Sunday, October 24, 2010
6 AM. I’m sort of forgetting how to work. But there’s not much point in continuing to accumulate material that some people are finding valuable and then not putting it into more definite form.
I got, yesterday, in a joint attempt with Dirk to broaden my communication with Joseph Smallwood, a sense that Joseph is a strand within me, and that by concentrating so as to allow that strand to come forward now, I could get closer. If he can come close enough, can make links with my conscious mind – the group-mind, from his point of view – I can learn what he has to teach.
But I have been unable to do that, so far. I’m willing (as far as I know) but haven’t found the key.
It will involve a change in feeling. It is not a matter of change of thought or thought patterns. It is not a matter of pretending, either, or of trying.
And I got that pushing for names, dates, numbers etc. is using the left brain to access right brain material, in a way. It can be done but it cuts against the grain.
Well, Joseph, it has been nearly five years, and I have sometimes felt like I was getting close to access the facts and sometimes not, but have always felt close to feelings, even when I suspected the facts were being made up as we went along, or when the facts as presented were wrong, or when things you and even I must have known hid themselves. I did persevere, but I feel like I could do so much more if I could see something that is right in front of me.
Remember the control panel. All right,
access to strands:
0 |—————————-x———–| 100%
Marked maybe two thirds open
Access to group-mind
0 |————————-x————–| 100%
marked about 60% open. A surprise.
Any reason not to move both to 100%?
Discomfort, disorientation perhaps.
Nah, let’s go.
0 |—————————————-| 100% strand
0 |—————————————-| 100% group
At the last minute, hesitated.
What of the person-group mind? Me? What I think of as me?
That’s the discomfort involved.
Do I presently have access to 100% of my person-group?
Of course not. And this is the human task, you see, to increase that access.
Well, let’s try that.
- |—————————————-| 100%
0 |—————————————-| 100%
0 |—————————————-| 100%
[But then I hesitated to set them.] A mistake, there. Instead of setting by will, perhaps I should allow my own group-mind to set it on my behalf?
It’s your choice. You are in the body, you are in the present-tense.
I don’t want had to wait any longer. Would it be unsafe to set them all to 100%?
Why not do it in increments? Ninety percent would be more than enough for you to experience major leaps and still be there to leave a record for others.
More footprints. All right. Let’s set all three slide-switches to 90%, and we’ll see what happens. That means I am 90% open to input from all strands, and 90% open to all parts of myself (and this implies a question I’ll take up later) and 90% open to input from those of you that function with respect to me as higher-level mind, or a mind to which I function as a strand.
I’ve done it. Let it happen. Now – a question. How are there parts of myself (my person-group) that are not strands? I’d have thought they would be the same thing except I went with the tide.
Think in terms of your personal shadow. The things you have thought, done, felt, experienced, that are painful or shameful or embarrassing or that for whatever reason you systematically exclude from your consciousness. You will remember that Carl Jung spoke of suffering being the cause of neurosis when refused. This is a way to look at it. When you artificially restrict your consciousness to avoid knowing what you otherwise would know but can’t bear, or choose not to bear, the result is a constriction that impedes your functioning and binds your circulation, so to speak.
You must embrace these shadowed selves, these dwellers in the darkness.
Similarly, those parts of yourself that you don’t approve of.
Similarly, the parts that have lived undiscovered through your timidity or your scorn or through whatever variant of fear that has prevented you from departing from a constricted idea of who you are, so that you might experience greater life, life more abundant.
I see that. A wider embrace results in a more effective instrument, a better functioning tool, a more penetrating vision.
What you are, what you experience yourself to be, is in at least two parts: your constricted consciousness and your natural-result-of-your-makeup consciousness. The former is always more constricted than the latter. You never think yourself greater than you really are; you may however have a distorted view of yourself that produces exaggerations in a given direction. It always provides a distortion in compensating directions. That is, and put cause and effect as you will, inferiority complexes and superiority complexes are always hand in hand. It is a bulge in one part of the balloon and a squeeze in another part. Neither reflects the true balloon as well as the absence of either or both would do.
