Starting something new

Friday, September 9, 2022

7:45 a.m. Very well, gentlemen, I hear you knocking on the door. What would you like to talk about?

Elizabeth and you.

Really? Very well. You aren’t intending to hint a close relationship, I trust.

You jest, and of course we don’t mean it in the “past-life soulmate” kind of way. We confine our theme not to you, nor, really, to her as an individual; not even as communities.

As expressions of something?

Perhaps you might set your switches for maximum focus, receptivity, clarity, and – above all – presence.

All right.

“The Age of Elizabeth” is more than a convenient phrase bracketing certain decades in a common binder. There is a real quality to it that will interest you. Only, in what we hope to say, do not let yourself forget that the generalization, like any generalization, is not the only correct way to see things. It is one clarifying example. Others, including some that would seem to directly contradict this one, would equally illuminate certain aspects of time and life.

Whatever this is, Churchill had an intimation of it, didn’t he? His eulogy of King George VI ended with a harking-back to his youth in the age of Victoria, and cast forth the sense that perhaps the new young queen might bring forth a new Elizabethan Age. Was that more than an orator’s phrase? Was his immense sense of history nudging him?

You are closer to the idea in talking about his “sense of history.” History has structure, of course, in the way that geography or psychology has structure. Not everything that influences can be seen; not everything invisible leaves visible traces. But some do.

I get that you are hooking together history and psychology and geography perhaps more as actual interrelations than as the examples I first thought them to be. They are aspects of astrology.

You might equally say that astrology is an aspect of each of them, but yes, that’s the idea. It is not merely historians and journalists who coin and employ phrases like “The Age of Roosevelt” or “The Steamship Era” or suchlike. These catchphrases express something real.

I’m recalibrating. I’m getting a sense that either you’re finding it hard to phrase what you know or I’m insufficiently focused to allow it in.

Initial attempts to express new understandings are often accompanied by fumbling first efforts, you know that.

I should by now!

As usual, and by your preference quite as much as ours, we speak not only to you as individual, but to any who care to listen.

Yes, I understand.

You have been thinking, maybe you have run through the subjects we can or will bring through, and maybe all that is left to you is editing. But there is always more, if you care to do the work on your end as well.

Leaving our present base camp and doing some more climbing, you mean?

If you wish to do so.

I will assume that you wouldn’t begin something you couldn’t finish.

That isn’t your affair.

No, I suppose not. Even an interrupted task leaves what had been done to date. Okay, let’s.

If you will look back (conceptually) to our very first efforts in this line, you will see a progression in which we attempted to quietly remove distortions in the way you saw your selves, your lives. The theme kept broadening to become in a way less about any individual and more about larger and larger generalities. Individual communities in one lifetime; extensions of other lives (“past lives”); reconceptualizations of time and analysis (“All is one,” “As above, so below,” “The other side”); bringing in of topics that at first seem unrelated, seeking greater and greater examples of the fact that the universe (that is, reality) has no hard and fast boundaries, yet has firm repeating structure.

Now let us tie in your individual lives, your lives in 3D societies, your (our) lives in All-D, and the unseen and somewhat unknowable extensions of life upward into the celestial kingdom and downward beyond the mineral kingdom – in all of this, remembering that 3D is a projected reality of mind-stuff; it is not rocks in space. A big “therefore” that until now we haven’t much addressed is that the aspects of life that are realest are those that appear (to the 3D mindset) the least real.

My mind immediately assents to that, even though I don’t really know yet where you’re going.

How did your mind assent to it, without knowing? That is an example – trivial example, but an example – of the fact we intend to examine. The realest part of your lives is the seemingly non-physical; that is, the mental, the spiritual.

But as usual it isn’t that simple. I can hear you trying to line up the “howevers.” Bullets?

Perhaps. Let’s see.

• 3D and non-3D are not really separate, let along antagonistic.
• Sensory and intuitive, similarly, are polarities, not opposites.
• Conscious and unconscious; same thing. They shade into one another; they are points on a polarity, not opposites, let alone unrelated.
• Therefore there is no “mental” without a physical component, but, by the same token, no “physical” without a mental component. These are logical divisions, not actual ones.
• Where we intend to go involves examination of “strictly mental” or “strictly physical” aspects of your lives – and we remind you at the outset, there can be no “strictly” either one. But for the purpose of analysis, we need to proceed as if the divisions were real.

I think that got it.

Yes, it should. If any miss the point, it ought to become clear as we proceed.

So, Elizabeth and us?

Elizabeth and you, Frank, as an individual, to serve as example. And there’s a reason for proceeding this way. We mean for everyone who reads this to take the example to heart: That is, we want each of them to take it seriously, a personal individual relationship with what will seem only an abstraction. To leave it vague would be to fail to show what we want to show. To leave it as if it affected only one person, or only some people, would still not only miss the point, but obscure it.

This is for everybody, not for any one of you. But it will only come clear (if it even does come clear) as tied to one person, and who better than the one driving the pen?

Only we aren’t going to get any farther today.

No, but well begun is half done.

I’ll bet we’re a long way short of half! Very well, our thanks as always, and I’m interested to see what this winds up coming to.