Monday, May 6, 2019
5:15 a.m. All right, I’m ready for more if anybody on the other side is. I’m not comfortable assuming the voice is Caesar, necessarily.
Because it seems unlikely? Perhaps that is you not remembering.
The piece I got, years ago, comparing Caesar and Napoleon?
Yes. The burden of that conversation was that character traits may be positive in one time and negative in another. It didn’t occur to you that you might have a more direct relation to either or both than that of student to example.
I never thought in such terms, no.
And now you know why?
I suppose because of distance in time. But no, that wouldn’t explain Joseph the Egyptian or Bertram. I get that we’re going to explore the question of transition between lives, and if so, that would be of great interest to me, and perhaps to others. I don’t feel we have ever had a fully coherent picture.
You have been employed to deconstruct older inadequate models, actually. That was necessary before a closer approximation to reality could be apprehended.
This isn’t “Caesar,” I take it from the last sentence. Not that it matters who.
Don’t forget, Caesar thought in Greek and Latin, not in English which hadn’t even formed in his time. Napoleon thought in Italian [Corsican, presumably] and French. We always communicate person to person in “thought,” not in whatever language we are perceived in. So if a sentence is wordy or pompous or has more syllables than you like, whose fault is that? (But this is a joke, which you also don’t expect.)
The point is that your own preconceptions and assumptions as receiver shape your communications to a greater extent than you realize. You aren’t a blank slate receiving language, like a tape recorder, any more than you are a blank slate receiving concepts – else how would someone from any time prior to the twentieth century even have any idea what a tape recorder was? How would someone from BC even know what AD meant, or what the twentieth century was twentieth from?
So I get that we are going to use any little thing as a springboard for the discussion, as usual. For a long time I used to think these excursions into process were an interruption to more important topics. I see now that your (TGU in general, I mean) concentration on process interwoven with any given topic is slower and surer.
It isn’t flashy. It isn’t pabulum, either. Is it any wonder your work did not meet wildly enthusiastic response? But it has been meeting solid response, which is better in the long run. If you are only appreciated posthumously, what do you care how long it takes after that?
That felt sort of like a joke, sort of like truth said in jest.
We were gently reminding you not to take it so personally.
Is that what I’m doing?
Certainly in the sense of thinking of it as failure of technique. But what if it is exactly the right technique (as you just said) producing exactly the right effect (as you were not concluding)?
Okay. So –?
We – and don’t worry about who “we” are – are about to enter into a long discussion that will both repeat older material and introduce new material in such a way as to help you see the older material in a new light.
Helping us better understand B by better understanding A.
That is the process.
One of the things Rita taught me that has stuck with me: Sometimes to understand A, you have to understand B, but to understand B you have to understand A, so you come to more truth by a sort of crabwise process.
Not engaging in exploration in this way – that is, assuming that you know A or know B, and assuming that neither will change aspect as you better understand the other, is one reason why many explorations shallow out after their first discovery. In arming you with this realization, Rita gave you a rationalization for using the technique and a reassurance that it never matters if you have the whole truth as long as you are proceeding toward truth.
The other thing the past 20 years has taught me is patience in this regard. When we stop thinking of conversations as having to go from one point to the next in a straight line, and realize that looping back and circling around and taking side trails are not wasting time but are seating in by providing additional context, we relax into it a bit.
And until readers do relax into it, they miss that aspect and [then] this is not something to help them transform their lives, but merely an intellectual product to consume.
I suppose the truth is to do both – to provide enough flash to get people’s attention and enough substance to let them sink into themselves.
You worry too much about whether the material will succeed. Do you worry about your own life?
All right, all right. But isn’t it you [-all] who press me to get the new book written that will provide people the key?
That is complementary to the longer discussions, it does not supersede them. T hose whose interest is sparked by the precis will find themselves with plenty of material to chew on in these dialogues, or conversations or transmissions or whatever you want to call them.
Now to return to the beginning of this session. You (and in this you are of course merely representative of anyone who wishes to do the same thing) are not limited in who or what you can connect with by any arbitrary limit, be it time, distance, ethnicity, gender, whatever. However, certain orientations will be closer to you than others, and these will be the easiest and most productive to approach. You may think of them less as individuals than as interests, or traits, or – well, orientations.
