Friday September 14, 2018
8:55 a.m. Okay, specifically Joseph and Bertram: For all I know, you were the guys this morning. But in any case, I would like to know anything useful to me.
We are one. That means more than you can know unless / until you loosen the reins.
Yes, I understand that. It can’t be required to make sense and satisfy logic or be consistent with past information.
Can’t go somewhere new without traveling.
We are one. Not, closely connected, or “on the same wavelength,” but one. Unseparated. It is the nature of our tripartite existence that allows for the creation and maintenance of the triangular plane you intuited some while ago, I in ancient Egypt, I in medieval England, I in 20th and 21st century America – three continents, three different millennia, three very different civilizations. But, stretched on the loom of one being.
That’s a lot, right there. If we are one, why can’t I remember vividly and in detail, and is it desirable, and can you (I) show me how to do it?
You do remember, vividly and in detail, the emotional (that is, the intuitive, non-physically determined) events and being. But you want intellectual opening as well.
And you hope for it when you visit Egypt.
For the right reasons?
I don’t know what the right reasons would be. I want to expand what I know; always have wanted to. But I wasn’t particularly interested in – oh, that’s an interesting thought. I wasn’t interested in scientific laws, etc., but was (am) interested in history. Both could be considered abstractions, but they are different types of abstraction. I’m interested in the invisible; that’s one way to put it.
You are also both gullible and skeptical, [both traits] stemming from the same distrust of sources.
And with good reason to be so.
True enough, but even good habits deter when wrongly applied. Now, in asking us (yourself) for information, you need to consider. Does a habit of gullibility and skepticism serve you?
Well, I can’t say flatly that it does not. I still don’t want to succumb to Psychic’s Disease.
Then, where are you left?
Okay, I get it. Perceive first, discern later.
It is the safe way to proceed, the fastest, most reliable path.
I can only try. And yes, Yoda, I hear you.
Well, it is true. [“There is no try. There is do, or not do.”]
Very well. Begin with what is easiest, and only slowly work toward what is harder. Recall how you worked with Joseph Smallwood, as you called him.
I got the sense of him, and a sort of vague outline of the major tides in his life, and gradually came to fill in the story, and here and there came facts that could be verified, or, at least, falsified.
So let’s proceed here the same way. Let us assume – for the purpose of making this simple enough to perhaps succeed – that we three, only, are one. In other words, we will for the moment omit to consider all the infinite connections each of us has in all directions, and consider ourselves as – so to speak – one parental spirit (call it that) manifesting in these 3D (and non-3D, remember) compound beings.
Divide the three lives in various ways and they illustrate various specialties.
I get what you mean, but that doesn’t say it. You mean, taking the three as a unit, we can look at that unit from various directions and see different similarities and differences illustrated.
Yes. So, Joseph is a priest in an undivided culture based on knowledge. Bertram is a priest in a somewhat less united culture based on emotion. Frank is a priest in a fragmented culture based on speculation.
Or, Joseph’s science is mental, Bertram’s is minimal, Frank’s is overwhelming. By this we mean the time they live in, of course, not their personal mentality.
Joseph’s life is circumscribed and given form entirely by ceremony. That is, he lives moment to moment in a vast and continuing ritual. In a manner of speaking, of course. Don’t let this get too literal. Bertram’s life is partly ritual partly unsculptured. There is his life as priest performing ritual, and his life as priest living day by day. Frank’s only ritual is anything he happens to think of or wander into. Or perhaps his reading and writing might be considers his on-going ritual.
Joseph’s task is to preserve and to embody; Bertram’s, to reassure and be a means of connection; Frank’s, to offer hope and reason for hope.
Joseph’s experience of sexual union was sacramental, regulated, channeled to higher opportunities. Bertram’s was non-existent in terms of ordinary perception, and was a form of higher union when sublimated. Frank’s, like his culture and his life, was a hodge-podge of aspirations and longings, and had no external support to make it more productive.
Now what does this overview give you? Not detail; not even outline. Yet it does provide something.
It does. It gives me the beginnings of a place to explore emotionally.
Which is the key, always.