Only Somewhat Real: What is it all for?

Sunday, October 8, 2017

  1. Primarily Passions

Not invariant

It is so easy to lose the thread of the argument. Glancing back at the previous few entries, I see that you were going somewhere, but I don’t know where, or how you propose to get there, so I hope you do. We didn’t leave bread crumbs last time, to tell us where to resume.

We recognize that it is difficult for individuals to hold on to a continuing theme while moving thorough the accidents and distractions of the ever-flowing present 3D moment, but remember, your anchor, your un-moving non-3D aspect allows you to remain oriented – if you orient to it rather than to your flowing mind.

Let me restate that. I’m pretty sure you mean, the ever-flowing 3D timestream carries the 3D part of our consciousness along with it, with us like a raft on a river, but the part of us that resides in the rest of All-D, the non-flowing non-3D, does not get carried along on a moving river, but rests firmly on solid ground, and the two aspects of us are connected but are not always conscious of each other unless we make the effort to make them so. Whew, that didn’t turn out to be so easy to restate, but I think that more or less gets it.

The point is, the “you” that you customarily, or let us say automatically, identify with, is not invariant. When it centers on 3D life and takes for granted 3D conditions, it is in effect limited in what it can do, what it can associate, what it can remember. When, instead, it connects with the non-3D and sees 3D life as a subset of All-D, it takes for granted an entirely more expanded view of 3D life, and it experiences limits that are significantly more expanded.

Just as Thoreau said in Walden, that I have quoted in the past.

That’s right. In the case of what we are doing, or let’s say in this kind of exploring, it isn’t traversing the terrain that is unique, it is in the reporting in modern language.

Yes, I got that. I don’t expect us to see what human eyes have never seen, only to maybe interpret what we see in language (and amid associations) that have never been used before, for the sake of translating to a new civilization.

Tell me this, why is my language so convoluted this morning? It seems to me that I am having a hard time making simple statements.

Sink in, relax, stop pressing.

Okay, I get that. Pressing too hard.

It is well to want to succeed, but inefficient to push the river.

Okay. So, your turn.

You feel the difference. It is a matter of trust, in a way. Trust that the information will flow even when you yourself (consciously, in 3D terms) don’t know what it is to be or even where it is to begin.

And as usual, this information-flow is part information on the subject at hand, and part on the process itself. I get that.

What is it all for?

Correct. Very well. The underlying theme is your lives in 3D as conduits of vast impersonal forces. How can your lives be both personal and impersonal, both contingent, even accidental, and firmly rooted and determined? As we said, it is soul (pattern) flowing spirit (energy) through it. And the question beyond this is, why? What’s it all for? What is going on?

We began to sketch the impact on your lives of negative forces, only that is an awkward way of putting it. Let’s regroup.

As always, “as above, so below.” Looking at your third-tier lives, see the continuities.

I need to go back and find that description. Or, come to think of it, no I don’t: Just tell us again.

First tier, the 3D experience in its own terms.

Second tier, the internal reaction to the physical events.

Third tier, the effect on the being of that second-tier reaction. In other words, how the transitory becomes the continuing part of the fabric of the soul. (Of course that doesn’t mean this cannot be counteracted or modified later. We are only describing the classification scheme connecting the somewhat-real 3D experience to the more real All-D situation.)

If you want to understand your lives, start with what is most familiar, the first-tier experience that happens to you firsthand and that is reported to you by the world around you – friends, news media, books and films, everything. In other words, begin with the world as it is reported to you. Not only wars and rumors of war, but passions and rumors of passions, predicaments and rumors of predicaments. Start with the dramas of everyday life at first-hand and at a remove. We want to explain life, not explain it away.

Surely it is obvious that life consists of negative and positive emotions and experiences. No need for careful definition here; you know what we mean. Those experiences and all their manifestations (or perhaps we should say, and every way in which they can be sorted into categories) are not incidental to life. They are life, or let us say they are the fabric of life, the essential background of life.

It is true that some people in their yearning for peace and for meaning would transcend all this if they could. And it is true that some religions and philosophies argue that such transcendence is the only worthwhile goal of a life, all else being Maya. It is also true that in a way this is an accurate perception, for certainly the 3D world as it presents itself is not nearly as real as the casual observer assumes. But there is a difference between seeing the only-relative-reality of the life you lead (on the one hand) and deciding that 3D life is a waste of time, so to speak, a fraud, a snare, a delusion. Just because you wake up for a moment and realize that the events of Hamlet are not the reality you have been experiencing it as (because of the excellence of the performance, perhaps), that doesn’t mean it wasn’t affecting you. Similarly, life.

For some reason – certainly not a logical association of ideas, at least if it is I can’t see the logic – I think of flight simulators.

Flight simulators

A good analogy up to a point. A flight simulation machine gives you a somewhat-real experience that prepares you for the real thing. By simulating the first-tier experience (that is, simulating the physical sensations), it allows you to experience the second-tier experience (the intellectual, kinesthetic, emotional reaction to the first-tier data), so that in a sense you will form third-tier reaction-patterns based on what you have become by having gone through that experience. This is not an exact analogy, remember, but it is a useful one. Don’t parrot it, but do chew on it and see what further analogies suggest themselves.

Well, I get, just because you realize that what you thought was flight is actually a simulator, don’t jump to the conclusion that flight itself is an unobtainable illusion.

Actually, isn’t it more logical to assume that if this is a simulator, it is a simulator in aid of something? Preparing you for real flight, perhaps? The conclusion that the world is only relatively real may lead you to conclude that it is a meaningless charade, but it doesn’t have to. It is, shall we say, at least equally probable that life means something, is in aid of something, is preparation for something. Otherwise it’s a lot of money, time, and effort to create a simulator just to fool you.

