Tuesday, March 26, 2019
7:25 a.m. Yesterday morning, while transcribing the conversation, I began to see for the first time how to reconcile the two views – one timeline at a time, and all together. I sat with it all day, off and on, but made no further attempt to spell it out than my initial jottings. Let’s see how we do today.
[TGU:] When you transcribe this, insert your notes here.
[Since most of this entire entry consists of my words rather than TGU’s, I reverse my usual procedure, and leave mine in Roman type and give them the itals. Extended passages in italic make for difficult reading.]
[Monday 7:15 a.m. While transcribing this, I got a new sense of things. Who says the probability clouds experience closure? Who says everything closes off, like a play ending an act and beginning another? What if every new split-off stream continues endlessly (and why wouldn’t it)? In effect, we as individuals would be experiencing ourselves living on one stream that we could jump to another from – that is, one at a time. And that is how we experience it. Thus we’re always voting by what we are, but I don’t know if there is a cumulative election-day, Armageddon or Eden. Maybe more like an on-going Gallup Poll. I’ll have to bring this up, and spell it out. It does seem like it would explain things.]
[TGU:] Now, since we begin with your own conceptualization and summary, we suggest that you think on paper now, even though you just copied your initial thoughts, for every moment is its own quality, and things will come out differently now than they would have then or would 10 hours or 10 days hence. Not that truth changes, of course, but that where you are affects your ability to see.
Okay. Well. I realized while transcribing that I had been assuming, for some reason, that each of our lives was a limited thing, with not only a termination but a summary.
A judgment at the end, regardless whether followed by a sentence to heaven or hell.
Hmm. Did I? If so that would be an unconscious leftover from my religious indoctrination as a boy, I suppose. But, at least consciously, I was not thinking of judgment.
What is a summing-up but a discernment, whether or not discernment is accompanied by condemnation or approval?
Interesting. In any case, I had assumed that the end of a physical life marked the end of separate paths, and therefore – somehow – the individual’s probability cloud compressed into some “real” –
No, actually I didn’t. I’m making that up – tacking it on as explanation – as I go along, I see that now. But I did think end-of-3D-life marked an end to the alternate paths.
And now you are getting to it. Proceed.
Well, by whatever means (prompted by you, or by the material, or snagging a passing idea) I suddenly saw that the reason I couldn’t make sense of it is because that isn’t the way to look at it.
Spell it out with a given life, not confining yourself to what you know or can prove about succession of lives, but using it merely as a theoretical example.
Even as I write that, the view expands. It is as if when I’m sufficiently passive intellectually (in this case, because concentrating on writing out your material), I am able to get out of my own way, and put two and two together.
That is an important concept to remember, “being sufficiently mentally passive,” instead of being mentally active even while being receptive. Give this some thought from time to time.
But not now, I get it. Okay, a theoretical example using names from my “past lives” while remembering that “past lives” is a linear concept, almost certainly a distortion of how things really are.
Let’s start with Joseph the Egyptian, merely to honor him. We don’t know anything about his external life – not his name or his birthplace or his dates or even his era, certainly not anything about how he lived and died except for the strong feeling that he was a priest of some sort in his time, and, I think, not a non-entity, but someone solid and respected.
Joseph lives, choosing. Another way to say the same thing is that within the Joseph character, choice after choice is encountered and (viewed in 3D terms) at each choice there are now two where there had been one. As we already conceive of it, by the time Joseph’s life terminates in 3D, he could be seen more as a probability-cloud of Josephs than as any single individual treading any single path. So far, so good.
Only, he doesn’t stop there, and his consequences don’t stop there, and in fact neither do the consequences of his consequences – including all his mental or soul-carrying descendants.
Now, you know you’re going to have to spell that out.
I do, but who taught me, by example all these years, to go slowly and thoroughly if possible? Who always goes around Robin Hood’s barn? And who goes from generalization to example?
There is no need to assume that each 3D life is a closed loop. That’s what the insight amounts to, or anyway that’s where it begins. The probability-cloud dos not collapse upon our 3D death, nor upon the observation of anyone or everyone. In effect, it goes on forever.
You’re doing fine. Continue.
All the versions of Joseph continue because all the versions of his life-circumstances continue. Every decision that affected others – should those alternates disappear? And if they did, what would happen to the others who had been affected?
For the first time, I can make sense of what happened to another Joseph – Joseph Smallwood, whose back injury in 1863 I healed from 1994, who then went on to lead another version of a life that was already 130 years in the past from 1994 when it began, or became possible, call it, in 1863. How could any of that make sense? But it makes sense if all possible paths exist and continue to exist regardless what happens to any given person.
Despite 45 minutes’ attempt to make this clear in words, I’m not at all sure I have succeeded. The effort has further clarified it for me, and I will have to hope that anyone in the right place will catch the meaning by a spark jumping the gap, if by no other way.
But finish your example, for you have left it mostly unsaid.
Have I? In living we tread all possible paths, and in a manner of speaking there is a version of us for each path (or pathless path). These versions, and the reality they fit into, do not disappear when we die to 3D. They all continue. Each of them goes on to their own further adventures. The one I know stitched together Joseph the Egyptian, Bertram, Joe Indian, David Poynter – but it’s easy to see that versions that made different choices may have magnetized themselves into different situations, perhaps contradictory or unimaginable to me here, and yet we are all related. It is, come to think of it, another aspect of “we are all one.”
And unless you think I should say more – or care to chime in yourselves – I’m inclined to pause here, put this out, and see what others make of it.
Remembering to put yours in Roman this time and ours in Italic, for their convenience.