystal is a more serviceable one, only it requires that you give up certain ideas that for a while seem essential.

The idea of making progress through making choices, for one thing.

No, the idea that a given 3D first-tier experience is real, while your second- or third-tier reactions are not, which is precisely wrong way to. The change in you as a result of your decisions is the reality; the scenarios in which you chose are the stage-setting. We know it doesn’t feel that way; it isn’t supposed to [in 3D], after all.

Think of reality as the exploration in simulation of all possible permutations. That being so, how can choice be momentous, life-changing, apocalyptic – except in the context of that particular laser-beam illumination of

Yeah, I hear the problem, finding that word. If we say “possibilities” it sounds like we mean, it isn’t real. If we say “reality” it implies that other angles of vision will show things that aren’t equally real. If we say “timeline” we’re back to that disconnect.

In any way of seeing things – put it that way – things may occur that are life-shattering and seemingly cosmically important. What you need to put your minds to, if you can, is that, at the same level of reality, all other angles of vision, with their consequent crises and challenges, equally exist. Thus all contradictions exist and don’t even interfere within one another. The crystal that is all of your life-possibilities doesn’t move, doesn’t change. What changes is your angle of vision, which seems to change everything. And the changes in that angle of vision must come from a different level than the angle itself, obviously.

You say obviously, but it wasn’t obvious to me until you said it. But yes, obvious now.

And that’s why you are well advised to connect to your non-3D component. That’s why your All-D you is well advised to connect to its next larger being – not its Sam, probably, but the next higher level it connects to. Freedom cannot be attained at the same level it is sought from. Freedom comes from above, so to speak. If you wish to become aware of the fishbowl and transcend its limitations, your consciousness has to transcend that of the part of you that is the fish. It’s only common sense, after all.

And that is well over your hour, and is a good place to pause.

Well, this was unexpected, and a pleasure. Thank you.


10 thoughts on “Pinpoints and probability-clouds

  1. Dynamite Frank, “ … momentous, life-changing, apocalyptic” indeed (for me)!

    This angle of the ‘beam’ (through ‘this’ crystal) shows me that ‘your’ line of knowledge, the teachings of Seth/Elias, and what flows through ‘me’ can and ARE beginning to come together. Many thanks!

  2. Momentarily speechless. Like watching master artists at work on a sculpture of future life forms. Some aspects familiar yet still mind-boggling, some excitingly new yet, almost recognizable.

    Momentarily dumbfounded in admiration…but I recovered. Heheh.

    Happy to read “Whose mind and linguistic habits are we employing?” Blending concept I immediately understood before reading rest of paragraph. Yay. Lightbulb moment on earlier doubts any particular entity contacted in some later Rita, Nathaniel work cause speech patterns so similar. Blending. Duh! Shoulda seen that at first observation! (Love first paragraph of this session. Proof in illumination! Very, very helpful.)

    Most concepts in this excerpt requiring much pondering, and I still don’t get the cloud idea. Freaked me out first seen on physics documentary. Every day I make endless choices that shape my experiences. How can all be real somewhere, given the exponential result of a lifetime of days? My Janey personality alone would permutate to countless expressions…at every age.

    Does this mean I can stop analyzing the pros and cons to every “large” expenditure of time and money? Hmmm. Must I analyze my analyzing? Can’t I just live with less intellectual awareness like one of my animals? Rich/poor, alone/together, happy/sad, asleep/awake, ecosystems polluted/ecosystems balanced, the other experience exists somewhere so b.f.d. what mold I choose in the moment. Minimize pain, maximize pleasure through unending variations of the dance…if only humans weren’t stepping on so many toes I could happily say anything goes.

    No sense getting worked up about it. I can only take one step at a time as far as I can see here. No need to attempt control of persons and systems I can’t understand anyhow. Kinda fun to try sometimes. ;^j

    1. Thanks as always to Frank & All.

      And thank you Jane. Faboulous thinking, indeed very good told/or written — I am gonna (or wanna) do nothin` more than to be me (the concept of myself that is) right now — imagining me to be right here in the present moment.
      And love the old musical of Cole Porters` – “Anything Goes.”

