How to break through

Sunday, October 10, 2010

6:30 AM. So, yesterday Jim Meissner calls, he’s frustrated about [this gadget he’s inventing], can’t get the information he needs, Carol can’t get it but says Frank can. Can they come over? So, they do, and I provide him very fluently with information that comes to me which he seems to find very significant, important, plausible. Me, I’m just being a know-it-all.

Why? How? I get that something has changed and I have a vague idea of redefining something about how I receive information, though I can’t remember when I told him, I seem to have released Story about who or what I can access. So I’m asking, what has changed, and how? And, if appropriate, why?

You don’t suppose that five months of continuous practice – 150 hours plus – could have had any effect, do you?

I suppose it is barely possible.

And a month – not to say two years – of robot-work?

Yes, well?

Control panel access as an important metaphor?

All right, but why particularly yesterday?

Mostly because yesterday is when you were asked the question, in the confidence, via Carol Monroe, that you would know.

That’s very interesting. So now I could answer the kinds of questions I’ve never been able to answer?

Did you notice the air of recklessness you had, yesterday? You weren’t weighing the information, you were just stating it as fact.

Now that you mention it.

You went way beyond your comfort zone – and produced information even though you didn’t really have a feel for it.

Yes, it was almost like Psychic’s Disease.

Well, it is the other extreme of the actual process, which you have perhaps discounted until now. That is, it is receiving information entirely unsupported by logical or reasoning processes. Not that it couldn’t be supported by either or both logical or reasoning processes, and certainly not that it couldn’t be supported after the fact, but certainly not in advance or at the time. And this is an advance for you in a way we can scarcely trace. You feel it, but to help you to express it or comprehend it would be another matter.

Perhaps not necessary?

Necessary – desirable, anyway – if you wish to instruct by example, because your obstacles and the overcoming of obstacles have been your mode of teaching.

Well, it isn’t like I’m not interested. Go ahead.

Some people start from one end, others from the other. For some, the experience itself is the glamour, and they want it badly enough to allow themselves to believe nearly anything rather than have to think that they may not be tuned in. Others are worried about the quality and veracity of the information, and their very scrupulosity hampers the access they equally strongly want. And of course many people alternate from one pole to the other, depending on inner and outer circumstances. Nor is anyone likely to be at either extreme end of the spectrum; the examples are based on a logical model, but as Yeats said, there is no life at the light or the dark of the moon.

I have experienced both reactions.

Of course you have. And you, learning slowly and applying steadily and experiencing sudden increments of ability, serve (as intended) as the bridge, the recorded experience that encourages.

Fine with me. So what just happened?

What just happened is that in a moment of physical weakness (lowered vitality due to prolonged illness) and in the presence of an irrational expectation of the kind you respect (Carol’s certainty that you could provide the information) and in the habit of expanded awareness that you have developed over so many months of work, you escaped the bounds you had placed around your ability. Or, you laid down certain threads connected with story and picked up others closer connected to direct perception. Or, the ringmaster allowed certain members of the person-group to take greater prominence both because the time was finally right and because certain other members were suppressed or distracted or discouraged. See it as you will. Any of these ways of saying it are equally approximately true.

It sounds so simple.

It is simple, and it is easy, yet it is like Upton Sinclair said about his friends’ drinking.

Yes, he said they always said they could stop drinking anytime they wanted to, only they could never seem to want to.

Not at all a bad analogy, if a bit forced. You can open up to your psychic (indeed, your supernatural-seeming) abilities whenever you want to – if you can only bring yourself to want to. Yesterday, you wanted to.

What is mildly frustrating to me is presumably mildly frustrating to others – how is it that consciously we can want to, yet be unable to? We can ask the same question about asthma or any physical or emotional or mental problem, for that matter.

Or any seemingly external situation. It’s the same thing. And our answer is, well, how do you finally do what you long consciously wanted to do but were not able to do? It isn’t just wishing hard enough.

No. The Philadelphia Savings Fund Society used to say [in commercials], “wishing won’t do it, saving will.” Those were pre-inflationary days, however.

The principle is correct, because embedded in “wishing” is the perception that what is wished for cannot be. It is when you move from wishing to intent, to determination, to envisaging, that you move from a clear perception of a futility to a clear perception of a goal.

Very well put. I see that distinction clearly, once you phrase it like that.

Now sometimes a wishing is a sort of place-holder, a reminder to yourself of a value that cannot yet be put into place. “I wish that everybody could just get along.” “I wish that I were in better control of this or that characteristic.” “I wish I knew how to do X and such.” This is a valid and useful, unless and until it becomes a substitute for a change in state.

Not sure how you change to bring about world peace.

That’s all long and fruitful discussion for another day. For now, consider things that do not present themselves to you as “external.” Even asthma. You could look at it as external, for certainly you don’t want it, or you could look on it as the external result of physical causes some of which are under your control, in which case it is more evidently a manifestation than an imposition. In either case but more productively if you adopt the latter view, to wish it gone is one of two things. It is a wishing instead of action, or a wishing while awaiting. Those two kinds of wishing are very different things, though they share the same word. It is the difference between incoherent fantasizing and disciplined envisioning, for instance.

Enough for now. Good work yesterday on taking notes, and Friday. It can be a quicker easier task than seems reasonable.

Well, we’ll see. Thanks for this.

One thought on “How to break through

  1. ‘Funny’ how guidance lifts up TGU’s words to point toward better ways of living … words and ways I resonate with.
    “… move from wishing, to intent, to determination, to envisaging; that moves you from a clear perception of futility to a clear perception of a goal.

    The difference is between incoherent fantasizing and disciplined envisioning … if you can only bring yourself to want to be different. “

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.