Thursday, April 26, 2007, continuing
8:30 a.m. I can see that making a regular practice of clearing cords is necessary for me — and I should have done it long ago. So many things I have never been able to say. And, it occurs to me, maybe this goes all the way back to childhood. Cording, I mean. Gentleman?
You are creating a metaphor in a way, because psychic cords are only a metaphor, and it is as well for you to remember it. Easy to adopt a widely used description without thinking what the underlying reality may be. “Cord” is a useful shorthand, but even a moment’s reflection should remind you that it is a metaphor and can only be a metaphor – and therefore by necessity is only a rough and ready description. We don’t (to paraphrase “The Magnificent Seven”) deal in manila, friends.
Nice to see that you spend your time watching Westerns. I wondered what you did with your spare time.
We smile too. But that is a diversion we may take up at some other time. Let’s finish about cords. You may find it productive to change the metaphor; there is no reason you can’t continue to use it, and no harm done provided that you remember that it is a metaphor. So – state your understanding of what people mean by cording.
We connect to each other psychically, and knowingly or unknowingly we “cord” each other – we leave cords attaching to others, and they do to us, that confuses our energy and perhaps allows one illegitimate influence over another.
A good enough description to be going on with. So let’s change the analogy.
You – that is, the whole you, not just whatever part of you that you are identifying with at the moment – range up and down the scale of vibrations. (Yes, this is an analogy, too: how else can we talk?) You have, it seems to you, “higher” impulses and “lower” impulses, “more expanded” and “less expanded” states, different “moods” that might be seen as different clusters of your overall being expressing.
You are a different person, to some extent, when you are with different others. You are different person reading philosophy or scripture than reading pornography or watching television or commuting to work listening to the radio with half an ear, or wandering in the woods, or enduring a boring lecture or – whatever. Different aspects of yourself are called forth by different external and internal stimuli.
Now when you are communicating with another person – whether or not consciously on either end! – you are matching vibrations somewhere. Thus we told you that anyone who ever reads a book is in direct contact with the author of the book and with everyone else who ever reads that book by way of the author. We didn’t explain. Couldn’t have explained, we felt, to the you we were in contact with then.
Perhaps this little diagram will give the idea. No two people tune in on the same thing, perhaps, because their different lives and different selves match different parts of whatever they connect to. But each matches something, or they couldn’t be attached to the book. Of course in this little sketch we oversimplified, because to try to represent the situation in all its overlap and crosscurrents would be visually taxing, probably impossible and anyway unnecessary so long as you bear in mind that it is an oversimplification, as any cartoon must be.
Well, similarly any two individuals. To look at it in again oversimplified form, one connection matches certain vibrations, another matches others (some of which of course may be the same, which sets up cross connections we will not attempt to deal with at the moment). To some extent, no two people know the same third person, because to each the third person is slightly or greatly different, because different vibrations match up.
Particularly closely matched individuals share so many vibrations that it may almost be an unpleasant shock for them to realize that they have areas in which they don’t line up.
But mostly people connect only across a relatively narrow range. (Do not take this visual representation to imply that one is “higher” and the other “lower.”)
This by the way is a way of expressing what we have been calling threads, strings, ropes and cables. We have used that analogy in the context of transmission through various incarnations rather than communication between individuals in the same time space, but it would serve.
Well, suppose that two people are particularly strongly connected in a certain range. Perhaps they are in love; perhaps they are closely working together; perhaps they share common experience, or, aesthetics, or common understandings, or any combination of these things. You could consider this common shared vibration to constitute a cord linking them – and it isn’t good or bad per se, it just is. It is a fact that will be used consciously or unconsciously for good or ill or both. It may be useful (what else is telepathy?) or harmful (what else is psychic influencing?) or sometimes one and sometimes another. A mother’s vibrations and her newborn child – and, even more, her unborn child – are so close as to be functionally identical for some time. Is that a bad thing, even though unconscious?
Nothing is good or bad, save thinking makes it so. We would rephrase that and say nothing is good or bad save motive make it so.
You are too tired to continue this.
Yes, I thought so too but didn’t want to interrupt.
Another good stopping place, for this has set up the theoretical foundation.
Okay.
