Wednesday, April 11, 2018
5:35 a.m. If you want to continue in a certain way, fine. Otherwise, I made a note last night of something we might start on.
What you propose is fine. We remind you, any path will take you where you want to go, if you don’t insist on a given itinerary.
Okay. Well, yesterday I wound up watching an interview with Col. Fletcher Prouty, done I guess 17 years ago or so, but available on YouTube. Prouty was the basis for Mr. X in Oliver Stone’s movie JFK. Then, one thing leading to another, I was led to a clip put up by a woman who claims that JFK came to her and showed her things about his assassination – which took place before she was even born – and other things. She seemed a little goofy, a little Valley Girl, but who am I to deny that someone could talk to a given disembodies spirit? Plus, it felt right, what she was saying. And, before that one, I saw a YouTube clip of a remote-viewing session, put out by the Farsight Institute, that captured the moment of JFK’s death.
Now, I know that sounds like I spent all day on the one subject, but it amounted in all to, say, an hour twenty for Prouty, another half hour or forty minutes for the remote-viewing clip, and a few minutes more (in some impatience) for the historically illiterate woman who admits to not having heard of Jerry Brown, and not remembering what state he was governor of (she thought her husband said Connecticut), although she got that his father was called Pat. But then, she also says JFK told her that Jerry Brown knew who was behind the assassination, so who knows.
Anyway, the thought came to me: Talk to us of the third-tier effects of Jack Kennedy’s assassination. And that doesn’t look quite as natural a question, this morning, as it did yesterday. Planted, perhaps?
The context will illuminate the question. But you do not with to be quite out in the open, here. Why not?
A leftover of past hesitations, I suppose. Thinking about it, my criticism of that woman’s ignorance and her non-serious, or let’s say, her lack of gravitas.
That’s why Jesus advised people not to judge other people – it only reinforces the internal process of self-condemnation that plagues you all.
So, if I were to be more accepting of her, somebody within me would be more accepting of what it sees as similar to what I object to in her?
It would break the feedback loop, let’s put it that way. And that would be a good thing for anyone (and everyone). The more you can say, “Oh well, that’s the sort of thing that happens in 3D” – that is, the more tolerant you can become, the freer you will be of those inner tormentors who are always sapping the foundations. You are the children of many sires, as Emerson put it; you have strands in contention, each perhaps asserting its own point of view. That’s positive if they do so as supplementary information; not so positive if they do so, each claiming to be exclusively right. A plethora – or even several – different viewpoints cannot possible all be “right,” but they can all add to a more nuanced picture, which leaves you more in peace with yourself (and others) as a beneficial side-effect.
We’re well off the track of where I intended us to go.
Not necessarily off the track of where we would like us to go, though. But it’s up to you. We can’t force you.
I knew a guy long ago who said, “They can’t make you do it, but they can make you wish you had.” That seems to be your mode of operation.
Very well, I had a brief conversation with JFK last night. Not the first one I’ve had.
We suggest you type it up.
Do you think all this is just about you? Do you think there is such a thing as “just about you” regardless who the “you” is? Another compartment of your mind knows that divisions between people are only relative, not absolute.
Very well, I will post it too. Shall I insert it here, or append it, or post separately?
Here is a good place.
[Inserted after the session:]
Tuesday, April 10, 2018
5:05 p.m. Found a 1:18 interview with Col. Prouty – listened to half an hour of it so far. So painful.
8:30 p.m. Maybe for tomorrow, third-tier effects of JFK’s assassination?
9:15 p.m. But gentlemen, if you want my help, you must give me yours. Why is it that I do not work, other than conversations in the mornings?
You feel directionless when you do not have structure. Since you must furnish your own structure – by your own choice, or perhaps we should say by your fate; in a way, the same thing said twice – when you don’t see it right away, you tend to drift.
So when I do find structure?
You find it in systematic dogged going through a process. But first you must see it.
Well, is it going through the books I piled on my desk and have mostly forgotten?
You tell us.
All right. Beginning tomorrow after our session, perhaps.
Remember, it is a condition of freedom that no one can force you to do what you want to do; you must do it.
Yes. It’s odd, maybe because I have been thinking about JFK today, listening to a long interview with Fletcher Prouty and to a strange video by a woman who feels JFK came to her and told her things (and, strange though she is, ditsy almost, yet it rings true), when I have been writing this I have for the first time ever a sense of JFK’s sloppy penmanship [as a boy] and his tactile sensation of holding a pen, just as I have, though of course he was right-handed.
[Switching my attention:]
I am so glad to think of you going out happy, cheered, basking in the people’s love for you and pride in you.
Easier exit than Lincoln’s, but perhaps he needed time to ponder. He was such a somber man, fundamentally. Not an easy life.
Did you really tell a friend you’d never had an unhappy day in your life?
It is a matter of attitude. That isn’t saying no pain, no illness, no frustrations, no anger, no humiliations. It’s saying, fundamentally I was resolved to be happy every day, and what Lincoln said is right, people are as happy as they are resolved to be.
Well, we loved you, and we love you still.
I know, and I wonder if it has ever occurred to you that love isn’t a one-way street. I loved you all too, and I did do my best for you.
Yes you did, and we knew it, the way the people knew Lincoln had done. You were a terrific gift.
But you want the last word.
There’s that teasing personality. Okay, what?
It’s just, we don’t get a lot of chance to express ourselves, once we aren’t the ones pushing the pen.
We’ll gladly listen.
No, that’s all, just a reminder that at some time we could talk the way you talked to Hemingway.
Okay, I’d like that.
[End of insertion.]
Re-reading that, again I think, “But we’re going to be overwhelmed by impostors and hysterics and self-deceivers, all claiming to have the word directly from the horse’s mouth.”
It isn’t a new problem. You always have to use your discernment, whether you are reading scriptures or listening to someone’s first-hand experience, or watching a YouTube video, or studying historical accounts. All this does is give people permission to explore a wider range of sources. Isn’t that what you want? And as you don’t want people taking your explorations for gospel, so you don’t want them doing so for others. But that very rational, very practical attitude is not the same as wanting them to declare certain modes of operation off-limits, nor certain sources of information. What you are concerned about, really, is that people learn a new level of responsibility as they acquire new means of access.
I guess that’s right, though I don’t think I ever put it in so many words.
Well, by the time you type all this up, you will have done enough for today, or rather, for today’s session, and we can address third-tier effects next time.
So you did pursue your own agenda after all. I expect you usually do. Okay, till next time. I’m not sure I quite thank you for your somewhat heavy-handed prodding, but I guess we’ll see what happens.