The Interface: An answer, not the answer

Jane Coleman email:

[“Who uses the view from all the windows?”

[“A question of enough magnitude and importance to intimidate you.”

[And for good reason. We can know that our greater self values the unique window, but who is that a gift for or to? We could probably track that all the way back to Source, but that would still leave the question of, why create all of this? Did Source spin out sparks of itself so that each might become something unique and reflect back to Source its magnificence? Is physicality a wonderful, cool game of hide-and-seek, and we just forgot we were playing? Is it a game that offers us a chance to forget we are one and pretend that there is duality and separation?

[That’s all a good reason to be intimidated about what the answer could be! So, what if the answer isn’t THE answer (as in scripture)? What if it’s just the best answer for the moment, the answer that fits our current understanding? Might take some pressure off of you, Frank. And it would still take us to new places in our journey.]

Jane has a point: I’ll be asking for an answer, not confusing it with the answer. I have never trusted glib answers like, “We’re all just walking each other home.” So how about giving us your take on it? We’re each a unique window: fine. But as has been asked, who is looking at the view? What’s it all for?

Perhaps always a good idea to remember that no answer is necessarily the answer. For however truthful and knowledgeable a source, any answer can always be improved upon.

I get that. We on our end and maybe on your end as well can always become more capable of understanding. We can always broaden our control

Yes. And an answer that will satisfy your today would not have done so previously, perhaps, and perhaps will no longer do so in the future. You may change; circumstances may change; and the truth itself may change.

I get a vague sense of matters progressing so that what was true is no longer true.

This is your whole experience of life, is it not? Ohio was a wilderness, a raw frontier colony, a bustling hub of a young nation, a part of the rust belt – and other things before and after. Any description of Ohio that did not take into account context could not possibly do it justice, and part of context obviously is  – time. Things change.

We aren’t in the habit of thinking that the meaning of life changes.

You also aren’t in the habit of seeing the meaning of life.


It is the habit of thinking of things as snapshots rather than as movies that distorts your understanding.

  • Any conceptualization is based on who you are at a given moment.
  • It is based on an impossible but unconsciously assumed idea that reality does not change.
  • It tries to understand All-D reality in terms of 3D limitation of time and place.
  • It begins with unconsciously held limitations of probability, of laws of morphology, of acceptability.

Can you unpack that for us?

  • Limitations of probability. That is, “Things can only proceed within this certain range of possibility, and within that range, some ideas are more likely (more acceptable) than others.”
  • Limitations of morphology. That is, “Things can only change in certain ways or within certain limits. Anything else must be fantasy or at least error.”
  • Limitations of acceptability. Certain outcomes will not be considered, being repugnant either to feelings or to logic or to another unconsciously held tenet

All right. So is it hopeless to pursue the subject?

Sure, just as it is hopeless to try to understand history or geology or anything else by diligent study and thought.

Don’t break your sarcasm machine.

We smile. Then don’t overwork your futility generator. Any pursuit may be useful, only don’t set your expectations too high. And since you can never know in advance what is “too high,” this means not “Carefully bound your exploration,” but “Carefully bound your expectations.”

So, here’s a question: What’s life all about? If we’re windows on the 3D world, who’s looking through them, and why does it need to? Etc.

Bearing in mind everything just said.


You are forgetting “As above, so below.” The universe – life – doesn’t go from 3D-you to the All That Is in one leap. Always there are gradations, things that are communities of lesser beings, units of higher beings, which in turn are members of greater communities.

Yes, it’s true I wasn’t considering that. So the answer is, our next higher level of being is using us as data-gatherers, so to speak.

Slowly, slowly. Really concentrate for this one. Recalibrate and allow, because what you can receive here will be more by intuition than by reasoning or even attention – and certainly more than by blind acceptance.

And I get, that goes for those reading this, too.

It always does, in the sense that careful slow absorption allows for connections and insights to seat in, while speed-reading or scanning does not. But particularly now, yes, because this is our farthest stretch yet, at least for most.

All right. Recalibrating, then.

The metaphor of windows on the world is a good one, but it needs to be supplemented by others lest it be taken inappropriately concretely. So add to it (not “substitute for it”; add to it) the analogy of how your 3D-consciousness incorporates your 3D-bodily signaling.

Let me rephrase. Our cells and organs are continually experiencing the world and reporting their status to the next higher organizing principle. This is how any complex organism can live, a system of reporting and feedback. Command and control. So, the window-on-the-world analogy, only with a different emphasis. We are cells or organs performing a function, experiencing the world, reporting on what we experience, being used by our higher selves in their purposes.

Yes, not bad. But now slow down again, very slow. Don’t let alluring chains of speculation overtake your ability to listen to the explanation you ask for.


Never forget, there is an inherent contradiction in your situation. You (we) are always part of something larger (and we are always a generalization of things smaller), but you always consider yourself, experience yourself, as a unit. This can’t be helped, but you can see that it is going to warp your perceptions.

I do, when you remind me.

Just as the Monroe retrieval process considers you as if you were a unit rescuing other units who may have gotten disoriented in the after-death reorientation process.

Yes, I get it. It functions that way, but with time we come to see that it implies our being guided as we offer assistance, and ultimately implies our being part of a larger intelligence that uses us as willing agents. And your words over time have shown us that there can be no such thing as a soul absolutely on its own; rather, it loses sight of its greater extension, until reminded.

So you ask us, What’s the meaning of life, and of course the truest answer is going to have to depend upon how much you can absorb. In other words, what are your conscious and unconscious assumptions about who you the questioner are. It is never true that one size fits all.

So you see, Jane’s helpful suggestion that you consider this an answer rather than the answer is appropriate because what is true for one will not be true for another, because it will fit into one person’s accepted context but not another’s.

And will fit today’s but perhaps not yesterday’s or tomorrow’s.

As we have said. It is a great mistake, but one that can be hard to avoid, to assume that things remain static.

So, for me, today?

You as you experience yourself is as a 3D-body in fairly good connection with non-3D components upward, and in less good connection with non-3D components downward.

Never thought of it that way, but that’s a pretty good description of people who are fixated on the beyond-physical to the extent of being out of touch with the basis of the physical.

Correct. People needing an in-body experience, as you sometimes say. But it need not go to extremes. The tendency is worth noting, however.

You do not experience yourself – except conceptually – as one part of a larger being spanning lifetimes, times, spaces, dimensions, unimaginable experiences that are unimaginable mostly because they would require you to redefine yourself in ways that would seem too good to be true, or would seem fantasy, or would seem threatening in their strangeness. As your ability to perceive yourself in these ways fluctuates, so does your experience.

Now, this has required your hour to go this far, but perhaps you will agree that it has not been time wasted. More another time.

Valuable nuggets here already. Our thanks as always.

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.