TGU on communicating

Saturday, May 8, 2021

3:45 a.m. So, last time you said we could continue our discussion by looking into the question of how, if all paths are good, there can be right and wrong. Also, how we can tell one from the other.

But you are not quite awake enough. Give the coffee a few minutes to do its magic.

Every time I do that, I wind up napping for 45 minutes or so.

And the problem with that is – ?

None I guess. Okay.

4:25 a.m. So I checked my email, and there was a response from Rich Spees with not only the “how-to” I had asked him to find, but the file resulting from the question, which is a listing of all my posts from 2007, when I began it, till now. I fiddled with the format, saved it, but I can see already what it will and will not help me to do. I was hoping that a printout of titles would provide an outline of the information we’ve been getting. It won’t, per se, but it will remind me of running projects, like Thomas, like Only Somewhat Real.

Then, lying down for a moment, I had two insights. Have I forgotten one of them already?

One was, of course a cellular structure in our minds, our psyches. Otherwise it would be chaos. Asking for a life with no barriers is asking for something we can’t handle. We need to find a more appropriate thing to ask for. As Emerson said, don’t trust children with edge tools. That is pretty important, and has health implications – physical health, not merely mental health (and of course that’s a false distinction anyway).

What was the other insight I had? Well, lost, maybe. If important no doubt it will return.

So, guys, to the question you want to address.

Recognize from the outset that different nozzles produce different effects, as we said some while ago. Considering each of you as a specialized tool, you should expect that you will produce individualized products in an individual way. So, one person’s preference may be so strong as to make it obvious to that person that this is the only way to see things, the only way to do them. Thus, intuition, or perhaps careful cognition, or perhaps some combination of the two, or perhaps other modes of processing. Others may still have a preference, yet recognize that other valid preferences may exist. What we’re saying here is merely that your mental structure shapes how much of reality you can recognize, and shapes how you will deal with what you see as reality. Not an abstruse point, but one to keep in mind as we go. To some extent, we are always describing what appears to each of you as a different thing, so we are having to try to make statements that will be valid when seen from sometimes radically different perspectives. This is a difficulty also seen in writing scriptures, by the way.

Remind me not to try to write The Gospel of Frank.

Anyone writing (or living) their truest truth is writing The Gospel of themselves. That’s the nature of truth v. error, or let’s say of integrity v. fashion.

Now, bearing in mind that our generalized description is going to be somewhat distorted in translation as each of you hear it in the context of your own version of reality, let’s look at “all paths are good” as it plays out in the garden where people have decided to see unavoidable 3D polarities as good or evil.

Huh! Just putting the question in that way clarifies the problem.

For you it did. For others, it will. For yet others, though, equally intelligent, equally sincere, equally curious, it will not have done, because their reality-conceptualization structure will have impeded.

I begin to see the problem in specific as well as in general.

Good. If we can make clear that this is a problem that always has been here, always will be here, then in looking back on previous work, some ambiguities or vaguenesses will perhaps be more easily understood. And it is the understanding of this inherent difficulty that is as potentially useful as anything specific we may say on any topic at all.

Yes, I get it. Once we learn to read the message through that difficulty – once we learn to keep the difficulty in mind – we will be better able to penetrate to the intent, rather than perhaps getting stuck on specific phrasing.

That is true as stated, but it is also deeper than that. You will be able to see that Seth, say, or Paul Brunton or Edgar Cayce or whomever, may contradict each other in effect, without any of them being incorrect or intending to mislead. So, Swedenborg. So, the writers of scriptures. So, for that matter, scientists and philosophers. The confusion of languages referred to in the story of the Tower of Babel is not confined to languages per se – Armenian, Chinese, Ashanti, etc. – but also refers to inability to understand one another because of different assumptions about reality.

We say, “They’re living in a different world.”

Exactly. And, in truth they are. You all are, to some extent. And paradoxically, if it were not for your non-3D connections, you could scarcely communicate in 3D at all!

Side-trail, no doubt, but would you mind spelling that out just a little?

• Temporary group mind.
• Words as sparks rather than as concrete blocks forming structures.
• Your mind – our mind – living in non-3D, extending into
• Intuitive flashes.
• The difficulty of thinking as opposed to the ease of free-associating.
• The impossibility of demonstrating that the same word “means” the same thing to different people.

Enough?

Well, I don’t know. I get it, but how would I know who else does or doesn’t?

Precisely. Welcome to our dilemma. But those who can hear it, will hear it, as Jesus kept saying.

Interesting.

You see, this is why we somewhat tediously (for some of you) spell out context as we go along. It would be so much faster just to speak in a shower of bullet-points, but how much of it would you understand?

Ah. Bronson Alcott’s Orphic Sayings.

Exactly. It meant something to him, but to very few others. Even the man who set them into print could not understand them. But if Alcott had had Emerson’s facility with the pen, he could have provided the context that would have rendered them accessible.

Interesting idea. Could we do for Alcott what we did for the Gospel of Thomas? That would be an impressive achievement.

We could try. It’s up to you, really. It would be easier, in a way, because most people have no idea what Alcott was talking about.

So the pressure on me would be less.

It would, provided you allowed it to be.

Okay, got it. But we haven’t made really impressive progress on the question we set out to address.

We meet your smile. No, but perhaps our time has not been wasted, either.

Can we say anything on the subject in the time remaining?

In a sense we said all that needs to be said when we rephrased the question. Copy it here.

“… let’s look at “all paths are good” as it plays out in the garden where people have decided to see unavoidable 3D polarities as good or evil.”

Right and wrong, good and evil, are polarities that exist and are therefore real, but they don’t mean quite what they may be assumed to mean. They look different to different combinations of experience and traits – in other words, to different temperaments.

So therefore choosing among them isn’t quite what we might think, either.

Let’s say, different reality-pictures lead to different assumptions. So to Puritans the entire world is a moral struggle, while to a Unitarian, say, it may be a choice among rational alternatives, and to a fundamentalist of another stripe – in whatever religion, or of no religion at all – life is a matter of strictly following explicit rules.

Same world? Same rules?

Not as seen by us, no.

Yet you each extend into non-3D. Do you suppose we in non-3D are divided by belief-systems?

I kind of do, actually.

Of course we are. And at the same time, we are not. Our cellular walls are more porous, you might say.

And let us leave off here, for the moment. More another time.

Very interesting as usual. Our thanks, also as usual.

—–

Frank DeMarco, author

Papa’s Trial: Hemingway in the Afterlife, a novel