Friday, April 30, 2021
3:35 a.m. To continue, then: You indicated that we would resume our discussion with the incident at the Shirley MacLaine Higher Self Seminar in 1987, and we can do that. Only – what is it we are pursuing, here? Looking back, I see it was supposed to be about JFK’s continuing relevance to me today. It got tangled in the idea of sparking others, and segued to my experience of Bub.
This one time – we don’t recommend it as a general way of proceeding, but this once – find the piece on your computer and re-read it first, then we will proceed.
4:10. Well, that was frustrating enough. I did finally locate the article I’d written for the Virginian-Pilot about the seminar, and no mention of Bub. Re-read my physical (i.e. handwritten) journal #40, and find only this mention, from January 30, the Friday after the weekend: “A real good talk with Paul. Told him of [several things]. And of Bub as soul-mate. And he was impressed to hear of the dream I’d had of Bub saying “The first 40 years were mine. These are yours.”
It’s so disconcerting! That isn’t how I remember it at all. I would have sworn I wrote about it in my VP article, or, failing that, in Muddy Tracks. And I remember it as an experience I’d had there, not as a dream I’d had, of which I see no other record than this brief mention to Paul. Yet I seem to remember writing about it, somewhere!
I didn’t begin copying physical entries into a computer until 1989, but still I would have thought to come across it somewhere.
So I suppose you’ve proved whatever point you wanted to make. And so – ?
Think how disillusioning it would have been if we had proceeded as if your memory were correct, only to have you then go looking for what didn’t exist. Wouldn’t it tend to shake your faith that we are real?
Yeah. Yeah. But you have a point.
It is often a problem: How do we proceed in the face of your misremembering, or your wrong concepts that lead you to pose questions expecting them to be answered from a nonexistent standpoint? Not a problem limited to us and you, of course.
And if you hadn’t seen that brief memory of your phone conversation, you might have come to doubt even that. As it is, you were tempted to displace your experience of your cousin that happened later, at Monroe.
Yes, I was, but I remembered that too firmly in a Monroe context to do that.
So you see, the theme here could easily center on difficulties in non-3D communication stemming from incorrect 3D memories. It is one of the obstacles. But let us continue as we originally began. Tell your experience as you remember it, realizing that “as you remember it” may not be accurate, though it may, but will be how it affects you.
Meaning – I take it – that our misremembering may be as useful as remembering accurately would be?
Not exactly. More like, “Even if you misremember, the way you misremember will tell you something.”
Ah, like what I tell people who are doubting something they get: “Say you are making it up, why are you making up this rather than something else?”
Exactly. How you shape or reshape, remember or misremember, tells you something, if you pay attention.
Okay. Well, I remember it as a vision, an experience, but Paul, I know, remembered me as having told him it was a dream, and my own handwriting says he was remembering rightly. In any case, it was after I had had a sense (in the workshop exercise) that my twin-soul was Bub, rather than any romantic embodiment I might have expected. I – dreamed, I guess, though all I can say is that it had to have been between Sunday the 25th and whenever I talked to Paul on Friday the 30th. All I can remember is Bub saying the first 40 years had been his [he died at 39] and the next were mine. Only the way I wrote it down after telling Paul was, “These are mine,” which is not the same thing as implying that I would have 40 years in turn. As it happens, I have already had nearly that, but I see the point here is that I misremembered.
No, that isn’t the point. Or at least, not the only point, not the main point. A little healthy skepticism of one’s memories is well and good, but we’re on a different trail at the moment. The point is, he inspired you during his life in something of the same way that JFK inspired you, and obviously it can have had nothing to do with politics or achievements. It had to do with your response to something he was, not something he did. In both cases.
All right. And – ?
The mythology you put around it (in both cases) says more about you and your needs than about the other. You responded to something in someone else (so it seems); another way to look at it is, something in someone else brought forth a response. But a third and more accurate way to look at it is, something within you was wanting to come out, and it found something “outside of you” that would allow it, or seem to compel it, even.
Is that any different, really, from what we call resonance?
No, it isn’t.
And so – ?
So that is the point.
Yes. Think about it and we can discuss it. 3D and non-3D connection can only be a matter of some form of coupling of energy, clearly. What may not be so clear is, it is the same in 3D and 3D. It looks like you respond to each other’s actions. Really, you are answering the call of resonance.
Even though we haven’t covered many pages, it’s five of five, thanks to my losing time rooting around unsuccessfully in my computer files. So I guess we’d better stop. Pretty much before we got started, seems to me.
As usual, you undervalue the journey. We did all right.
If you say so. Till next time, then.