Intent and counter-intent

Tuesday, November 19, 2019

5:45 a.m. So, gentlemen, what you began yesterday hared off in a different direction, did it not? You started by saying you wanted to look at “better or worse” in terms of “good and evil” and the vast impersonal forces flowing through our lives. You wound up comparing us to light bulbs, then to circuit boards and indicating that practicing ILC may help us live lives that are more – well, alive.

So where is the perceived detour?

As I looked back, in framing my question, I saw that perhaps it flowed more directly than I had realized. But we haven’t really gotten to what you promised.

All in good time, and of course not necessarily in any straight line.

Well, we’re willingly in your hands. Do proceed.

This is one more reason why it is so important that you do the work to draw explicitly so many connections you have made implicitly during our time together. Nobody else can do this in just this way, because nobody else had the sparks jump essence to essence rather than via intermediary personalities. Others will summarize in other ways, and many will be valuable and all will be different combinations, but only you, Frank, who have been party to these conversations throughout, can convey so many unseen connections. The dialogues are well and good, but they are but the superficies, the surface, of a deeper connection which it will be as well to express to the extent possible.

You think, “They are stalling,” but not so. For us to discuss good and evil, for instance: We have been doing so all along, only you must be able to read between the lines. Good and evil; free will and predestination; the meaning of life; 3D in relation to non-3D; the vast impersonal forces; emotion, feeling and thought; the interrelation of lives that you tend to call “past” lives and present; the place of 3D life within the overall scheme of things –. Is any of these a separate topic, able to be understood in isolation? Yet of course we have to examine each in isolation temporarily in order to get a better idea of what is involved, prior to reexamining them as they interrelate. And, trust us, they do! There are no hard and fast boundaries in the world (in reality, in the entire scheme of things, say it as you will). But anything that you examine, you are likely to misperceive in the absence of the context in which it fits. Good and evil, better and worse, are certainly cases in point.

You will remember that we drew a distinction between momentary and permanent. Yes, we feel your hesitation at the word permanent. Say “enduring” if that is easier for you.

It’s just, I guess I distrust absolutes.

Claro. That distinction is the key to many tricks of perspective that cloud one’s vision in 3D. To take as an enduring presence what is really a transient phenomenon, even if a recurring one, is to mistake the nature of reality to that extent.

I always have this painful awareness of us trampling ground well familiar to philosophers, scientists, theologians, etc. and perhaps merely exposing my own ignorance.

That unease is part of the admission price; or you could look at it as part of your contribution to the work, a sacrifice willingly and repeatedly made, if uncomfortably. And after all, sometimes it is only those who inquire earnestly and ignorantly who discover new ways to see things. Nor are you blundering about on your own however it may seem to you.

So, good and evil, better and worse.

  • To call you circuit-boards is less accurate than to call you self-repairing firmware. That is, you are not molded once for all; you are set into motion and you reshape yourselves as you go.
  • The difference between firmware and a virus is fidelity to the original intend of the designer, as opposed to intentional perversion of that intent.
  • Does this not shed light on what earlier pre-computer generations discussed in terms of good and evil?

That’s very interesting.

We thought it might strike you.

Fidelity to intent v. intent to disrupt or to hijack.

And of course that implies an intent, as well as a counter-intent.

And a pre-cybernetic age wouldn’t have anything in the 3D world to use as example.

Wouldn’t even have electricity as a force of transmission, to serve as example.

That’s very interesting.

So you see, all our theological excursions and asides and “interruptions” were in fact directly on point. Only, we have so much unconscious resistance to overcome. People in your age, struggling out of the cocoon of earlier ages, are highly suspicious of anything that seems to them to threaten a regression to those terms.

Well, who wants to be back in the clutches of the Kirk in Scotland or the Church of Rome? I see your point. But they’re throwing away the baby with the bathwater.

And maybe the baby lands softly in the grass and no harm done. How long does the baby need to stay in the dirty bathwater?

So now we are at the unanswerable question of whose intent, whose counter-intent.

Only, not unanswerable in terms of their effects in your 3D lives; unanswerable only in details that are not important. You want God’s photograph? Or, you want the biographical details of the programmer who designed the software you are running, or the firmware that you are? Rhetorical questions, these. The important thing is this. You cannot get the answers to the questions that torment you if you automatically and beforehand eliminate a whole class of human inquiry.

In other words, people being afraid of the word “God” can’t get the value out of prior theological speculation, experience, and advice.

It is a form of self-inflicted blindness similar to that suffered by those who willingly limit their lives by the rules and permitted perception of a given church (including the churches of materialism or science). In looking at prior theological inquiry, we have always advised you to listen to the experience and the conclusions and disregard the rules and prohibitions that were derived from them. Not that you can live without the law, but that you must be a law unto yourselves.

Quod licit Jovi, non licit bovi. [Just because something is permitted to Jupiter doesn’t mean it is permitted to cattle.]

Correct. But be careful to see which you are in a given context!

Very funny.

No, that is a serious point. It is one pitfall people encounter in their search: the tendency to overrate their progress, their understanding. So, to be a law unto yourselves means not, “Anything goes,” but rather, “Draw your own boundaries of behavior and stray not beyond them without reason.”

Enough for now, mostly because we are up to a large topic not well served up as an afterthought.

Okay. As so often, our somewhat bemused thanks for all this. Till next time.

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.