TGU on the potential for community

Saturday, April 6, 2019

4:35 a.m. Hanns-Oskar Porr contacted Hegel – and was contacted by James Joyce – and of course has to wonder if it is out of his subconscious mind or is a real contact. I have hope that others will begin to do the same, instead of asking me to do it, as if I were the authority. This could become something, if we could develop a community of people doing it and submitting it for each other’s consideration, humbly and in a spirit of joint exploration.

Friends? Any comment, or should I go to work on Eddie’s book [my current project, another novel]?

The potential for such a community is even larger than you can envisage. It could provide a breakthrough for those who participate, and, through them individually and collaboratively, for the human race they represent.

That last phrasing is sort of odd, reminding me of G. K. Chesterton’s “The human race, to which so many of my readers belong….”

We mean to emphasize that the ultimate effect of individuals’ and groups’ efforts can be far greater –more far-reaching over time – than seems probable. As an example – and only as an example; we aren’t suggesting you or anyone try to emulate it – consider that St. Francis of Assisi single-handedly – after listening – created the Franciscan order that arguably prevented the Catholic Church, which in those days meant Western Christendom, from decaying into irrelevance. The ins and outs of how this happened are not the point here: Anything, as it works its way in the world, goes through events. The point we would make is that one person’s listening to a voice that he might have dismissed as imaginary resulted in major unsuspected results echoing first among a few, then within an institution, then more generally within society. Francis was not responsible for the distant effects of his efforts, but he did affect time and space – that is, contemporary society – and any of you may be called to do the same thing. See that you do not dismiss such a call out of a false sense of unworth. It is not a question of worth, but of willingness.

I know you do not mean for us to become inflated, however.

What good could that do anyone? Nietzsche, Hitler, a myriad of televangelists, so many possible examples, will show you how initial good intentions may be wrecked by an individual’s inability to deal with the temptations that accompany profound contact with non-3D power and with the resultant distorting effect it may have in terms of other people. Humility is the essential prophylactic antidote.

Meaning, I take it, it is the antidote to such dangers, but only if it is already in place before they arise.

Yes. It is difficult to become humble. Much easier to remain so. But it requires attention, for these temptations are not trivial, and no one is immune.

However, bearing that in mind, there remains the opposite error of the fallacy of insignificance. Ideally, one would say something like, “In myself I am nothing, but I am capable of being used, and willing to do so.”

“I still serve Ra.”

That’s the idea. And you’d better have a good idea, going into it, just what values you will serve.

Say some more about that.

You won’t know – not really – who you are dealing with. You may assume, you may conclude on the basis of evidence, but how can you ever know you are not in error, or are not being deceived by the other side (which, remember, is always a possibility), or are not fantasizing for whatever reason?

“Test the spirits,” we are told.

Exactly. Don’t believe everything you hear, and don’t automatically disbelieve, either. Weigh what you hear – and, to do that, it helps to have simple permanent touchstones. Values. The values you want to uphold.

In case this point is obscure, let us underline it. You said as an example serving Ra. We know you meant that not so much literally as figuratively, providing an example. We pointed out you will not wind up serving a personage, but the values you imagine that personage as supporting.

As Jesus is seen as personifying love, say.

Love, humility, authority, obedience to conscience, yes, many things. Nor are such personifications of values necessarily religious. The same characteristics have been attributed to Washington and Lincoln, for example, or Einstein and Newton, or Swedenborg and Emerson. You understand, we are not concerned to bind it to exemplifying individuals. Just the opposite: We are pointing out that you are really choosing values, in choosing who you will follow. You couldn’t very well follow Francis of Assisi while amassing wealth for whatever ostensible purpose.

To return to the central point, here. It would be possible to spark a voluntary community of ordinary people who made a practice of extraordinary connection, and shared the results of such communication in the spirit of humility and uncertainty, or call it non-certainty. Rather than attempting to lay down the law – “This was X who spoke. This is exactly what X meant,” etc. – they would say, “This is what I got; take it for what it’s worth. What does it spark in you?”

No ultimate authority, you see. No false certainty. No psychic inflation. And at the same time, no working in oppressive secretive isolation, no fears for one’s mental stability.

