Date March 3, 2012, I find this email exchange interesting from this distance in time. My friend might not appreciate my naming him, so I will leave him unnamed. Apparently I had given him some or all of the manuscript that became The Cosmic Internet. In what follows (mildly edited), first come his feedback comments (which I have preceded with a sideways caret and put into itals) and then my response to him at the time. If we pursued the subject further, I don’t remember it.
> I’m really interested in what you’re doing — as I would characterize it — pursuing a dialogue with your subliminal mind. That doesn’t mean the subliminal mind (as I understand it via Myers) may not be a trap door into the infinite!
In past communications the guys have said that our minds are actually already part of that non-physical world, with the brain and nervous system serving as the intermediaries between the minds and the strictly physical world of the body. In the sloppiness of oral conversation I know I make it sound like after we die our minds become part of that world, but actually we are part of it all along, and as we change, we thereby change (to however small a degree) the overall world on other side.
I think that in making a distinction between “past life communication” and “telepathy” people make a distinction without the difference they think it is. If what the guys have sketched out for me is true, of course people are going to be unable to differentiate between “true” past-life communication and “super-psi.” How are you going to find a difference where no difference exists, or where the fault-line is not where you’re looking for it?
> What I was looking for is how you do it, and the question I wanted to ask was how you do it in light of your general theorizings. I was thinking on page 38, etc. and the discussion of “rings and threads”. How does that help us practically gain access to the “doorway” (Monroe’s) that you speak of. There are lots of things you say about this of value and you’re obviously in creative tune with your unconscious. As a reader, found myself a little impatient wanting to get to a more straightforward account.
Now that you bring it up, I can see that some readers might react that way. I thought it was straight-forward. I was out to present TGU’s explanations as a comprehensible, logical scheme. But as to the “how” of it, really, in this case it is more easily (and more often!) done than said. What I thought would be apparent is not that this is something we can learn to do, but is something that we already do, routinely, all the time. It’s another way of understanding the life we’re already living. You talk to your guys; you get ideas from them; they sometimes communicate with others through you, either from your intent or from your allowing words or acts to pass through you without your previous consent or full awareness.
(How many times have you said something to someone, more or less off-handedly, and found, then or later, that those simple words had a profound impact? For that matter, how many times have you been on the receiving end of the process? I think it happens to us all the time, and I think it’s the guys, working through us because human hear things from other humans that they would disregard if they thought it was just a “stray thought” from “within themselves.”)
If you wish, we can talk about the process I use to talk with the guys, but it’ll be a short discussion! There’s really nothing to it. We all do it all the time, but I removed a couple of conceptual barriers and the rest has followed.
> Maybe I was distracted by the apparent dialogue with excarnates, but their otherworldly identity seems obscure. I don’t think that ultimately matters as long as the content is engaging as it frequently is.
Yes, and it turns out that this was a big advantage, that I didn’t insist on identifying people ahead of time. As you know, we find our way by balancing Perception and Story. Too much insistence on Story can destroy or at least warp the ability to receive the Perception you’re after in the first place. The guys have said that one main qualification I bring to this work is that I have a high tolerance for ambiguity. This lets me go where angels fear to tread, and also allows me to turn around in my tracks and say, “Nope, that was a wrong number. Let’s try again.” If Joe Fisher had had more of those traits (and hadn’t been dealing with public pressure reinforcing his own need to be a publicly acknowledged authority) he might have found his road easier to follow. Or maybe not, but it seems that way to me. More than once, particularly in early years when I was trying to get the guys to predict the future for me, I was ready to give up. I too couldn’t imagine how the material could be wrong, and at one point I concluded that they were just lying to me, mischief-makers determined to hog as much of my attention as they could, however they could do it. I was fortunate to be able to push beyond that, and as time has gone on – and, dare I say it, as I have worked at integrating my own being and overcoming my own moral failings – the information seems to have become far more reliable.
> The discussions on your religious upbringing sound just like the things you would say.
This is just what you would expect, for two reasons.
One, except semantically, there is little difference between “them” Upstairs (or on the other side, or in the non-physical) and “me” Downstairs (or on this side, or in the physical).
Two, I’ve been having my world-view shaped and reshaped by these communications for more than 20 years now. After so much time and effort, I had to learn something!
> By the way, the expression ‘the guys upstairs’ reminds of something that Colin Wilson wrote about. I guess I like its chummy light-hearted spirit
Yes, they have said more than once that too much reverence is as distancing as is contempt. What of Colin’s does it remind you of?
> — but must they be “guys”? Sounds like the return of the all-male cast of divinity we learned in Sunday school!
It’s so interesting; I have gotten this same reaction from many people. The psychic who gave me this term (by example) was a woman! And I don’t know about you, but when I grew up “guys” as in “you guys” could be either men-only or all-inclusive, in a way that “gals,” say, can’t. No all-male bias implied or intended.
> I’m also ambiguous about casting this whole experiment with the mysteries of consciousness in light of a metaphor derived from computer technology.
Not derived from computer technology; derived from the inter-connective nature of consciousness made possible by the net. It is an analogy derived, if you will, from function.
> On the other hand, your title is suggestive in another way. I believe — and have written in several places — that technology is secretly driven by our psychic urges to expand our consciousness. Except that technology is a more efficient but ultimately degenerate way to expand consciousness.
I agree, except perhaps “ultimately degenerate way to expand consciousness” which I would like to hear more about.
Again, thanks for taking this seriously, asking good questions and proposing good objections.