The effects of the interconnection of strands

Monday, September 13, 2021

3:35 a.m. Very well, gentlemen, you said you will continue by discussing interaction among tendrils, remembering that we are composed of more than one strand. Productive complications, you said.

It gets very complicated to hold in mind. Let’s begin with bullet-points, and see how we do. We may need more than one attempt to get it across.

• Frank as individual is actually Frank holding together many strands.
• Each strand is an individual holding together many strands.
• Frank is, also, one strand in one or more other individuals, not necessarily suspected by him.
• Now, time has more than one aspect. It is the present moment, the living moment, and that is what you all exist in. But it is also the ticking clock, the chronology, the one-moment-then-the-next aspect of time that is the 3D’s distinguishing feature.
• Life considered in its true aspect – its everything-ness, is always the living present moment. Life experienced in 3D is always experienced as Today and last Tuesday and next Friday do not mingle; they are experienced separately, and once. (That is, they are lived once as present-moment; they may be and often are experienced as memory or fore-vision; that is not the same thing.)
• Perhaps it is now obvious that every person in every time experiences that time as now. Nobody lives in last year or next year, they live now. This is why viewpoint matters. Or rather, this is why every moment of time may be accessed from any other moment of time: It never went away and never changed aspect. What changed is the sequence-maker, the ever-moving aspect of time that designates a given moment as “the present moment” once, then moves on.
• Another way of saying this is that anyone is alive in the present moment from that person’s perspective. And that means anywhere, anywhen. Julius Caesar lives as he always lived, in his time, in his place. Two thousand years that rolled on do not affect this. If you have resonance with him you could contact him. (Whether you ought to, whether he would welcome it, whether it would be a productive or a regressive thing for you to do, are important questions that we will not digress to discuss here.)
• Thus Frank may speak with Joe Indian, or Bertram, or others in his stands. In effect, he reaches them from where he lives to where they live. That is one way to contact them. In situ, so to speak.
• Another way to contact them is essence-to-essence, that is, outside of the temporal dimension. Of course that can be done only on their end. On his end he will be necessarily enmeshed in his own temporal dimension: That is what gives him a leverage-point from which to address them.
• Contact them in situ and you get the equivalent of the in-process person: They are as they were at whatever time you contact them, just as you yourself are obviously at the time in your life that you are contacting them from. Thus, talk to Joe Smallwood before the Civil War and he will know nothing of it, any more than he could learn of the year 2030 from Frank in 2021.
• Contact them essence to essence, and you get what we call the completed person, with a full perspective on their own life, and on wider things. Thus, conversing with Hemingway essence to essence was different than it would have been to talk to the 18-year-old news reporter in Kansas City.
• Both forms of contact are genuine, and each is different in accordance with its conditions, you see.
• Now, that is considering the simplest interaction, whether essence to essence or individual to individual. That may seem a great expansion of possibilities, and indeed it is, vis a vis what your departing culture considered normal. But it is still a drastic over-simplification.

Yes, because neither I nor Joe Indian is a simple unitary being.

Exactly. And here is where description becomes more difficult, because there are so many variables to be related one to the other. Ideally they would be understood as a gestalt, but they can be initially conveyed only sequentially. At least, using this method of communication – words – that’s the only way it can be done. Even bullet-points may not be succinct enough to hold the relationships.

Well, let’s try anyway. Seems to me you did a good job with them so far.

But the next aspect of things, though conceptually simple enough, seems to require many simultaneous considerations. We’ll see how it goes.

• Each of you is many beings, coexisting at a level mostly transparent to yourselves. Bertram and the Egyptian may share a strand; they don’t necessarily know that they share a strand, until after their active 3D time is over.
• Except, of course, that is a misleading way to think of it, because, as we said, those times, those lives, continue to exist and continue to be alive relative to their own experience of it. So to say “their active 3D time is over” does not mean what is seems to mean: “They lived and are dead.” It means that, from the point of view of anywhere else in the all-that-is, that time is discrete, bounded, separate.
• Essence to essence, the Egyptian and Bertram experience each other’s likeness and difference, in a way that they could not have experienced while personality and 3D circumstances were between them.
• Essence to essence, in fact, all the tendrils on a given strand may experience and profit from each other. It isn’t limited to compatible times or ideas or circumstances.
• This interaction may change the experience of the 3D life that is being led, or was being led. That’s why you needed to understand that life is but a dream rather than a solid material reality, or you could not logically entertain this thought.

I see your problem. This is getting complicated, and you haven’t even added the next layer of complication.

We will say, it is going better than we had thought it might. So let’s plow on:

• All this so far considers each tendril of the one strand. But you, compound beings, consist of more than one strand.

And we are how those strands communicate with one another.

Well, communicate, yes, but that gives you only a faint shadow of what is going on.

• Say Joseph and John Cotten are on one thread. They interact with others on that thread – with Frank, but with Frank only as one among many. Frank as the present-tense person naturally experiences himself as the center of the web of relationships, but each of the others similarly live at the center of their own webs. Reality has uncounted centers, and no one center.
• But perhaps David the journalist shares certain characteristics with his own network of strands, and so on and so forth.
• Each of these networks could be regarded as separate from the others, except that now – if not before – they are connected at least via Frank!

Do you see? You each are the center of a web of relationships that may have no other way to communicate with one another, to function together. And chances are, no one else will contain and hold exactly the same mixture of strands. In other words, as we have often said, you are each unique and irreplaceable. We may not have stressed sufficiently that you are unique and irreplaceable on an on-going basis, and so is everybody else. It is to create such complicated junction-points and hold things together than the 3D came into existence. Or, that’s one way to see it, anyway.

Now, there’s your hour, and we would say doing it in bullet-points worked about as well as we could have hoped.

I’d say so too. What shall we call this?

Something like, “The effects of the interconnection of strands” might do.

Our thanks as always. And next time?

There’s plenty more to say about this.

Till then.