That’s an awkward phrasing, easily misunderstood, but I don’t know a better one. I get that in this context it means the “feel” of a mind, the general outlook or, I suppose, any one aspect of a general outlook. Come to think of it, we’ve touched on this before. When I connect with Hemingway, I don’t necessarily connect with the hunter or fisherman or competitor; certainly not the avid sportsman.
Yes, and it is always so. You see, if you can change your model from unit to component, the possibilities and limitations change. [That is, change from thinking of ourselves as units to thinking of ourselves as bundles of strands, as cohabiting communities.]
And that’s what you were saying, it is more like communicating trait to trait, say, than Frank to whomever.
It is one more complication, or perhaps simplification, that comes when you change concepts. If Frank is a unit talking to Caesar as a unit, it isn’t nearly so likely as Frank in his communication aspect talking to Caesar in his communication aspect.
Writer to writer, you mean.
Yes, or with someone else it may be (will be) different aspects. But they will be aspects you possess, or should we say embody, or else where is the connection.
Except as you say that, another “Thunk!” as something else slips into place. If I in one aspect communicate with that aspect in another, that other person also being a bundle of aspects, this may enable me to connect to aspects that would be foreign to me otherwise.
That’s right.
Just as was said to Rita dn me in 2001-2002, only then it was spoken of in the context of the non-3D.
That’s all you could have heard then.
Yes, I see. We weren’t thinking of ourselves as functioning in non-3D until after we died. And when we did come to that, it didn’t occur to us to go back and make other connections.
Well, now it does.
Very interesting process, this. Till next time.
We aren’t going anywhere. See you then.
Our thanks as always.
Frank, why stop with the dead? If all is connected, shouldn’t we be able to talk like that to another person alive? Now, that would be interesting. I suppose both people involved would have to be good at the process?
Well, after all, isn’t that more or less a definition of telepathy? I don’t think the major obstacle would be lack of skill or talent, primarily. My guess is that it would be people’s wrong ideas about the concept. If their ideas tell them that it can’t be done, or can be done only in a certain way or under certain conditions, this will inhibit them actually doing it, especially if the ideas they hold are incorrect. So you might think how you would go about the experiment you propose, and let us know.
Well, it IS telepathy. As opposed to what? ILC?
Not “as opposed to” anything. I was pointing out that what you propose should be quite doable.
Strangely I find the idea of communicating with Caesar quite interesting. A practical person in political field. Often those ruler characters are uninteresting to me, as wielding power for the sake of power is a game that does not light any bulbs in my system. What can I do with what I have is more interesting than what I can make others do. Of course I have privilege in not being a slave, so I have wider range of action and thought to choose from than many in history. In so many ways we live like kings in the past – we can have strawberries in the winter, and think thoughts that would have had us burned at the stake. Would Caesar be in politics today? Maybe not. But politics has to be done by humans. It would be so interesting if sometimes we could think thoughts outside the power-wielding paradigm. Not just idealistically improve the obviously broken. Building roads and houses seems to work quite well. How can it be that societies are so difficult? Societies or bands have existed much longer than houses. I will have to look into the inside a bit about this. Could we have a society be a bit more help and less hindrance? So that all-D would not be just a time-consuming hobby.
Caesar was way more than a politician. He was a statesman, a soldier, a talented writer, a diplomat, a charismatic individual who saw deeper than his contemporaries and tried to reconstruct Rome to give it what it needed. Naturally, the vested interests killed him, as they could not see beyond their noses, as usual. JFK used to quote the saying, “politics is the art of the possible,” and — literate man that he was, well grounded in history and well traveled from an early age — he knew that the alternative to politics is not no-politics, but violence. Naturally the vested interests killed him too, for the same reason Caesar was killed.
Point taken. What I said was not even half-baked. But my curiosity runs into the direction of what would it mean to arrange society to support the emergence of wider human potential? Politics, in spite of high ideals, seems to end up in quarreling about who gets what. If you’re not interested in that game, you can have your hobbies but the serious resources will be invested in the game of who has the biggest bombs. Even this is half-baked – there is something here that I am not quite able to get. Politics as a power game is not communication, it is a power game, on the same continuum as violence. If politics was about sincere attempts to communicate, things would look different.
