TGU The immortality of clusters

Tuesday, June 8, 2021

3:45 a.m. So let’s try again, after a day spent doing other things.

[On Monday, The Guys had begun with a promising paragraph: “Let’s continue from the vague realization of yours, that you continue after 3D as the individual you were, and as all your constituent parts as they existed separately before you were associated into your common life.” But I realized I was too tired to do a session. They said I should go back to sleep. “If we skip a day – as we have not done for a while – no harm.”]

You got a much better sense of where we’re going, in the past 24 hours. Proof that not only can it be worthwhile to take a break from routine, but also that listening, thinking, daydreaming, dreaming, can all help bring something new into better focus by – paradoxically, or anyway seemingly paradoxically – refraining from focusing, or, let’s say, by maintaining a very soft focus. A sort of unconcentrated concentration, an intent.

Yes, I got it. So let’s see if we can put into words anything of what has been coming into focus.

The problem with people’s usual models of the afterlife (beyond the implied assumption that it is after life, rather than being life itself) is that they concentrate on the individual as unit and forget about the individual as community. Yes, you as individual are immortal. So are your strands, and it is a tied-together immortality but not a unitary immortality.

Not nearly clearly expressed yet.

OF course not. We are only at the beginning. Let’s put out some aspects of the situation as bullet-points, to avoid premature gelling of the idea while we begin to sketch its complexity and diversity.

  • You in 3D life may experience various strands within you warring with one another.
  • Say each of these strands is itself a former life, a constructed-and-lived-in-3D assemblage of characteristics that learned to live together.
  • You – Frank, as an example – are one such community functioning as a unit.
  • Within you are, say, Bertram, a Christian monk of the Middle Ages, a Norman in England. And the Ancient Egyptian high priest you call Joseph the Egyptian. And the 19th century American frontiersman, trader and, for a while, soldier you call Smallwood. Katrina, a 20th century Polish-Jewish mixture who died before puberty. A frontierswoman of the 1700s in western Pennsylvania. Many others, some sensed and undefined, others who manifest in your attitudes but are perhaps unknown to you.
  • You think of each of these as strands – that is, as component parts of your Frank DeMarco persona and psyche – and so they are. But they are also individual-communities in their own right, and it is easy to lose sight of this.
  • Thus David, for instance, the English (Welsh, actually) journalist and psychic investigator. From his point of view, you – his “future life” – are as dependent as any other of his “past” and “future” lives.
  • But here is the thing: It is not a linear additive process. Joseph’s, David’s, Katrina’s non-3D components are each their own, not yours. That is, it is incorrect to assume that each or any of them share your psychic ancestry. They are each individual; they are not merely beads on a string.
  • Thus, Joseph has (let us say, arbitrarily, picking a number for the sake of illustrating the point) 50 “past-life” strands. And let’s say David does too, and you do too. There is no reason to assume that they are the same 50, or that any of you appear in the other’s chain of strands.

That isn’t said clearly. You mean, I as Frank include David and Joseph, but David doesn’t necessarily include Joseph except through me, and Joseph doesn’t necessarily include David except through me. It isn’t like Joseph, David, Katrina, etc. have any link to each other except me. They may, I suppose, but it is not necessary that they do.

Yes, that’s what we’re saying. You are each the center of a cluster of lives, the common denominator of many lives (lived within you as strands). You may each connect to other strands of your strands, but only by way of them.

That isn’t clearly said either. You mean, I may communicate with any of David’s stands, through David. But I may (or may not) have no other connection with them.

And remembering relativity, remember that each of you is the center of your universe, seeing all others as they relate to you. This is appropriate and helpful, so long as you remember that you are the center and so is every other strand seen from its center.

“You’re special, just like everybody else.”

It may have been said as a joke; it nonetheless contains truth. Now consider:

  • Each strand, each individual-community-in-its-own-right, has its reaction to others, its view of the world, its value system Each one “stands for certain things,” you might say.
  • Well, sometimes they find themselves bundled with other strands whose values they hate, or perhaps merely disagree with, or perhaps disregard, or perhaps can’t take seriously. In other words, every kind of relationship you can see between individuals in 3D may be seen (or, if unseen, nevertheless exist) within As we said in our initial bullet-point, various strands within you may be at war.

