Translating (from September, 2017)
Saturday, September 16, 2017
You have been told that your life as experienced is only somewhat real. This is because your life as you are experiencing it is deeper, with stronger cross-currents, than a mere conflict of compound-beings. You got the idea: Try to express it.
We see history as it affects us, so it becomes a matter of MacArthur and Wilson and Roosevelt and Hemingway and John F. Kennedy and Churchill and Robert Henri, and W.B. Yeats and so on. In other words, it becomes seen as a matter of individuals. And to us, this is reality. It combines the external world we experience (even at second-hand), and the inner world we construct or experience as we cooperate in shaping our ideas of what is going on.
But a deeper level of reality involves the same events, the same individuals, but experiences them as forces, as – I don’t know how to put it. As manifestations, I suppose.
Try not to stop there, but continue, for when you return you will not be in the same place.
In a real sense, our 3D lives may be seen at different levels of reality, and our accustomed way of seeing them is relatively superficial. Hatred and fear, in various combinations – all the deadly forces that run through us, as well as the living forces too – they could be said to live their own lives through us. If you were a playwright, you might try to express certain ideas. You would have to clothe the ideas in characters, and express them in conflict and interaction of the characters. It would be the interplay of forces that concerned you, and the interplay of the characters you had invented would be secondary.
Well, not exactly. You acquire a stake in the characters as you animate them. You should know that as you think of the Chiari brothers and others you have brought to life and then seen having that life, with its own bounds and possibilities.
Tuesday, September 19, 2017
[The following entry reverses my custom of putting “my” words into italics and “their” words in Roman, for ease of reading.]
All my reading of novels, history, biography, and my frequent viewings and re-viewings of films may be seen in a different way. Behind those stories of individuals are stories of conflicts of forces, of ebbs and flows of the power that flows through people for its own purposes.
Your practice has been to bend your habits in certain directions in order to compensate for tendencies that would interfere.
Okay, we’re going to have to work differently, aren’t we? Let me try to say what I just got.
The whole sequence, extending from about 1989, moved from my initial attempts at automatic writing, through communicating with The Boss[i], then a personified Evangeline, then the guys upstairs, then individuals such as David Poynter and Joseph Smallwood, then historically recognized figures like Carl Jung and others, then (more as exceptions than as part of a progression) people I had known. It was a long sequence aimed in part at changing how I went about things, correcting not only mistaken ideas but habitual traits that tended to interfere. This latest course-correction was to get me to slow down, to settle in, more than I have ever done or been able to do. There are forces that can only be heard when we are still enough.
With time and confidence and changes in interlocutors came changes in my role. Dictation became conversation. Conversation clarified into part instruction, part how-to. From the beginning, the process was never what I expected, but was peculiar to me. It was quite disconcerting to Rita in 2001, I remember. But she and I worked with the situation, and I don’t see how we could have done our work, then or subsequently, if we had tried to make what came to us fit into some preconceived box in format or content. And now, I think we’re changing gears once again. It’s like we’re edging toward Bob Monroe’s “rotes,” where non-verbal transmission of information has to be unpacked into words, which can only be done by someone familiar with 3D restrictions of thought and experience.
Those of us who are able to move among levels we are here as translators, stitching together different levels of understanding. The point I’m getting to is that what is obvious reality to one level is fantasy to another. We see it in our 3D lives and it is also “as above, so below.” It just depends upon how far you care to extend it.
So, if I say that our 3D lives are only somewhat real because we are the embodiment of forces beyond the 3D level, some people intuitively get it. Others have to wrestle with it, at first having to take on faith that I am not speaking nonsense. Others not only can’t make anything out of it, but you might say won’t. It is self-evidently nonsense, and they aren’t going to waste their time. The different levels don’t translate.
And this brings us back to this thought: Dramas are stories, and stories are doorways into other levels of meaning. But doorways are only doorways if you walk through them, and those who are not ready to go through them never even see them as such.