Sunday, July 31, 2022
5:45 a.m. Guys, anything we should discuss? I have something ready from 2021 if not; I can send that around.
You might mention suggestions you received a few days ago.
Ruth Shilling suggested that I ask you to give us in one or two sentences the gist of a given discussion.
Sue Hookey suggested that I ask you to give us a practical exercise for whatever we talked about that day.
Dick Werling suggests that you could help catalyze ILC into greater use.
Focus, then.
F, R, C, P. Go ahead.
Ruth’s suggestion is a good one in terms of end product, not so good in terms of process. The work you are currently doing, going back over past entries, is just that. But the benefit of such work is the work itself, not the end-result. If we or you give people a pre-digested summary, we will thereby cheat them of the opportunity of doing what you had to do, to understand Thoreau.
It’s true. I would read two succeeding sentences that would seem to have absolutely nothing to do with each other, and I’d have to work to find out what he meant. The result was always that I would come to understand more than he had said in so many words.
Your summary, if you do produce a summary, will set it out in easily comprehensible form, stripped of digressions and associations. So (rhetorical question) how could that be a bad thing?
The easier it is, the more likely that people will skim the surface, mistaking recognition for understanding. I’m afraid they do it all the time with our daily messages. Hell, I do it, often enough, and I’m in on the process essence-to-essence.
Still, this doesn’t mean it would be a bad thing to produce a clear succinct statement: We once helped you put the whole subject into a 2,000-word statement, after all.
Yes, and some damn fool posted a review saying it must have taken me three minutes to put it together.
But others wrote that they found it valuable.
Still, I’m saying I recognize that what would be valuable to those who can absorb it would be worthless to those who can’t.
When is that ever not true? But, that’s our response to Ruth’s suggestion: Let each person who is really interested do their own one- or two-sentence summary each time, and they will deepen their understanding even of things they had thought they got. While we can’t know for sure, we tend to think our doing it would discourage the process.
Sue’s suggestion, then?
More or less the same response: It is well that people make the effort, and it is less likely that they will do so if it is provided for them. However, in this case, unlike the previous suggestion, we recognize that differences among people are great. Some really would benefit from such exercises. We offer a counter-suggestion: If people will submit their ideas on such exercises, we will gladly give our opinion on the plus and minus of each one. We don’t mean here for people to offer a one-size-fits-all kind of exercise, but different exercises for different material.
Fair enough. So, Dick’s suggestion (which I don’t quite understand, I see, but until now thought I did) that you catalyze ILC into greater use?
Perhaps quote directly from his email.
[“The continued flow of information from the TGUs is definitely of value to me personally…. But greater value comes to me from my personal ILCs with other souls. How could the TGUs help us catalyze this ILC technology into widespread recognition and use? Is Hemi-Sync needed to jump start the process?… How to get recognition, curiosity (“What might this mean to ME?”), and opening to ILC among the Muggles?”]
Perhaps you can see that this is a parallel to some of the things that sometimes worry you.
I do as you say it. It is our attempting to make something happen, when it is beyond our scope.
No, slower. Refocus (and that goes for other readers, as well).
Okay, not beyond our scope, exactly, but not our job, either.
Well –
Go ahead, I’m waiting to be corrected.
We are scratching our non-3D heads, trying to untangle this. We know it will seem simple to you, but it would seem less so if you remembered that the same statement (whatever it would be) will be received by people at all ends of the receptivity spectrum, at all levels of awareness, at all levels of willingness and ability to change perspectives so that they may look at a thing in an unfamiliar way.
Isn’t that always the case.
Yes, it is! That’s a continual background condition we deal with. It’s the main reason we don’t make terse, pithy statements that a certain few would get and most would not. It’s why most of your readers will be thinking, always, “Why don’t they stick to the point? Why don’t they just say it? Why are they always telling us what we already know?”
In any case –
Stars, then:
- Yes, great value in personally receiving and mulling our information. That’s why we provide it!
- And yes, greater value, ultimately, in 3D-to-3D communication, with all its additional channels that you may not usually consider. That is, emotional overlay, all the range of sparks that pass between embodied minds which each extend via strands to so many other minds elsewhere and elsewhen.
- Yes, too, that it is a valid and charitable impulse, to want to share such advantages with others. Whenever one finds something of value, the impulse is to share it. This is a good impulse.
- But as we have said many times, wanting to do good is not the same as knowing how to do it, nor as being able to do it. It is an important part of wisdom, to remember the limits to one’s ability.
- Beyond that, it is a continual temptation to try to reform the world, to try to rearrange the people we experience first-hand and second-hand.
But we never have the data.
You don’t have the data, either in terms of individuals or in terms of the times. That doesn’t mean “Don’t try to change anything,” it means “Don’t let yourself play pretend, thinking that feeling about something is the same as doing something.”
Now I’m going to ask you to go slower. I know we will have thrown some people off at that curve.
Course-correction accepted. What we mean to say is, there is nothing wrong with your trying to nudge matters in whatever way you can. Sometimes you may be in a position to make a great contribution – as Bob Monroe did, for example. But sometimes you may want to change things that exist for reasons you don’t understand, that play out in ways you don’t understand. In such cases, what good can you do? Can you fix an airplane engine by doing things at random? Can you fix your own body by medicating at random? Understand: We aren’t saying you never have the data to do anything. Obviously you never know everything, and obviously you couldn’t wait to act until do did know everything. But it is so tempting to move without understanding, motivated by emotion or by unknown forces within your psyche. You have to be careful of that.
I think this amounts to your saying, don’t get carried away with missionary work.
Well, it is our favorite theme: It’s best to stick to real work, and not march off to a pretended siege of Babylon. Do what comes to hand, and leave the larger questions to other aspects of the shared subjectivity. Things do get handled. It isn’t up to you alone.
Good questions and suggestions.
Thanks for all this.