TGU on the 3D contribution

Monday. April 16, 2018

4:40 a.m. A dream reminds me that I still haven’t figured out how to explain to people what we’re about, here. So maybe that can be the order of the day? Unless you have other plans—

You might spell out the problem a little.

Well, in a dream someone will ask me what I’m studying, or what I’m writing about, or some similar question that ought to be easily answered, only I don’t know what to say. Of course it isn’t much different in external life. (I started to say “real life.”) And obviously if we can’t tell people what we’re up to, (a) they won’t be able to see how it applies to them, (b) it’s a pretty good indicator we don’t have enough of a handle on it ourselves.

More specifically, the explanation comes out either too abstract or too detailed. Too pompous, like something from the underworld – that is, the unconscious, begging your pardons – or too detailed and small-scale, providing no overview that would orient the material, would establish contact.

Well, that’s quite a problem. We’re sure you can find some solution.

Very funny.

No, really. You’re looking in the wrong direction. The job of taking vast schemes or tiny details and focusing them at the human individual level is something best done by a 3D consciousness. Surely you can see that.

Surely I can’t see that. What have we been doing, all this time, but getting your input on the human situation in a larger world that is not directly knowable?

Is that what you think you’ve been doing?

Hmm. A little recalibration called for, here, a little centering.

Yes, and from your readers, as well, or they’ll skate over the top of this.


Looking at it, first came the exercise of the muscles, learning how to connect, changing my view of my own possibilities. From 1989 to 2000, say, culminating in the ten black-box sessions that gave me a place to stand. Then Rita had all those questions, and I enjoyed the process for its own sake, and in the course of those weekly Q&A sessions we were given a different way to understand the world. So that was 2001 and into 2004, I guess. Joseph came in unexpectedly in late 2005 when I had my mind on writing a book about guidance and healing, and there was Chasing Smallwood, and then a year’s worth of talking to various people about American history, and psychology, and many things. After a while Hemingway because a greater presence in my life and – all right, maybe I see where you’re going with this. My two most consciously produced books so far – other than the novels – have been The Cosmic Internet and Imagine Yourself Well! The others have been mostly books of transcripts.

Yes, but what you realized, you haven’t actually said here.

Maybe not. The form of those two, like the form of the novels, is different in essence than the others (Muddy Tracks perhaps excepted) in that it is an attempt to talk directly to the reader rather than to provide the reader with a record of my attempts to talk to you (which is another case of “which you?”, come to think of it).

To paraphrase, the three nonfiction books you just cited, and the three novels, represent extraordinary input pre-digested for the reader. The other books represent windows into the process, quite as much as expositions of the material. Ideally you want people to have easy access, easy entry, and then to proceed to more difficult (because less familiar) material to the extent of their interest. They’ll only be interested in the process after they get a taste of the value of it.

Now, don’t get the idea that this is a situation or problem or opportunity (or whatever) that is confined to you, or to this material, or to this subject matter. We are talking here not of how to spread these conversations or even these understandings, but of something of far greater application.

“Application” isn’t the right word. What is?

Importance, maybe. Relevance. The point is that we, TGU, here, today, at this moment, using up your ink and your paper, burning your nervous energy, so to speak, have something to say to you – and “you” means, anyone with ears to hear – that we cannot say in just this way anywhere else. All we can do is open the spigot and let the material flow. We target it as best we can; we adjust to the immediate receiver – you, Frank, of course, since you’re the one holding the pen and interacting with us – and we do our best to make our meaning and our intent clear. But can you see our limitations, that can only be compensated for by a 3D consciousness? You are well beyond thinking of us as all-knowing except in the sense that we potentially connect with everything; in a practical sense, our knowledge is limited to our immediate circle unless sparked by “outside” questions.

You, the receiver, cannot function as we need by remaining passive, and this is why trance mediumship is such an exceptional and specialized phenomenon. What we need is not a stenographer but a conversationalist, who will argue with us (and with himself) in the interest of greater clarity.