      At the time being I am into the fascination of THOUGHTS — And by coincidence came upon these words by Seth:
      “….Also, thoughts ARE (underlined in the book: The World View of Paul Cezanne by Jane Roberts) volatile, indestructible. They do interact with other thoughts, form patterns. IN A WAY(underlined in the book), they are like electromagnetic species, only alive at other ranges of activity.
      As each person lives his or her own life, aware, say, of only the painting`s foreground, each thought and feeling is projected out and onto this greater multidimensional canvas of the psyche. This painting or world view, again, is itself alive, though its terms of reality are different than yours.” Quote end.

      The above quotations from The Introduction to the material of Jane`s book, done by Seth.

      Luv ya` — Inger Lise

      1. Thank you for the Seth quote. Useful in so many areas.

        This past week saw another post from those who chose to believe “the dream” has no “reality”. As I have said before with barely a hint of understanding, the painting, the painter, and the vision have their own levels of reality. I may copy/paste so others in the “illusion” may consider Seth’s words…or leave them to their current terms. :^j

        1. Franks splendid material giving me the BASIC understanding within the methaphysics, that`s for sure…. together with Franks friend Charles Sides…. Ever grateful for it.

          And Janey? Thank you VERY MUCH likewise.
          I have read all over again twice, what you have written in your replies– and once again reading my own quotes from the introduction (The World View of Paul Cezanne), by Seth.

          In fact, the whole Introduction by Seth in the same book is worthwhile to read all over many times.
          Just listen to this told by Seth:
          “The thoughts of each person, however, are impressed upon a medium far more permanent than canvas—indestructible, a medium that will not age or warp, more dependable than finest linen. In that greater gallery of psychic attainment each person is given a place to exhibit his or her “picture of the world.”
          There are no entry fees or judges(I love Seths humorous sense). Symbolically, however, in that infinite gallery there exists a unique, individual view of the world as seen through the eyes of each person ever graced to follow the paths of physical experience.
          Each picture is on display and available to anyone who understands how to enter this inner gallery of the mind. If there were a sign outside it would read, “The Gallery of the World`s Mind.” It contains therein the private opinions of the world as it was, or is, or will be encountered by each one of the human beings who experience its reality. Each thought in the mind of a man or a a woman is like a living brushstroke, made on a multidimensional canvas.”

          And Jumping a bit to the next page where Seth explains:
          “For that matter, the subject might have forgotten many dreams or plans that were once important, and certainly he or she could not keep track of the unconscious activity that goes on in the mind all of the time.
          Seth is further telling about “his plane”:
          In our “Gallery” of World Views, however, we have the entire picture, so to speak. Each thought, or each brushstroke, however, is also endowed with creativity. It interacts with all the other elements of this multidimensional structure.”

          Well, well, as the old saying goes: “Better late than never”(to understand something).
          LOL, Inger Lise

          1. I keep getting prodded to read all those Seth books that I have owned and not read all these years. Maybe I’ve reached “late” and can avoid “never”!

  3. As I contemplated the image of light shining through a crystal, with the results changing as the angle changed, a voice asked me if I understood what I saw. I got the concept that the light is “your energy focus, slicing into the crystal that is your sum of possibilities, lighting up one possible path.” Yet it has taken me a while to really let this sink in. Best I could do is relate it to an image I’d gotten earlier in the week in meditation.

    I had shifted my view from the 3D to the non-3D and looked at my self. This self looked like a beautiful array of suspended stained glass pieces, much like a wind chime, with the light pouring through. As it danced in the wind and the light, it made its own music and and scattered an every changing image of color.

    When I blended the two images together and considered my life as a probability cloud, I understood. I sighed in relief. It’s freeing. I can let go of some old images that no longer serve me, that do not reflect the truth of my being. I am not a rat in a maze, so to speak, with only one path available. Nor am I predestined by some capricious deity to only be one way. Awesome.

    1. Jane, FWIW, what you got — “your energy focus, slicing into the crystal that is your sum of possibilities, lighting up one possible path” — is exactly the way I interpreted it.

Leave a Reply

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.