It is an attractive vision.

And available today. Now. Your own efforts, which began in private obscurity, have been gently guided by events and by your own inclinations (which in a way is saying the same thing twice) and by the response of those who have felt called at least to listen if not to contribute. So, that groundwork has been done. Now it is to the point where, with a little organizational preparation, one man’s work can be handed off smoothly to a more enduring form and a more significant community.

Well, I can’t do the organizational stuff, if you’re meaning creating the computer forum I’ve thought about, but I’m confident that somebody can and will. But I guess this means I don’t get to create my Church of Superficial Plausibility?

Maybe some other lifetime.

Smiling. Are we done for the moment?

We are.

Thanks as always, and see you next time.


8 thoughts on “TGU on the potential for community

  1. I am so glad you picked up these threads, for I saw them, too.
    1) I had written to you about the legacy of your website, but I am elated that you are taking it to the next level. You are talking about your “Legacy,” a word that is related to legate and delegate, thus it is your stand-in that will remain in this world. It is the seed your life has planted. You are talking about growing that seed… into the next step.

    Because really you are taking about something much greater:
    2) and that is the evolution of the human race ( and science). I see it, too. Not so much a physical evolution but psychological. Here is the thing: Say, somebody could help to develop ways that will help with suffering. But he/she cannot prevent all bad things, mass shootings, war or the climate change. Nobody can, unless the human race itself evolves. They necessary step is to have the race understand our link to the hidden, and see us all as one. If I can really see a greater connection, then I will see my neighbor as I and he will see me as him. How can we harm each other? (rethorical). Religion has tried, but succeeded only partially. Today we have access to new techniques that interlink us more. Growth can happen at an accelerated rate.

    You see: Hegel’s dialectic at work, the next level of synthesis 😉

    I have some other thoughts that are best expressed in a PEM. Not sure if I will get to it today. ~Hanns

    1. I don’t know that increased integration will necessarily eliminate strife in the world, though. Strife has its place as does order, and what we don’t like may motivate us more efficiently than what we do.

      1. do you think all strife is the same, though? Strifes based on animistic emotions, such as anger, will always be there. Accidents and death will always happen. But is a strife, say, like organized war based on some ideology not a beast of a different color?

        Can there never be a more peaceful world? Or is this a possibility that simply cannot, must not, exist “in our crystal” ?

        Would the upstairs not want to experience such worlds as well? Is that not part of wanting to experience EVERYTHING (!) there is to experience? Feel the emotions of the beings living in a world at peace? Why wouldn’t a-greater-being allow for some paths to a higher world, of 3D beings reaching their greatest potential? And experience what that would feel like?

        And if not, would they not miss out on something? Aren’t there always INFINITE other playgrounds ruled by strife?

        And if I/you/we, being part of All-D, are curious about it, then would they not be curious about it as well? Doesn’t that extend to them as well? I for once, being part of 3D and All-D, believe with all my heart there is room for human evolution. Call it an inner intuition. Namaste.

          1. Good. Because your earlier comment seemed to imply an answer. An answer based on previous conversations. TGU does not have all the answers either. They may limit themselves.

  2. Oh yeah, and that is exactly where I thought Rita’s last book “It’s all one world” was leading up to: evolution. I thought she kind of left us hanging, and that there WILL be more to come.


  3. Well, this is kind of exciting. A few months back, when you were saying something suggestive along these lines, I believe I contacted Louisa May Alcott. I had just seen a special and thought about how much I like her. I felt a real affinity for her and her books. So, I sat down to focus, felt more than a little silly but thought, what the heck, who can it hurt? I felt the change in the voice that came through, and it felt good. Afterwards, there wasn’t a single person I could tell.
    All that to say, I don’t think I’ve packed it, so I’ll look for it and post it.
    And to say I’m willing and am excited about being a part of such a community organized “in a spirit of joint exploration.”

    1. Joint exploration is it, exactly. Or maybe conjoined solitary exploration, though that’s a little hard to say. Essentials are that no one claim omniscience and that no one violate the spirit of trust that is all that will make it possible for some to share what may be leaving them feeling vulnerable. That is, responders, be constructive, be kind, no matter how exacting your criticisms may be.

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.