Saturday, March 23, 2019
9:50 a.m. Mr. Porr poses questions not easily answered, and although I have the general idea, I’d prefer that one of you do the explaining – particularly of the parts I don’t understand and think I do!
[Although this email is rather long, I’m going to quote it in full before proceeding to TGU’s response.]
[Hanns Oscar Porr:]
Frank, thank you for your recent series on Egypt; and the highly poetic ending (?) .
I know we had talked previously about choosing, particularly with reference to tragic events. After having read Cosmic-Internet, Rita’s World 1&2, I am currently reading your book Sphere/Hologram, and the sections written on and after 9/11 are striking. However, there is one aspect that I struggle with. I see a contraction, and I can’t work myself through it. It is entirely possible that this was answered later somewhere, but I have not seen it. So I would like to ask the following for clarification, and maybe you can take it up to TGU ? If it has not been answered, I hope it would be a valuable clarification in general. (Or, if this was answered already, please let me know where, so that I can read it up).
I’ll post the question succinctly first, because I get that “the better the question, the better the answer,” and then below give some relevant references.
If every possibility already exists in “the crystal” of Being (TGU’s wonderful metaphor), then nothing can be added to it as far as any new situations or circumstances. At the same time, we have free choice, and at every choice point ( every second and nanosecond ) we branch off so that eventually all possibilities that are open to us ARE in fact explored. This may even include our thoughts: we do not really think but only choose, and thereby create ourselves. Thus, nothing is created, but explored in full through all of our choices. Nothing moves, but only consciousness moves.
So how does TGU create or alter situations? Or orchestrating opportunities? If all situations and all outcomes and all possibilities and all opportunities already exist, and will be explored? Or aid or give guidance, especially if all thoughts are already there in the crystal, from which we then choose (in fact, choose all variants) ? It seems, there is nothing that can be added as far as new situations / opportunities.
Question 2 (related):
Likewise, if TGU alters the weights of the strands ( recalibrates the settings), then how does this make any difference? Because at every choice point we still have all the same possibilities open to us and all choices will be explored no matter what. If they advise “me/us” somehow to go left, then this variant of “I/us” that heeds the guidance will go left, but another variant of I/us still goes right, so there is no difference at all: all versions of I/us will still get created, all possible variants of living “this” life will be gifted.
Do you see the contraction, or am I missing something? I have a hunch of where this may go, but I don’t want to lead the answer. Your/their answers always surprise me, and then I have to think myself though, and while this is hard, it has proven insightful. I wonder what change of viewpoint you/they come up with to reconcile this.
Below are some concrete references to show what I see as a contradiction; I picked Sphere/Hologram because I am currently reading it, but similar references are in other posts/books as well.
As always, I greatly appreciate your work
1) We always have free will.
2) We are “in the middle of a crystal that contains all possible choices…” (Sphere/Hologram p. 105, many other places. The implications are, as stated by TGU/Rita:
ALL things that can happen, are already there.
We do not create anything in reality, instead choose, and thereby create “ourselves.”
There is no movement, but only consciousness moves ( for example, Sphere/Hologram p. 120) , by “walking the possibilities.”
3) There are infinite versions of ‘me’ that explore all possible outcomes. (For example, Sphere/Hologram p. 118: Everybody takes all conceivable actions, or inactions. Also in many other places..) and then in later posts, all variants create a “possibility cloud” of all variants of “my” (our) lives.
But now we have this :
4) Sphere Hologram P. 137 ( and other posts) “We can create the events and we can lead you towards, but it’s up to you to choose.”
“we’re orchestrating the opportunities.” … “creating the situations that allow the opportunity for some people to wake up”… ‘those orchestrated incidents […] set up the circumstances in which people could make the choices.”
Of relevance are also your recent re-post of “An orchestrated incident”, plus its follow-up in 2007 about “An orchestrated incident – 2” where they talk about changing the strands, or the weights, and recalibrating the settings.
[TGU:] There is a fundamental misunderstanding at the base of these perceived contradictions. There is a difference between potential and actual, as well as between embodied (3D) and disembodied (non-3D either as part of something extending into 3D or as something entirely independent of 3D, such as the voice you call Nathaniel, that has not been human).
“All paths exist” means that at the creation of the world (at the creation of reality) everything is there; there is nothing added on after the fact. But that doesn’t mean “there in fact”; it means “there in potential.” The potential to have the pyramids constructed existed from the beginnings of the world, but they did not become actual until somebody built them. To say “all paths exist” is merely to acknowledge the completeness of the scheme of things from the very beginning. It doesn’t mean the pyramids existed in stone merely because the potential for them to be constructed existed.
Because a possibility exists does not mean it will be actualized in any given reality-stream, time-stream. The timeline that saw the pyramids built obviously is not the timeline that saw them never built. That should be obvious once stated. Any given timeline will consist of some paths taken and many paths not. It is only in considering all timelines together that you can see all possibilities actualized. After all, if Lincoln is shot in 1865, he cannot die of natural causes. If he is defeated in the election of 1860, none of the rest of his career will be unaltered, obviously. So in considering these things it is important to consider, are you talking about the reality made manifest in any one timeline or that which is theoretical to you (since you live in a timeline) and only evident from a point of view beyond timelines. What you see, and the conclusions you draw from what you see, are going to be quite different, depending.
So, in considering non-3D interaction with 3D situations (that is, your lives), bear in mind that such interaction will only be observed relative to a single timeline. If you change timelines, you will still be observing from a single timeline, and this regardless how many times you jump.
The discussion leading to “all possibilities are explored” concerns not any single timeline, but only all of them considered together. To consider single timelines and all timelines together will result only in confusion. It would be like confusing the letter A singly and the whole alphabet together. Each has its place. Each is integrally connected to the same scheme of things. Each actually is part of the other. But you can’t spell words using only one letter, and you can’t discern words using only all letters. Each in its place, and it all makes sense. Confuse the two, and only confusion can result.
Perhaps this will help.
I’ll type it up and send it, and we’ll see. Thanks.