Wednesday, June 23, 2021
5:50 a.m. So somehow you intend to use my thoughts about Jefferson’s morning room and Hemingway’s Key West writing room as your jumping-off place. I’ll be interested to see how you do it.
The link is to the continuing existence of the shared subjectivity, a fact often disregarded when people are concentrating on their own fate as individuals. To concentrate on what happens to one part of you and disregard what happens to other parts of you is guaranteed to result in a skewed perspective.
You do sometimes take my breath away by your sudden juxtaposition of what had seemed to be unrelated subjects, that suddenly produces – not clarity, not yet, but a moment of lightning-intense illumination that blinds even as it illuminates. Of course we need to take into account the “external” world we are part of. Proceed. You have my full attention.
Bear in mind, what is blindingly new to you may be very old insight indeed to others who live within different traditions. We have never claimed to be providing something original – how could we? Any originality is incidental because of the wrapping, so to speak. We – not only you in 3D – have our peculiarities and limitations and (to say it again in different words) our preferences and specializations. We, not only you. Don’t put yourselves on pedestals indirectly, which is what you are doing if you put us there.
So let’s return to those two shrines and see what the process around them may make clear.
You know the incidental history of Monticello post-Jefferson, and a bit of the history of the Key West house post-Ernest Hemingway. We will consider the two cases in parallel so that we don’t accidentally seem to be focusing upon either man (nor either house). We are focusing for the moment upon the rule of which each is an example. In both cases, the man who created and used that workspace dies (or, in Hemingway’s case, dies to that space; that is, withdraws his presence). Naturally, the space is repurposed. It is not left as it was when either man used it last. That is to say, there intervenes a long period of years in which the space is not a shrine, is not an untouched reminder of a presence. Then after a hiatus of years or decades, the space is re-created as best it can be. But “recreated” (even if recreated exactly) is not “preserved uninterrupted.” This is important for a seemingly trivial reason.
I get that. The fact is, visitors are encouraged (if only tacitly) to think it was untouched from that day to this. It lends authority to the site, in a way.
A little slower. Not wrong, but not yet as right as it might be.
It lends authority to the idea of being in the great man’s presence, separated only by time.
That’s closer, yes. Remember that the assumption of visitor and visitor center alike is that time separates. Visitors and staff may or may not believe that objects retain something of the owner’s energy, but they both tend to believe that he is gone. You may get an echo of him, you may imagine what he must have been like, what these surroundings must have felt like when he was there, but he is not there anymore, so, the better the window-dressing, the better the effect.
We do not say this with any intent to derogate. There’s nothing wrong with any of it, except that the mindset that results does not take into account that you are not only “more than your physical body” in the direction of being non-3D as well as 3D (as Monroe was helping people to experience); you are also “more than your physical body” physically. It is only the illusions of 3D that prevent you from having a rationale for these knowings.
You can explain what we’re giving you easier if you phrase it yourself, so do that and we will criticize if necessary.
Well, given that the 3D world is projected, there is no absolute difference between 3D material and non-3D material, as we have said. But that means – new thought to me – that what we have been calling the shared subjectivity, the “external” physical world, is not of a different nature from our own physically experienced selves in that world. We don’t merely connect to the physical world, we don’t merely extend to it, we are it, just as many philosophies and scriptures have always said. It isn’t just that the animals, say, are our brothers and sisters. We are a part of them, and share their substance. A part of us exists as the “external” world and continues to exist there after we as individuals are no longer in 3D bodies.
Very well done, for that involved continuing the exposition as it came to you, without pausing to consider whether you believed what was being said; whether it might be exaggerated or inaccurate or just downright fanciful. Nice work.
Thanks. I’ve had some pretty fair teachers.
So now let’s look at what you just expressed, and you can consider it. We would break it down into bullet-points, mostly to help show the component parts in their individuality and not merely in their net effect.
- No difference between 3D and non-3D ultimately; they are different aspects of one whole, looking different as 3D is projected from its source.
- You exist on both sides of the presumed divide: You in your larger sense include “you” as mind and you as your own body and you as part of your physical surroundings.
- Thus, in a sense, you pre-exist yourselves and post-exist yourselves, considering your existence within the shared subjectivity. You of the moment are always only a transitory phenomenon, in a sense, but a better way of saying that is that you always remain part of the time you live within.
But of course you do not usually experience yourselves or your lives that way. Why not, do you suppose?
I imagine the reason is cultural, as much as anything. Our culture teaches us as fact that we are alone and separate, and anything contradictory that we may feel is “only feelings” or even “only imagination.”
How many times, in how many debrief sessions at Monroe, did you hear someone expressing new thought or new experience by saying, “probably I’m just making this up but”?
Not over 100,000 times.
That is a way of escaping the “scientific” strait-jacket, you see, if only for a moment. “Probably I’m just making this up, but for a moment, looking at that typewriter, I could feel Hemingway’s presence. Looking at that device that would hold five books at a time for Jefferson, I could imagine him here, reading, studying, writing. Looking at those bookcases I could imagine his library, even knowing that these were not the books he actually owned.”
This is why we began by noting that the scenes had been recreated, not preserved. In a sense there is no difference. In a different sense, there is every difference. The point is that the thing you may feel in the presence is not the unaltered scene as it has come down through the ages, for in fact it did not come down unaltered, but was recreated. The energy is in the specific objects. The typewriter, the bed, the house itself on the little mountain, the house itself on the little island.
Now, this is enough for the moment. It is a complete thought, with too little time and energy remaining for you to begin another. Next time we will discuss psychometry and what that actually implies, including what happens when you touch something the great man had had in his hands, as with the Hemingway collection.
Yes. I know where you want to begin, which as you know is a great help to me, though I’m not entirely sure why. I told Jane Peranteau yesterday that I sensed that you guys had learned something recently about communicating, and not just me.
It’s all of a piece with the very first advice we gave you, that you and we are the same thing on different turf. You heard that as “we are similar substance,” but it would be truer to say we are the same thing. So of course there’s room for us to learn, just as in your post-3D existence there is room for you to learn. It would be a pretty grim and boring existence if there weren’t!
Smiling. Till next time, then, and thanks as always.