The contribution of the 3D-limited mind being familiarity with what we here are likely to understand and not understand, I take it.

You just “got it” as you went to refill your coffee mug. Share.

Well, I all but heard that the job is to take whatever I get in a session and express it in a paragraph, now and retrospectively too.

Not literally, but more or less. Yes, you see. The sessions are so that you may receive the material and may refine it a bit by mulling it and arguing whether it means this or that, and placing it into the context of your lives and of other material. But this is only the first step in the process of refinement. It isn’t raw material, quite, but it isn’t ready for market, either. It is the scholarship underlying a biography, say, the context.

What a 3D-delimited mind can provide is precisely the advantage of its limitations: concentration.

I’m hearing all these qualifiers.

And we intend to go into them. First, you in 3D are never “3D only” except insofar as you are unaware of your wider range, and/or are unable to extend to it. So you will intuit things not said, including important connecting material that cannot be conveyed sequentially, and you will hope to provide the spark that will allow your reader to make that same intuitive leap.

Second, of course, is that you and they are not all that separate anyway, except at the superficies, the surface. There are more connections functioning than any of you know, so that more is possible than would be if you were really as separate as you perceive yourselves as being.

Third, it is mostly a matter of overcoming the limitations of your RAM, and we can’t do that for you. We can suggest metaphors and acronyms and even fables or story, to help you hold it in your minds at the same time, but we can’t give you precisely what we don’t have, which is effective focus.

You may want to explain that. It seems to me you do all right, explaining things an hour at a time, many hours in a row on the same theme. Whole books centering on a given subject, delivered an hour at a time.

But, do you see, it is the continued 3D mind that provides the focus?

No, I can’t say that I see it that way. I’m willing to do the work of receiving. But I don’t set out the themes or write out the lesson plans.

And that is what you – and, we dare say, most of your readers, especially including those who are reading this saying, “I know all this stuff, this is nothing new” – are not getting.

Try again?

Is it only in the concentrated moment that awareness can be transferred. Past and future are abstractions, ways to organize experience, but only the continually changing present moment exists. Therefore, it is all too vast to be focused except by the artificially slowed down experience that is the 3D environment. You – anybody living in 3D – experience these limitations as normal. Fortunately, you also extend beyond 3D limits, so you can understand more than you could if you did not. But it is the existence of limitation that provides focus.

I get the idea that we still haven’t quite gotten to it. Even though we’re beyond our usual hour, I’m good to continue if you are.

Here’s what you – we – really want to accomplish. It is not about conveying information about how the world is, nor even, exactly, about how you are. It is about giving people enough information – explicitly and also implicitly – that they cease to define themselves in ways no longer adequate to them, and move to a more expansive self-definition that will bring them their insights, growth and challenges direct.

I used to say that our job at Hampton Roads amounted to publishing books that gave people permission to believe what they already knew.

That, and what they’re actively blocking, out of habit or fear or just waiting for the time to come round.

And that is as close as we can come, at least for the moment. Keep front and center that the task is to provide a spark, not to set it out logically.

But by that reasoning – which I don’t argue with – the way we have been doing it does that.

It does, to those who read it. That isn’t the problem.

I see. Okay, thanks.

[What I gathered at the end, there, was that of course the problem is to widen the range of people who would read it, which amount to making it more accessible, which is what they’ve been saying all along.]


9 thoughts on “TGU on the 3D contribution

  1. Well-prepared perceptual delicacies for the wider audiences? Sounds lovely. I wish I could do something like that. But it is the ram and I do not mean I consider myself stupid. But artistic skill that really can make sequences of words sizzle with aliveness is not spread very thickly on the ground. More like diamonds buried deep, needing hard work to find and hard work to cut. Oh, what a defeatist story I am telling. What if the wonders are thick on the ground and we are just so busy with the laundry and the news that we do not notice.
    Very thought-provoking stuff! Thank you!