Now doesn’t this begin to illuminate 3D life in a way you may not have adequately considered? Many of your social interactions are – one might say – externalizations in 3D of internal conflicts. This is what the psychological mechanism known as projection is, the seeing in the shared subjectivity what is invisibly present within the community that you are.

You tend to think of other lives as finished. At best you think of them as being still alive and able to contribute from their viewpoint they developed in their 3D life. But it is more complicated, more animated and alive, than merely that.

I am getting it, in pieces. Each of us is like a star with its own planetary system, though this is a clumsy analogy. The fact that a star may be associated with another star (in a way that has no place in the metaphor) does not alter the fact that its primary being, its essence, concerns those planets first among all.

Rearrange the metaphor, to correct the relationship of dependence. Try genetics, though that will also be insufficient.

Yes. If we – oh, I know! Each of us in 3D is born into a family. Even orphans are born into families, though they don’t know who they are. Parents, grandparents, uncles, aunts, cousins, a whole family tree: Everybody has a family tree, known to them or not. And it doesn’t matter if you marry (once or many times); it doesn’t matter what relationships you forge, fleeting or permanent, intense or superficial – no matter what you do or don’t do, you are always going to be a product of your family tree.

And, as always, “As above, so below.” In non-3D it is the same. You are always a member of the strands of which you were created, but – just like the members of your 3D-family-tree – each has its own life, in which it is the center.

  • Each strand is a member of a family. So you might say that in participating in another 3D life, each one picks up in-laws, so to speak, permanent new relationships.
  • Each life of which you are one strand is in effect a child, from whom you may never by any means be dissevered, no matter how far from each other you may drift or no matter even if you come to have a loathing akin to medieval monarchs and their competitive offspring.

Now, all of this has its manifestations in your non-3D life “after” your 3D life. It isn’t you as an individual who continues to exist, it is you as an individual and you as a community, and you as a member of other communities. It’s a little more complex than many such schemes would have it.

I can see that. And lots of questions arise.

Serve them up as they occur to you, and we’ll see if we can provide answers that clarify rather than further muddle the picture.

Our thanks for this, as always. Till next time.


5 thoughts on “TGU The immortality of clusters

  1. Strands, Communities: Consider wave superpositions and wave-packets. They can feed into each other, form interference patterns, and also pass through each other. QM and QFT today believes waves and fields are more fundamental than particles. Interestingly, there are theories where waves also run backwards in time, thus the future “influencing” the past.

  2. Well, I’m confused. I understand bullet point one, how in 3D life conflicting strands can be brought together, but I thought the assumption was that in non-3D they don’t associate, and that was one of the “benefits” of 3D life – to stir things up. Now, I think you’re saying that those warring strands stay connected in non-3D. But I thought in non-3D all was harmony, all was well (at least I was hoping and looking forward to that). Does this mean that war and conflict are eternal? Yikes.

    1. My understanding is that in non-3D, you as an individual will not be seeing things from a single perspective like you do in 3D. You will see from a greater perspective, and those other strands that you do not agree with will be seen as having purpose within the whole. It is in 3D that you might judge others relative to your individual perspective, but in non-3D, they are what helped define your individual perspective. That is what is meant by your outer 3D interactions with individuals are a manifestation of your inner relationships of your strands. Seeing or interacting with them in 3D helped you define who you want to be.

      Without those other individual perspectives, you would not have a perspective at all, since you have nothing to compare your own preferences against. So in non-3D, you can see this fact is obvious in the bigger picture, that those perspectives you see as being disharmonious, are providing a service taking on that perspective.

  3. I’m no scientist by any means, but I think TGU are describing what Einstein captured in his theory of relativity, which explains the process of our existence in spacetime so well. The observer is all. Energy and mass are equivalent and transmutable. Frank sometimes wonders if he’s making it all up. I think this is a kind of proof that he isn’t–this isn’t the first time he fits with how scientists are understanding reality. He and TGU have certainly turned on some hall lights to expand my understanding of where we’re going and why.

  4. @Jane P — agreed. Your analogy to relativity theory makes sense. I’ve been reading Frank’s works since Sphere and Hologram, so this is really stitching things together for me too.

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.