And these shadow-elements – are they all the result of things that occur in this lifetime as opposed to “past-life” stuff?
That “as opposed to” is the problem. There is no “as opposed to.” There is only “is.” We do of course understand your intent but it’s important to begin with that reminder. Everything is always now. To imply anything else is to imply that everything else is “dead.” But there is no “dead” just as there is no “past” in that sense.
The confusion is because the present moment in which everyone lives is always the tip of the wave relative to the rest of the ocean from the perspective of the person on the wave. Which is everybody. Which is always, or eternity. The other way of thinking leaves the vast majority of the reality – the past, the future – dead relative to the one living sliver. It looks that way, but it only looks that way. Have you not experienced it with Lincoln and Jung and Hemingway? They are alive but alive in a different way because from your vantage point they are not on earth. The dead (and death is of course a reality, even though it is not what it appears to be) the dead do not have your vantage point. They are not on earth, so have not that point of application, except –
(We want to make sure you and others hear this)
Except within the time they were created in, and of, and for.
Do you understand? Frank DeMarco was born. He developed. He, in short, lived. He died. And he lives forever within the years of his life, just as Joseph, or Carl Jung, or Hemingway, or anybody – your Aunt Tillie, as you used to say and have forgotten you used to say.
If you in (the dead past of) 1994 could alter Joseph’s life in (the dead past of) 1863, how could either “dead past” be dead? The moments were alive. But Joseph couldn’t step from his tent into the Gettysburg of 1994 any more than into the Gettysburg – or Virginia – of 2010.
Does that limitation make him less alive?
You are no longer in 1994 – or rather, the part of you that surfs the wave of the present no longer connects to that moment. Does that make you now, or you then, less alive?
The fact that feelings have no time should tell you something. The fact that past-life connections are real and tangible (metaphorically tangible, but certainly tangible mentally and via emotions) should tell you something.
Hence the materialist nightmare is a prison constricting your ability to feel it as “realistic” or “commonsensical” to contact or interact with any part of yourself not allowed by the dogma. Similarly, religious strictures may prevent you from experiencing parts of reality because you fear or exclude or reject or cannot let yourself know them.
What of the 10% that I have temporarily (I hope) excluded by choosing to be only 90% open?
You will find that, as common sense would suggest, [that] you assimilate the closest, easiest, previously excluded elements first. The hardest stuff always comes last, just by definition. This means it is always a challenge and always a manageable challenge, because the remainder is always harder than what has been assimilated, and your resources are always greater because of previous growth.
Don’t start thinking of yourself as the Borg! Or, if you do, concentrate on the image of assimilation of previously antagonistic elements into a cooperating whole. But the element of force, and of coercion, and of aggression in any form, against anything considered still “external,” is totally inapplicable and, in fact, counter-productive.
Now do you see why love has no real opposite? Why it isn’t a warm and fuzzy abstraction of no practical application? Why one doesn’t “dare” apply it in the “real world”?
Your lives have two complementary tendencies, of course, for you live, as we do, within polarity. Love and fear coexist and, you might say, fuel each other. Each has its place. But for you to sign on for expansion and simultaneously to sign on for fear would be to say “let me change, provided I don’t change.” And of course this is just what people do say. When you reach 100% acceptance, where is there room for fear? This is not foolhardiness but realism, calm, wide-awake, tranquilly joyous realism.
Well, I can only report that I feel different, and have during this whole transmission once I moved the slide-switches.
But you fear, or worry, lest it will wear off. It is not the feeling but the reality that matters. In that sense the determination (the setting of the slide-switch) is more important than the awareness (the altered feeling you are experiencing), and more permanent.
This cannot help affecting my life, can it? I mean, it must become obvious. Or, a better way to say it, it will show through whether I am thinking of it or not.
More, in fact, when you are not.