Saturday, February 25, 2012
8 AM. So yesterday came the idea that it is time finally to write about Thoreau and Emerson, as I have been intending to do for so many decades.
Guys, what is the idea with Thoreau and Mr. Emerson? It can’t be what I once thought it would have to be – so what do I have to offer?
Resign yourself to the fact that the majority of your note-taking was merely to familiarize yourself with them – and, unknown to you, it was also to keep you in contact with them, a sort of hand-holding. Naturally, for most of the time you have had in mind to write of them, you were thinking them dead and gone, and therefore what was to be written was what they were, what they did, and their effect on others and on you. It’s a bit different now, is it not?
Yes.
So therefore as the possibilities are different, everything is different. The way you go about the task is different.
I begin to see. I haven’t actually begun, have I?
Yes but no, as you like to quote us saying. And, just for you to realize, the “us” that is quoting you quoting us is not necessarily the same “us” that is in the habit of saying it. Any group-mind formed around a subject is going to be a different group than that formed around a different subject. You can see that.
I can now, yes. So my confederates for this project aren’t going to be the same as those for the Hemingway project?
Why should they be? How could they be? And yet there will be overlap.
Creative overlap, I get.
That’s right. Hemingway’s perspective on Thoreau is not any more impossible than Thoreau’s on Hemingway.
I have had this background idea of the community of – come to think of it, in a way it is the community of saints, isn’t it? Coexistent, interrelating, and accessible.
Yes, and interrelated by your individual minds. Thus a mind that over years concentrated on the Kennedys and on Lincoln and on Thoreau and on Emerson and on Hemingway – and then realized that they are alive still – and called them forth – and related them to each other in his conversations –
Well, well. I do see.
“Past-life” exploration is not very past-life. It is present-life. And once you cease to think of so many men as statues or portraits, and think of them instead as available to e-mail – you can see that the whole human library opens up to you.
I was saying yesterday that our future might be more like Star Trek than like survivalist nightmares. But this is superficial, isn’t it? Our future won’t be “more of the same,” but this inter-temporal community you give me a glimpse of.
And beyond that.
Yes, I get it. Inter-spatial, as well. If we can touch other minds that are outside space-time, we can touch them that are elsewhere within space-time, via outside space-time.
What do you think Wesley Bateman was doing?
Well, I’d never thought of it. I never knew what to make of it. It was all so fantastic, it was sort of beyond belief – and yet it had a feeling of reality to it, as well.
Now you know – or anyway, now we are telling you. Wesley Bateman – and he is scarcely the only one! – was directly communicating with minds on what you call the other side – what you call the Akashic record – and the only difference is, he was talking to minds that had lived not on earth but elsewhere. And why not?
I suppose a major barrier to doing that is psychological. The person doing it would have to somehow know that it wasn’t impossible – otherwise he’d blow off the whole information.
That is correct.
It is the same psychological process I have observed within myself.
Of course.
So doesn’t this belong in any exploration of communication?
You may write your book on accessing guidance some day. If you ever do, it will be all the richer for your additional experience.
I’m thinking of putting this out to my IOMOK newsletter list.
Why not? Building mental communities – temporary group minds – goes on all the time, on either side of the veil.
And that in itself is a theme worth some time.
There is time. The more you make yourself all of a piece, the more efficiently things flow together for you.
Does that mean more than the obvious?
Doesn’t that depend upon what is obvious to whomever is reading it?
I suppose so. Care to elaborate?
Suppose you are a person whose life has many compartments that do not interrelate, or don’t interrelate much. Different moralities, different associations, a different part of the person-group, for each compartment. Something that “happens” (that is, something external, for that is how it would seem) is unlikely to simultaneously affect every compartment. Worse, an event that is beneficial to one compartment may be distressing to another, and even potentially lethal to a third.
Anyone thinking that a given person is a unit rather than a group will find it hard to follow the thread. A community that is coherent, that is all of a piece, will literally cohere, it will hold together, under stress. One that cannot hold together may not break up, but it will be unable to function as a unit. It will be incoherent. You see? So with the communities you think of as individuals.
Integrity is commonly thought of as a form of honesty, which of course it is. But mostly it means, you are all one thing. Structural integrity brings strength. It is a form of coherence.
Creating within your mind the community of everyone you value – living and dead, relatives and favorite author and historical hero and religious figure: anybody and everybody you’re interested in – you create a de facto community among them via your mind. The next step is to begin to converse with them, as is of course as easy as talking to anyone else, except for your own thought that may say it isn’t possible.
And I hear myself tempted to think that goes for created characters too. Fictional heroes (or villains).
They were created in the imaginal realm. That is nearly the same as saying they were discovered there. But that’s another conversation.
Yes. I’m tired now. Thanks.