Look at it this way. Daniel Boone may have been a respected member of his community in North Carolina, but what could his townsmen have told him about Kentucky? His role was to pursue the rumors of the Kentucky wilderness and bring them back to the Yadkin valley. Pioneers don’t use maps; they don’t even necessarily make maps. They cause them to be drawn.
I take it all the Daniel Boone stuff is out of my memory, not yours.
The process is not different, it is the character of the relationship.
I see, So you are going to give us rumors of Kentucky.
In a sense, yes. Only, the fewer your expectations, even in analogy, the easier the task.
Keep firmly in mind the larger theme: Why is 3D life only “somewhat” real? But bear in mind that this is going to bring you a long way seemingly afield, and will involve what seem to be extraneous matters, and contradictions, before we can bring in enough context to allow you to see things sufficiently differently. Even more so than in your work with Rita in which she sketched the variables around death and rebirth, we need to associate many things in your mind that you have never consciously or coherently associated. Much of what you need to know you do know, only you don’t know you know it, or you know it only in a seemingly unrelated context, or you know it distorted by other people’s reports.
While writing that, I had the thought, “You’re finding it easier to speak,” and then I had a flash of “You’ve connected to Rita somehow and learned how to do it,” though I don’t think that’s quite right. But, something has changed.
There are others in the mental world, call it, besides Rita, you know. But your intuition was mostly correct.
You are somehow communicating through Joseph, or someone!
That’s right. This still involves distortions, but using personalities even closer to you than someone you worked with and were on affectionate terms with and shared a vocabulary and a set of external situations with – Rita, that is – provides the link with language and assumptions, but with fewer confusions.
Can you go into why?
The shortest way to say it is that in dealing with you through Joseph Smallwood, say, we are thus dealing essence to essence on your end. That is – well, here, you state it.
It is a little more complicated than a sentence conveys. All right. This kind of communication is always essence to essence in one sense, in that it bypasses the personas that are our guardians at the gate, our pre-established interfaces with “the other.” So it is mind to mind, not mind to verbiage to reception to mind, as it would be in 3D (overlooking, for the moment, the fact that mind to mind also functions in our 3D life). But mind-to-mind between X and Joseph, say, is different from mind-to-mind between X and me, or X and Bertram. It is as if each of us is a different mood of our over-arching being.
Yes, and that is enough for the moment. This isn’t the time for further speculation, although another time may be. The point is that whoever we contact, bias will have been thereby introduced. The process cannot be helped, it must be allowed for.
I get the feeling that if we pursued this correctly, we’d learn something about why spiritualists used to think they needed a conductor to bring them to the one they wanted to speak to.
Don’t forget, those were early days. Their ground rules never applied as universals, however helpful they were to their times.
Which is why it is a mistake to be bound by other people’s rules.
Which is why it may be a mistake to be bound by them. It is usually worth your while to try them on for size, though.
So, are we good?
Ready to stop, then? We can stop for the moment. Yes, we have a way to proceed. As we say, it will have its disadvantages, but we will work around them, as people always need to do.
I take it that who you connect with may differ depending on where we go.
Depending on many things, many of them unsuspected on your end. And remember,
Oh, is that a correction I just sensed, of something I got from the guys when Rita and I were first contacting them?
It is a sort of correction, yes. A slight readjustment of your understanding.
I had been thinking the guys had said that they took turns speaking to us – that sometimes even in the middle of a sentence, one phased out and another phased in, usually unnoticed by us. It strikes me now, what they may have been saying is that the intent remained constant, but that the minds that they were silently connected with as intermediaries might fluctuate. Small difference, but significant. Did I get that right?
Remember always, in this work: Many, even most, of your misunderstandings and misstatements will go unchallenged. In the course of time, contradictions and errors will emerge to be corrected, but if we were to be correcting every misstatement, it would involve so much tedious restatement and spelling-out of context as to make any coherence impossible. When you get something wrong and it is going to make a big difference, we have to correct the statement, and the correction itself is part of the learning. But if it is minor and has no great consequences, we let it go, in the way that you, say, might not correct every slip of someone’s grammar for fear of inhibiting them from saying anything at all.
—
This is an edited excerpt from “Only Somewhat Real,” not yet published.