In traveling from NM to MT, we stopped at the Battle of the Little Bighorn memorial, one of my favorite places. Out in the middle of nowhere, the grassy fields seem to stand as they always have, wide open to the wind, unobstructed by signs of man and progress. I’d been thinking of it for days, and because of my connection to your sessions, I realized the connection I had with this place, which then provided the connection to the boy I was then, fighting as a soldier under Custer. I think the battlefield looked almost the same to each of us, and I stood where he stood, or rode, or fell. Today’s session talks of connecting as bundles or communities of strands, “or else where is the connection,” and this made sense to me, and does justice to how alive the boy feels to me. This kind of connection feels like significant work or progress to me, and I think of how much of it you’ve done and then enabled us to do. Maybe we should think in terms of significance rather than 3D importance, to acknowledge how it is shaping us. Because of you, I’m going to try to talk to the boy.
Excellent. If you feel so inclined, do share what happens.
Interestingly, there’s a Private William Smallwood who fought at Little Bighorn, a farmer born in Jonesville, IN, in 1842, so he was 34 when he fell (http://www.friendslittlebighorn.com/7thUSCavalry1876.pdf).
Jane, I’d be interested to hear what happens with boy too. I have connections/strands with the Indian side of the Plains conflicts. Also thank you for sharing your communication with Louisa May Alcott. She is a relative of mine. Your dialogue with her gave me the impulse to try to connect with Thomas Merton. I was interested in his connection with Buddhism and and how that related to his Catholic monastic roots. In that short conversation I encountered lots of self imposed blocks and a few words that I stumbled on. There were some instances where sentences seemed to flow. I will try again and see if I can keep the distracting thoughts at bay.
This web of interconnections is vast and I thank Frank for helping us delve deeper into these mysteries of our strands/communities. Thank you for the continuous sharing of your process.
Thanks for the feedback, Karla. You can’t help but want it when you put something that feels risky out there. I loved talking to LMA. She had encouraging energy, which helped. I talked to the boy earlier this morning, and his energy was with the battle, so it was very different. I felt often that the words were more mine, because as an emotionally stirred 15 year old of another era, he was saying words I couldn’t always get, but the feelings were unmistakable. I had gone through the list of members of the 7th Cavalry, Custer’s men, to see if I could spark a name, but I’m not sure. Going through the list and reading some about the archaeological work done on the battlefield helped set me in place to do the listening. Clearly, by Frank’s example, communication gets easier if we keep it up, so I hope you’ll try Thomas Merton again. What a source he is!
I’m transcribing the conversation with the boy now and will send to Frank for posting, if he so chooses.
I’ve always had a bit of trouble with the concept of threads and strands and bundles. Recently, as I was talking with some friends who work in a small office that recently got a new manager, I saw that situation as a good metaphor that better explains compound beings for me:
The new manager came into an existing office, with an assortment of experienced and new employees. Some of the employees welcomed the change, while others resisted it, some even bordering on being subversive to the manager’s leadership. It was the manager’s role to try to make the office function as a cohesive group, while having to work with the various personalities she inherited.
Seems like a good description of a compound being. The current “me” is the new manager, trying to manage various “past lives” (other employees) who are at various skill levels and may or may not be co-operative. A customer’s view and experience with my office will vary depending upon which employee they interact with. So me as “office” will look different at times to customers from the outside world, depending upon which employee (past life aspect) that customer interacts with.
Hope this makes sense. At least, it works for me.
And as always, I deeply appreciate what you do and that you share it with us!
That is a wonderful illustration. thanks.
Oh, Frank, I just love this. I vibe with the communicator(s) coming through this last communication. The tone is so similar to the communications I get that to read it coming through someone else somehow warms and excites my heart. The way they keep expanding the envelope and making corrections in certain way… it just makes me smile.
Re: the idea of communications and orientations
An example of this from my own life is when I started taking classes in mediumship to communicate with deceased loved ones. All my communications/readings for people (as we practiced doing readings for our fellow classmates) were to teachers they had had. A 4th grade teacher, drama teacher, basketball coach… I kept wondering, why am I not getting their cousin who died or someone like that? What I began to realize is that being a natural teacher myself, those were the easiest personalities for me to access.
As I continued with it, my connections began to expand to parents, siblings and grandparents. Still, the connections were to spirit people that I would have had affinity with in regular 3D life.
What you have written today puts a bit of a different spin on it for me in that it is not just the PERSONALITIES that I have an easy affinity for, but rather the communications themselves that are more easily perceived due to my affinity with those patterns/flavors of perception.
Thanks again for all you so generously share.
Love, Ruth