    1. Don’t ever forget Thoreau’s “It is not worthwhile to count the cats in Zanzibar.” In other words, we will each find our special work right at our feet (if not up to our eyeballs!), and needn’t think we have to do (or even could do) what someone else does.

  2. hi Frank and thanks. I am one of your sporadic readers. I found it interesting the remark “it is the existence of limitation that provides focus.” that is a lot like saying the answer is contained within the question. It was occurring to me lately no matter whether we are politically focused, or scientifically focused or artistically focused, your work and similar works, will help us find the commonality link which broadens the range of the audience. Concentration of the details may lead to the overview which we are lucky enough to glimpse now and again, and so your article gives hope that there may be a limited viewpoint but also there is the opposite to encounter.

    1. I think, of all attitudes possible to take toward another person, the most damaging and limiting is contempt. Once people open up to the idea that all the various points of view express something, have something, are worth something as an expression of something even if one finds them repugnant, everything opens up.

  3. Once again, I am so overcome or rearranged or cleared by your session that I can hardly get myself together to reply. On the one hand, it’s a very personal and powerful a-ha experience, more felt than heard, more known than understood. On the other hand, it seems important for the times, like a sea change, so that what people believe they can do and want to do is so changed. Here’s where the 3D and non-3D meet, overlap, merge–in these conversations (ILC) you and we have with our own TGUs, in our own moments of concentrated focus. They are more than guidance; engaging in the process alters our stance in/on ourselves, TGU, and all contexts. How much of this we can do, connecting to both situations at the same time, alters our RAM–“which usually has a dramatic effect on total system performance” (, definition of RAM). And it’s only through our focus that this can happen. It seems an important thing for us to do in these changing times. And it sounds like the foundation of your book on ILC. It’s not about making anybody a student of this. It’s about all of us becoming masters of our own process. It helps to try to express all this, so thanks for the space to do it. I need to go see what I can get–because the medium is the message.

  4. “You are well beyond thinking of us as all-knowing except in the sense that we potentially connect with everything; in a practical sense, our knowledge is limited to our immediate circle unless sparked by “outside” questions.”

    I’ve never quite been able to wrap my head around the last bit. It’s one of the few genuine paradoxes for me. Much like knowing something without knowing how one knows it, the statement feels fundamentally accurate. But I’ve always found it very difficult to translate this bedrock perception into sequential, subject-object ordered language. It seems equally obvious and absurd the moment words begin to swirl round it.

    It explains why Monroe thought of himself as a “scout” and why his “I-there” insisted his activities were invaluable. In other words, as I interpret the record Monroe left, he was creating new possibilities, solving old problems– opening up territory that was unknown or unvisited in terms of his all-d being.

    This (x)factor of physical existence, the way in which novelty and chance in physical life can unfold entire dimensions…. it occurs to me now that the figure of the Trickster is much less a synthetic myth that has helped humans understand physical, creative life-forces than a simplified all-d perception of 3-d’s effect on the nonphysical universe.

    We physical ones come to “know” things that otherwise would remain unknown. If that sounds like hubris, then we ask questions that might remain unasked, we develop connections that might remain unconnected, we go to places that might remain un-gone.

    And yet it is so hard to feature the metaphysical limitations of TGU, our nonphysical intelligence, or whatever. The best impression I get of it is seeing an existence of supreme contentment, utterly beatific and all knowing–heaven I guess–and then seeing Raven or Coyote. Busy, nosy, scheming, wanting, watching, always watching, talking, bargaining, stealing, looking, finding, losing, suffering, winning. Only to immediately forget that he won and thus start the whole thing over again.

    It’s a comforting thought to me actually. The pessimism I have at times felt about yours truly and by extension the rest of 3-d is refuted by the thought the I/we might at least be as interesting as Coyote or Raven.

    *notice I don’t say “as good as” b/c really how good is he!

    1. Another way to look at it might be that curiosity and discovery and play are as integral to reality as anything else, and run somewhat counter to order and system, and so there is a perceived opposition that is actually natural and productive.

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.