Timelines and probability clouds

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.

Okay.

[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?

Proceed.

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.

Okay.

9 thoughts on “Timelines and probability clouds

  1. I wonder… what these “probability-clouds” would be like to a being outside the arrow of time. Do they only come into existence through our lives? (and yes, as you say, continue onward — but that statement is based on our experience of time) Or are they ‘always’ already there? Latent, so to speak, until maybe activated or experienced through us? And how will this relate to our overall discussion on guidance and such? All very interesting. Thank you, Frank.

    1. The guys have made if very clear over the years, the latter. That is, “they ‘always’ already there? Latent, so to speak, until maybe activated or experienced through us”

      1. Exactly, so the “probability-cloud” extends in what we would call our past and future. So maybe, it is not just that Joseph is (one) of your past lives, but you are (one) of his future lives. It goes both ways? [Now it starts to sound like Seth, does it? 🙂 ]

  2. I feel as if a weight has been lifted, a limit relieved from my understanding. This all makes such sense to me, as if I, too, knew it, head-wise, but had not made the leap into really receiving it. This change in understanding makes me feel like a different person–and of course, I am.

    It reminds me of how Jane Roberts could receive (or cross paths with) Cezanne or William James, and talked of their life paths as still existing ‘out there.’

    Can’t thank you enough.

  3. The comforting part for me is that this “Jane” doesn’t become static or finished upon the death of the physical body. That’s definitely a tenet of the Protestant religion, one that I have long questioned. TGU has said many times that they change because of our influence and interaction with them. So non-physical doesn’t mean unchanging, even for us. That’s pretty cool.

    (Yup. We are more than our physical bodies. Much, much more, to quote one who knew by experience.)

  4. So incredibly interesting. My current understanding is something like this: 3d consciousness is a point of (light?) moving in Indra’s web, or crystal, constantly making choices and in those choices being entirely unique. But as all those choices reflect the contacts between individuals and all kinds of other interactions it is also a reflection of all contacts.
    Another thing I have been chewing lately is reflecting on my own choices and actions. Doing things that are hard to begin but give me reason to be grateful to myself for doing it – this is genuinely uplifting and rewarding. And things that may be pleasant but make me feel I am worthless – this is really crippling. So there is a code of conduct that comes from the inside. Maybe this is completlely obvious to everyone else. As I have been looking at family history, and directing gratitude to all those past generations of hardship and toil, and seeing the independent spirit and longing for beauty, too, it feels like my idea of myself is changing simultaneously. Feeling myself carry all those varied and even discordant cords, somehow accommodating for the positive potentials, the whole picture changes. Less caged frustration and more tolerant accommodation of multiplicity inside.
    One thing that bugs me now: the frantic external moving, traveling – things I have done and liked all my life. If I could be more mobile inside, would that mean the outer movement could lessen? That need to cook myself in a million different soups, always finding new flavours developing in the process. And instead of settling anywhere I notice myself lighting up for something new again. Almost like an alchemical process. Could it happen more inside and less outside? It is a choice that the larger part of me holds, that I just am compelled to follow. A liquid part of me that always flows to the new spring, the budding forth of a new life. This is how I have been flowing.

  5. Nice.
    1) Net of indra — my favourite metaphor. Some call it “Shere and Hologram” 😉
    2) Inside/Ouside: consider they may be the same thing, and are a reflection of each other ?
    3) reflecting on own choices: not only that, but some people choose really tough choices, including death. Hard for us/me to comprehend.

    1. “Inside/Ouside: consider they may be the same thing, and are a reflection of each other” Not a new thought here. They’ve said that many times, and I have come to take it for granted.
      As to why people choose touch courses, what’s hard about that? People choose to be firemen, cops, soldiers, EMTs, etc. partly for the buzz, the living on the edge. Olympic medalists get there by unrelenting training over many years, aimed at overcoming incredible odds against actually becoming the best. As to death, name three people who aren’t going to die. What’s so important about how and when?

      1. You know, I get that completely on an intellectual level. But then there is this: Look at just the other day, the father of a Sandy Hooks student committed suicide… What are we to tell him, or his wife who now lost two people? I feel their pain… How do people feel who’s loved ones jumped out of a tower on 9/11? I feel their pain. How did you feel when JFK was shot?

        These are the choices with deep impact on others. And the emotions that follow are a bottomless abyss. I know. And as my wife keeps reminding me, “All that stuff is nice, dear, but how does it help me live day to day”? If you are intellectually inclined, this may work, but for others ? CBT is not for everybody.

        If we could state all this in a way that, for example, that father who committed suicide could have seen another choice, then we have made a difference.

        Just saying…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *