Sunday, June 9, 2024
5:35 a.m. Gentlemen, yesterday I had an idea and decided to ask you about it. [Here I had left a pair of brackets, intending to insert the question, but in transcribing, I decided to enter that information at the end, for reasons that will become apparent.] Is it true? Somewhat true? Entirely in error?
It is a speculation, and as such is worth considering. But probably it is best that we not respond. Take it as the basis for further thought-experiments.
Because of my possible anxiety over your response?
Not particularly. It is the kind of reorientation that is best done without external validation or invalidation, either of which would result in your having to take our word for it.
How is that different from all the scaffolding you have provided over the past 25 or 30 years?
Well, for one thing, would an answer be useful?
Always useful to learn how things work, isn’t it?
Is that what you would learn? Or would it not be – at best – one way to see things? At worst it might encourage a bad habit of taking things on faith that cannot then be supported by evidence or reasoning.
I don’t see the distinction yet. How is this different from your describing us as compound beings combining threads, or saying that our lives are shaped in the beginning by physical genetics and the cosmic moment and the social conditions and our combination of strands?
We see the similarity as it appears to you. The concept serves to reorient you to see things differently. It shows you the things you have always seen, but relates them in a different fashion, and the new view changes you. So, why not look at the view from one concept rather than another?
“In addition to,” anyway. Not necessarily “rather than.”
[Pause]
And I find that I get nothing. Maybe try again Later.
9:30 a.m. Shall we try again? Your lead. I had had an idea of a theme. Why did it not work out?
Maybe we don’t exist. Maybe we’re making it all up. Maybe you are making it all up. Take your pick, they are all your background worries.
Only in certain directions, I notice. Some themes – and some of them pretty wide ranging, too – we have no problem. Other things we run dry. Why is that?
Should it surprise you? Do you know everything? Does everything interest you? Why should it be different for the information that can come in, given who and what you are?
I hear you saying – and I think you’ve said it before – that information transfer has three parts: sender, receiver, and the intermediate filters between them.
We didn’t put it that way, but that is one valid way to see it. If you were to ask us for a sentence in Mandarin, how could we provide it? There needs to be receptor cells. If you wanted detailed schematics of a nuclear plant, could we provide them in any way you could understand? Yes, there is remote viewing, you think: RVers routinely bring through information that they do not understand. But is ILC the same as RV?
That’s true, I didn’t think of that. In RV one deliberately leaves the mind receptive but without content; ILC is receptivity combined with an active mind concentrated on whatever the subject may be.
You will remember your friend Dana, who was moved (mysteriously to her, at the time) to begin to study quantum mechanics, when she had had no interest in the subject, and no background in physics or mathematics. After she studied the subject, she was able to receive certain kinds of information.
We have long noted that when it comes to history and a few other subjects, I’m your boy, but most of human knowledge is outside my range.
True for everyone, of course. Nobody is familiar with even the rudiments of everything. Thus by nature, every receptor is a specialist.
Only we don’t know in advance what our limits may be.
No, plus they may change over time, as Dana’s did.
So if I wanted information beyond my natural range, could I try to remote-view it?
How do you propose to double-blind your targeting?
I could get someone to help, I suppose.
You aren’t thinking it through. If you have a subject you wish to explore, how can you suggest to someone that at some point he task you “unbeknown to yourself”?
Then perhaps I could task someone else.
A possible halfway-house procedure would be for you to do a shamanic journey on the subject.
Interesting idea. Subject specified in advance, procedure involving no words, or anyway a different mental state than this. Maybe. Maybe I’ll just put out the idea I had and see if anybody picks up on it.
That’s an idea too. In fact, beginning with your idea, a group exploration might produce interesting insights.
Let’s do that. And maybe wrap this up early, unless you have something on your plate.
A short session is fine with us.
Thanks as always, then.
[On Saturday, I had made this entry in my journal, looking to this morning:]
6:10 p.m. I get a sense that there is a certain “quantity” of a given energy that has to enter the world at a given time – envy, say, or hatred – and the astrology of the moment determines how much; the combination of the individuals and their decisions determines how much will be expressed through which people. I will ask about this.