Telepathy

Tuesday June 2, 2020

2:10 p.m. So let’s address this question of telepathy. I admit to being divided about it. Part of me believes it is still science-fiction, another part believes it may be in use (and of course not advertised, but lied about routinely) by whomever. So I don’t know what to believe and that makes it practically impossible to talk even to you about it.

It is a familiar dilemma for you.

It is. People who make up their minds and then don’t doubt don’t have this problem, I imagine. Do they have a problem with talking to their own guidance?

You shouldn’t think of a person and its guidance as separate; more like extensions of each other. That removes some of the conundrums.

Meaning, I take it, that one kind of person is not likely to have a different kind of non-3D existence.

As you would not expect to connect with a Hitler, so you shouldn’t expect a person of broad and mingled (and conflicting) sensibilities to connect with only one set of extremists. Alternatively, an extremist in 3D is unlikely to connect with a broad spectrum of non-3D sympathies.

But is there not often strife between a person’s 3D and non-3D minds? Between conscious and unconscious?

Certainly, strife, but what is that strife? Is it smooth cooperation, or jockeying for position?

The latter, I imagine.

Well? The result is that one experiences either confirmation from non-3D sources, or conflict within and among itself, or anything between the extremes.

And only those who are well integrated experience telepathy?

Scarcely that. The extremely unbalanced experience it, and often enough find their lives a nightmare of invisible contending forces.

All right, let’s look at our current group, tentatively bonding around shared ideas and internet contact with or without physical contact as well.. Could we learn to communicate telepathically? I mean, more specifically, is it within the realm of possibility? Can it be done, or is it a misunderstanding of reality and its potential?

Can you envision it? Then it can be done.

Oh, I think that’s a little strong, isn’t it?

Not at all. We didn’t say “Can you fantasize it,” like teleporting yourself to the surface of Jupiter and living there. We said – and say – if it is something you can envision, it is something that can be done.

Awfully flat statement.

Suppose we could add weasel-wording. Would that really help anything? If you can truly imagine it, that is a sign that it could be done. If you can only fantasize it, maybe it is worthwhile, maybe not, but neither way is it a sign that it could become fact.

I’m trying to think about this, rather than merely feeling my way toward a yes or no. Let’s define terms a bit. I already accept that we can share moods, apprehensions, even precognitive elements. Thus I’d say our non-3D minds can share a temporary group mind emotionally, and perhaps in common recognition of something. But could we learn to talk to each other and hear words rather than only emotional states?

That’s good work. Keep defining.

People experience guidance differently. Some as words, some as auditory phenomena, some as physical sensations, some as visuals, some as knowings, etc. Presumably such different ways of perception would characterize mind-to-mind communication. How would we turn that into the ability to convey information and receive it? To hold conversations, in other words.

Perhaps the assumption that conversations in words are necessary is a stumbling-block. Think of the Dalai Lama’s shaman helping him escape from the Red Army in 1959.

Quite specific guidance, the Dalai Lama said. Isn’t that words?

But the shaman didn’t “overhear” the Chinese army. He got direct feed on the situation and conveyed it by words.

So say I am connecting with a  friend across 3,000 miles. If we are connecting in the non-3D, distance is not relevant, of course. Any communication is going to be mind to mind. So if I get you, the trick to learn is to grok the message and translate it into words or a knowing readable by my 3D self.

Yes. Remote Viewing, so to speak.

Remote Viewing. I can see the analogy.

But you see, it isn’t an analogy. It is a different use of the same abilities.

So perhaps we need to do some joint design of some telepathy experiments based on RV protocols.

You might consider it.

 

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.