Note how they connect this analogy at the end to threads – which itself is only a metaphor. Can the metaphor of vibrations also be applied to strands? In another beautiful post they substituted light-rays and a prism for chords and rings; and thereby, since light has a frequency, I think yes. (light can also be easily be mixed, and ‘added’ to each other).
If so, that whole talk about probability clouds and so on is directly related; two similar metaphors, with a simple difference: clouds extend in space, frequencies in time. So let me attempt to connect the dots, to yesterday: if two people are connected via probability clouds –your insight from yesterday: you and Joseph, extending both ways into past in future–, in this metaphor you/they/us/all are connected via matched frequency components, and in yet another view you/they/us/all are connected via matched strands and rings.
Do you see it? The same concept from different access points. Strands is the easier metaphor to understand. We are now moving into more advanced discussions, as your/our understanding now allows for it. If they had started with this, most of us would have been lost.
What do you think?
(PS: I know I will loose some with this sentence, but I would like to mention the fourier-transform here: it is possible to disect a complicated merged “frequency” and find its basic components. Thus, switching metaphors, show the strands that are in the ring) Thank you.
I don’t know anything about electronics, so must omit comment on Fourier transforms, but the rest of what you’re saying is as I understand it, yes.
Maybe it was too early to mention this, but here is the first sentence on wikipedia about Fourier Transform (FT):
The Fourier transform decomposes a function of time …. in a way similar to how a musical chord can be expressed as the frequencies (or pitches) of its constituent notes. [ then the article gets mathematical, but that is all I wanted to bring across. No need to learn the math.]
With just that sentence in mind, it’s worth >rereading< (as you stated yesterday) the amazing posts from TGU about singing the universe into Being, particularly "Notes, chords, harmonies" from Sept 18, 2018 (plus some others afterwards).
It's one of my favorite posts: Your life…is a note (a complicated frequency). … Combinations of individuals are chords…. ( an even more complicated frequency)… And then this: "You –we– are always singing the world into continuing existence." I mean, WOW!
So you have an addition of frequencies on top of each other ( or… probability clouds ADDED on top of each other) creating something completely new, yet similar, "connected." (whereby 'adding' means how two waves can add to each other, partially adding and partially canceling, do you see that? )
And the FT, in our 3D world, allows us too see the components. It's just an analogy… All I am saying is that it goes both ways: you can build up something more complicated, but going the other way, you CAN also see the simpler components.
Either way, it's a cosmic and divine song.
Can you see what I mean?
(BTW, sidenote and just for fun, "Song of the Lord" is the literal meaning of "Bhagadvad Gita." I am not implying anything here 🙂 )
I can just barely follow you. This is reassuring in one way; I know I had no such ideas in the back of my mind (let alone in front!) when I brought through those messages. You might think, “You still need such reassurance?” and the answer is, it never hurts to have more. Now I think it is time that you write your understandings out in a post, and I’ll post it (as yours), rather than let your understandings get lost among comments.
>> I know I had no such ideas in the back of my mind (let alone in front!) when I brought through those messages
But that’s the beauty of rereading (your post yesterday)! You bring your previous reading, that gained knowledge, to the next one, and it adds to it. The reader has changed. The dreamer has changed… When you received this material, you were a different man, and back then you may not have picked up some nuances that may now shine through.
>> I can just barely follow you.
You just described my life 😉 As long as you can follow barely, that’s all I can ask for. I want to say: YOU ARE DOING GREAT ! Let due diligence take its course, and TGU will fill in the blanks; for you, for us, for all, for me…. I will help any way I can. All I can do, or try to do, is nudge. Do you know somebody else who nudges you?
Please – more of this, or if not a continuation to come within your blog, is it better to buy it in a book? Will HAPPILY do so, if recommended. But – which book?
Thanks so much!
I can’t say. More answers will come, which will lead to more questions…
I want to help any way I can, including here with Frank’s blog and work. It’s about all of us in the greatest sense of ‘us’ we can think of…
But if you want to, maybe start with being HAPPIER, and if you like it, search for more essence. However, what you seek may lie hidden between the lines. They were written by a different yet similar man.
Re: “To some extent, no two people know the same third person, because to each the third person is slightly or greatly different, because different vibrations match up.”
I have often thought this at funerals when people get up and speak about the person who passed. Each person speaking seems to have seen/known a different version of the person who passed. And I, sitting listening, learn a lot about the person I thought I knew.