The energy aspect of the world

Thursday, October 10, 2019

2 a.m. To proceed –

It is particularly difficult for you to let us bring forth a picture of your world in those instances where it amounts to your deciding on the accuracy or otherwise of certain reported phenomena. You are very aware of reporting without knowledge.

Yes, I know. I don’t know though why some subjects are touchier than others.

You are still afraid at some level that it is you making it up.

Ridiculous, isn’t it? But, it’s true. That’s what it is. Is the cause worth exploring, on the assumption that I will not be the only one suffering from such a twitch?

We would prefer that instead you work hard to set aside the censorship mechanism and let the material flow, perhaps warning people in advance that you don’t go bail for it.

Well, we can try. We may wind up spending a lot of time in stasis. But, we can try.

The energy aspect of the world – that is, the definite but non-material appearing reality that is as vital to maintaining the world as is the mineral or vegetable or animal kingdom – is as we said of two natures.

I think you mean, its nature stretches to two extremes, one more mechanical, the other more conscious.

That is a good way to put it. on the mechanical end, the “nervous system” of reality. On the other end, the “population” of the celestial kingdom. But again, remember to connect all this which is of the 3D (in the same way electrical currents are of the 3D) with the non-3D to which it, like you yourselves, extends. Don’t lose sight of the connections between subjects, because that is how definitions mislead and how explorations go wrong.

It occurred to me (during the writing-out of that paragraph) that Dirk’s advice to go more slowly in writing your material may have been given me as a way of overcoming my internal barriers stemming from fear of being fooled and of fooling myself and of fooling others.

Certainly. As he himself pointed out to you, it wasn’t his idea, it was, shall we say, sponsored, so that you would actually hear it rather than “think” it and immediately forget about it.

In general, when you feel paralyzed as to the information you seek, or that is coming in “on its own,” a good technique is to halt, wait, and receive when it clarifies.

I knew that in another context, years ago. Cayce, I think. Listen, wait, receive; something like that. I hadn’t associated it with the process of “hearing” more clearly. Obvious now, though.

One bit of personal experience is worth years of reading. Of course, the reading may increase receptivity to the experience.

To continue. As a rounding-out, we should say, perhaps, that every kingdom, not only the celestial kingdom, shades off in two directions. The mineral kingdom shades off into non-material energy at one end (radiation, atomic radiation, what one might call semi-non-3D interactions) and the vegetable at the other. The vegetable kingdom extends from manifestations scarcely more sentient than mineral, to manifestations practically animal (think, say, of the Venus fly trap as an example). The animal kingdom extends from quasi-vegetative organisms through human beings into quasi-divine beings. There are no hard and fast divisions in the world (i.e. in reality), no closed frontiers, no absolutely differentiated stepping stones. Divisions are constructs, quite as much as perceived realities.

I can see that. What we see depends upon our own pre-conscious categories, which are partially individual but are more primarily societal.

Yes – with caveats. But, for the moment, yes. You may think of our scheme for sorting out reality as one of gradually increasing abstraction.

That’s what I got, but at the same time, I got the sense that that isn’t right. It’s almost as if there was mental interference, my throwing up a concept, or something coming in on its own.

In such cases, merely ask us to restate. Distortions are easily corrected.

That’s another reason not to treat the material like scripture, isn’t it – to prevent us immortalizing mistakes.

That is another reason, yes.

So as we were saying, look at this scheme of things as explaining the world by categorizing it in an unbroken but differentiated spectrum. Yes, like the rainbow.

The image came very clearly.

And your sense that “abstraction” was the wrong word, earlier, was correct, for you can’t rightly say that the progression from infra-red to ultra-violet is toward, nor away from, greater abstraction. Yet, it is a progression. Similarly, 3D reality as artificially considered as a matter of four kingdoms. Just as, in a rainbow, colors shade smoothly into one another yet still show their own individual specialized nature, so the things of the world in general. And, in particular, the celestial kingdom, for there is the end of the rainbow-spectrum that is closest to intelligence-not-bound-by-form, as opposed to the other end of the spectrum, the base of the mineral kingdom, that may be considered form-least-bound-to-active-intelligence. However, do not become captive to an analogy. It may illustrate, it may spark, but it cannot exactly represent reality, or it would be reality rather than metaphor.

Understood. But it is a very helpful analogy. Thanks.

So, to funnel down to the celestial kingdom again, now bearing in mind that it shades from quasi-animal to quasi-non-3D – well, you may end up staring at the page.

I had to use up a couple of minutes using the nebulizer, instead. A result of subconscious anxiety over the information? I mean, I don’t think so, but why should I suddenly start getting worse instead of better as usual when doing this?

If ILC were a guarantee of perfect health, a lot more people would practice it!

No doubt. But you mean, I guess, that it is not related. True?

Let’s say, non-causal.

I’ll take that as a “no comment.” Okay, to continue?

Merely label this as speculative, even though to do that cuts against your (and others’) assumption that “the other side knows everything.”

Yes, that’s the source of anxiety, isn’t it. How to bring forth information not “that can’t be proved,” for all of it comes under that label, but also “that I don’t feel sure of,” which is a different thing entirely.

And, bearing in mind that our communications with you are quite as much about illustrating the process as about conveying a view, you can see that our venturing out into deeper waters (you and us together) is itself worthwhile.

I will say, I don’t see how any of this can be speculative on your part.

No, nor [do you see] lies, nor fictions, nor self-aggrandizing fables, nor commands, nor any of the unreliable-to-pathological phenomena that have been reported over the years.

Joe Fisher’s hungry ghosts, for instance.

Certainly. Poltergeists. Malicious or stupid or playful spirits encountered via light-headed experimentation with Ouija boards, say. Evil spirits. Malicious ex-humans determined to exert the dominance they exerted in 3D life. All the nightmares any alcoholic ever experienced in his worst seizures, or a drug addict’s. The world is not good without evil. (If it were, how could you have the concepts?) Why would you expect every phenomenon not to extend between the two, similarly?

And it all shades off into the vast impersonal forces that populate the non-3D.

Greater clarity on any subject may be obtained by proceeding in either direction: more detail, or greater extension. Better than either, though, is both. But it is not a quick and easy process.

And enough for the moment, I get that. My ears are ringing, and I don’t think it is because I am channeling Alexander Graham Bell, nor Don Ameche. But my nose is cleared up and my breathing is easy. This is the strangest process.

We remind you – all of you – that life offers more resources than you commonly utilize or become aware of. But there is always more light to dawn, if you are open to it.

Thoreau, in Walden. Okay, thanks as always, and we’ll see you next time.

(3 a.m.)


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.