[Not all my conversations were with non-3D individuals! And of course not all of them were published. I can’t recall if I ever published this short session with Rita (who at the time was still in 3D), but it seems to be of interest today.]
&&&
This is the 31st of March 2007.
Rita: Well, we haven’t done one of these sessions for awhile. But you have this communication channel always available, don’t you?
Frank: Well it’s a different quality when someone else is asking the question, because you inject different — you come out of left field rather than where I already am internally.
R: Although sometimes I notice when we are just talking, the energy’s picked up as a response to you.
F: No, you’d have to believe in telepathy for that. I want to see a double-blind survey. [😊]
R: Let’s just ask a question about that while we’re at it. When this activity is going on, how different is it from what we’re doing here?
F: Well in a way, it’s the difference between talking to yourself and talking to someone else, because if you’re talking to yourself, the answer comes out of the same stream that the question came out, but if you’re talking to someone else, sometimes it comes out of the same stream but sometimes the other person has had different rabbits start out of the bush from the same question and therefore intersect again with the other person from a different angle. It’s really the same process.
You have to bear in mind that both in spoken communication and in unspoken communication, all kinds of levels are involved in both persons, and between them at an upstairs level, so an interaction between individuals seems much more straightforward to you than it actually is. It seems like this and then that, but what it is, is this and then that on a downstairs level, both of you connected to the upstairs level and maybe the upstairs level the same thing, maybe it’s coordinating the two of you by feeding you lines and feeding you emotional reactions. It would be the equivalent of the difference between two actors talking onstage and the writer or writers having written their lines ahead of time to set up certain interactions.
R: And so this in itself means that there will be different responses depending on who Frank’s having a conversation with.
F:Tthat’s right. And they will evoke different parts of himself, as he is doing to them. An interaction between two people is always unique because either of those two people interacting with somebody else is different. It doesn’t look like it, usually, too much. Often you can’t see it.
R: So when you think about lecturing to a room full of people, all these multitude of interactions –
F: Yes but if you are only lecturing and they are not responding verbally, it’s sort of like you have a screen in front of you that is speaking to them, it’s your public persona. We don’t mean by that anything artificial or insincere. We don’t imply a lack of integrity. We’re saying necessarily when you’re speaking to more than one person, it’s a persona speaking rather than the intimate conversation you might have with one person at the right time in the right way. Now for the audience, they are communicating in an individual way, but with that persona rather than with the speaker. They may know the difference, but not necessarily.
R: Depending on whether they’ve had a history with this person or not.
F: Yes, exactly. Exactly. If they know the person as an individual, and then are in the audience while that individual is speaking, they will definitely see the difference. They may not however correctly attribute what the difference is. They may think it is — actually it’s the same thing — tailoring to the audience.
R: Both ways there’s an assumption of who the speaker is.
F: And in fact you’re all mysteries to each other.
R: I want to ask about what seems like to me this new burst of creativity — I don’t know if we’re talking about a burst of creativity or way for talking about an operational relation of a lot of material that now is getting put forth.
F: We would think of it more as a burst of expression. It’s in there, it’s been tailored, it’s been thought of. The creativity was in the living of it and the thinking about, and it has been built up, and now that conduit is available, the expression is bursting forth. We can see that it looks like creativity happening now, and to a degree it is, but really it’s the expression of what has already been created but has been dammed up.
&&&
The transcript ends here, somewhat abruptly, it seems to me. Because it was a spoken rather than a written interchange, I have no way to know if this was the end of the exchange, or merely the end of my transcription.