Monday, May 6, 2019
5:15 a.m. All right, I’m ready for more if anybody on the other side is. I’m not comfortable assuming the voice is Caesar, necessarily.
Because it seems unlikely? Perhaps that is you not remembering.
The piece I got, years ago, comparing Caesar and Napoleon?
Yes. The burden of that conversation was that character traits may be positive in one time and negative in another. It didn’t occur to you that you might have a more direct relation to either or both than that of student to example.
I never thought in such terms, no.
And now you know why?
I suppose because of distance in time. But no, that wouldn’t explain Joseph the Egyptian or Bertram. I get that we’re going to explore the question of transition between lives, and if so, that would be of great interest to me, and perhaps to others. I don’t feel we have ever had a fully coherent picture.
You have been employed to deconstruct older inadequate models, actually. That was necessary before a closer approximation to reality could be apprehended.
This isn’t “Caesar,” I take it from the last sentence. Not that it matters who.
Don’t forget, Caesar thought in Greek and Latin, not in English which hadn’t even formed in his time. Napoleon thought in Italian [Corsican, presumably] and French. We always communicate person to person in “thought,” not in whatever language we are perceived in. So if a sentence is wordy or pompous or has more syllables than you like, whose fault is that? (But this is a joke, which you also don’t expect.)
The point is that your own preconceptions and assumptions as receiver shape your communications to a greater extent than you realize. You aren’t a blank slate receiving language, like a tape recorder, any more than you are a blank slate receiving concepts – else how would someone from any time prior to the twentieth century even have any idea what a tape recorder was? How would someone from BC even know what AD meant, or what the twentieth century was twentieth from?
So I get that we are going to use any little thing as a springboard for the discussion, as usual. For a long time I used to think these excursions into process were an interruption to more important topics. I see now that your (TGU in general, I mean) concentration on process interwoven with any given topic is slower and surer.
It isn’t flashy. It isn’t pabulum, either. Is it any wonder your work did not meet wildly enthusiastic response? But it has been meeting solid response, which is better in the long run. If you are only appreciated posthumously, what do you care how long it takes after that?
That felt sort of like a joke, sort of like truth said in jest.
We were gently reminding you not to take it so personally.
Is that what I’m doing?
Certainly in the sense of thinking of it as failure of technique. But what if it is exactly the right technique (as you just said) producing exactly the right effect (as you were not concluding)?
Okay. So –?
We – and don’t worry about who “we” are – are about to enter into a long discussion that will both repeat older material and introduce new material in such a way as to help you see the older material in a new light.
Helping us better understand B by better understanding A.
That is the process.
One of the things Rita taught me that has stuck with me: Sometimes to understand A, you have to understand B, but to understand B you have to understand A, so you come to more truth by a sort of crabwise process.
Not engaging in exploration in this way – that is, assuming that you know A or know B, and assuming that neither will change aspect as you better understand the other, is one reason why many explorations shallow out after their first discovery. In arming you with this realization, Rita gave you a rationalization for using the technique and a reassurance that it never matters if you have the whole truth as long as you are proceeding toward truth.
The other thing the past 20 years has taught me is patience in this regard. When we stop thinking of conversations as having to go from one point to the next in a straight line, and realize that looping back and circling around and taking side trails are not wasting time but are seating in by providing additional context, we relax into it a bit.
And until readers do relax into it, they miss that aspect and [then] this is not something to help them transform their lives, but merely an intellectual product to consume.
I suppose the truth is to do both – to provide enough flash to get people’s attention and enough substance to let them sink into themselves.
You worry too much about whether the material will succeed. Do you worry about your own life?
All right, all right. But isn’t it you [-all] who press me to get the new book written that will provide people the key?
That is complementary to the longer discussions, it does not supersede them. T hose whose interest is sparked by the precis will find themselves with plenty of material to chew on in these dialogues, or conversations or transmissions or whatever you want to call them.
Now to return to the beginning of this session. You (and in this you are of course merely representative of anyone who wishes to do the same thing) are not limited in who or what you can connect with by any arbitrary limit, be it time, distance, ethnicity, gender, whatever. However, certain orientations will be closer to you than others, and these will be the easiest and most productive to approach. You may think of them less as individuals than as interests, or traits, or – well, orientations.
That’s an awkward phrasing, easily misunderstood, but I don’t know a better one. I get that in this context it means the “feel” of a mind, the general outlook or, I suppose, any one aspect of a general outlook. Come to think of it, we’ve touched on this before. When I connect with Hemingway, I don’t necessarily connect with the hunter or fisherman or competitor; certainly not the avid sportsman.
Yes, and it is always so. You see, if you can change your model from unit to component, the possibilities and limitations change. [That is, change from thinking of ourselves as units to thinking of ourselves as bundles of strands, as cohabiting communities.]
And that’s what you were saying, it is more like communicating trait to trait, say, than Frank to whomever.
It is one more complication, or perhaps simplification, that comes when you change concepts. If Frank is a unit talking to Caesar as a unit, it isn’t nearly so likely as Frank in his communication aspect talking to Caesar in his communication aspect.
Writer to writer, you mean.
Yes, or with someone else it may be (will be) different aspects. But they will be aspects you possess, or should we say embody, or else where is the connection.
Except as you say that, another “Thunk!” as something else slips into place. If I in one aspect communicate with that aspect in another, that other person also being a bundle of aspects, this may enable me to connect to aspects that would be foreign to me otherwise.
Just as was said to Rita dn me in 2001-2002, only then it was spoken of in the context of the non-3D.
That’s all you could have heard then.
Yes, I see. We weren’t thinking of ourselves as functioning in non-3D until after we died. And when we did come to that, it didn’t occur to us to go back and make other connections.
Well, now it does.
Very interesting process, this. Till next time.
We aren’t going anywhere. See you then.
Our thanks as always.