Smiling. I figure you guys (we guys, I realize) work for MGM or Industrial Light and Magic.

Not so unflattering a comparison. They do produce remarkably effective second-tier experience, even though they think they’re in business to make money.

As we say, start with what you know. Next time we will begin at this point: Looking at 3D life as you experience it, what does it hint at regarding the underlying reality it suggests and mirrors?

All right. Our thanks for this, as always. Till next time.


Only Somewhat Real: Decision trees

Thursday, October 5, 2017


Ready if you are. Where were we?

You had just realized why you live on a timeline where everything you don’t like nevertheless exists.

Perhaps you could spell that out again?

Even on any given timeline, decisions have consequences. Even though other timelines follow opposite decisions, and thus assure that every decision is explored – which means the fate of the universe never depends upon anybody making the “correct” decision – in each timeline, the decisions that have been made determine the reality being experienced, and determine which opportunities exist (or, as it appears to you, which opportunities are thereby created).

The sense I’m gradually getting, more clearly with time, is that our lives are the demonstrating of the consequences of a decision-tree. Each version shows what would happen along a given chain of decisions – ours as individuals, but within a context of uncounted others’, which means within what seems like a firm matrix. It begins to seem that life is the showing of uncounted possible paths, the showing being the main thing, for some reason.

That won’t be as clear to your friends as it is to you at the moment, and won’t be as clear to you later as it is now. So we should press on and provide context.

Seems like we are switching roles.

The roles were always arbitrary, if serviceable. Do you remember how Rita ascribed greater intelligence and knowledge to what you were calling TGU because you two were always asking the questions and they were always answering them?

They said our lives were the answers to their questions.

That is a way to see the meaning of your lives – but it requires that you hold firmly in mind that you and we are not different entities. We keep reiterating it; you all keep losing sight of it. If you think there is a “we” and a “they” you are going to continually misapprehend the situation – and yet language continually works to reinforce that false impression.

We are more like different parts of a dissociated consciousness.

Minus the pathological connotations, yes. There is only one reality, and everybody in it exists in all parts of it. We keep repeating that, too. 3D individuals nonetheless exist in All-D. Non-3D individuals nonetheless exist in 3D. It is much more a matter of where your consciousness centers, than any other single difference. Every religious or philosophical teaching that works from the assumption of a division in the universe goes wrong precisely because of that assumption.

Perceptions and intuitions

Now remember that at the moment we are looking at your 3D life as an experiencer of the interaction of soul and spirit. That is, soul, the shaped collection of traits, and spirit, the free-ranging animating force. You may find it easiest to begin with negative manifestations. Let us start with hatred.

Which, I presume, begins with fear.

That’s a “yes but no.” But explaining why it is a “yes but no” may take some doing. It isn’t simple. If it were only yes, or only no, it would be [simple].

Your ideas about things are based on a combination of things: input and prior ideas, mostly.

Input is determined, or let’s say skewed, by perception, and your sensory perceptions are by themselves obviously limited to a tiny percentage of the physically existent spectrum. Even the electromagnetic spectrum that is recognized by science – which is to say, by sensory data extended by instrumentation and inference – is mostly far beyond your ability to experience directly by sight, sound, smell, taste, touch. That limited input is mixed – interpreted – by ideas of how things are, ideas formed from prior first-hand and second-hand experience, all of it also subject to those same limitations.

If this were the whole story, your possibilities would be very much more limited than they are, for how could you break out of the self-contained idea-system and experience-system, call it, delivered and limited by sensory data? You can get an idea of what your world would be like by looking at the mental constructs of people who do believe that sensory data is all there is. Of course, these people themselves do not live in the world they deduce; no one could. But they ignore and deny experience to the contrary, so you can get an idea of that mental reality by overhearing their mental reinforcement of their ideas, so to speak, as they ty to persuade others.

The compensating factor in your lives is, of course, what you would call direct feed. Call it intuition, divine guidance, extra-sensory knowing, instinctive wisdom, inexplicable useful connection – however you think of it, it is the other part of your being that greatly assists your limited 3D existence – that makes it possible, in fact. No one and nothing could exist on its own, without an unbroken connection to its larger self centered beyond the 3D construct. The birds that build nests may not be able to say non-3D, but they rely on it, as all animals and vegetables do, to enable them to make sense of incoming sensory data and, particularly, to make sense of it in advance. You call it instinct, in animals, in babies, in yourselves sometimes, but that’s what it really is, connection. And remember, that isn’t connection to a something else; it is connection to another part of yourself.

Aha! And the two forms of perception are sometimes at war with one another.

Not the forms, but the results of having contradictory ideas about the meaning of the data from two different kinds of sources.

Okay. But – war.

Responses to contradictions

It can be; it certainly doesn’t have to be. Some people respond to contradiction by attempting to define one half of the contradiction out of existence, and this can lead to conflict in one or another form. But others respond by seeing any contradiction as an implicit invitation to see more clearly, deeper, to resolve it, and only if they are unable to find resolution do they proceed to ignore one half, or go to war on it. And still others, fewer, respond to an irreconcilable contradiction by leaving it in suspension, waiting for further developments to clarity things. But yes, there is the potential within you of warfare, one element against another, and of course it is easier to direct those forces outward – projecting the conflict on to others – than to deal with it within your own psyche.

Now, you could argue that in the case of self-division turned outward, the hatred is the unacknowledged result of fear (fear of one’s own contradictions, illogical, inexplicable, and perhaps therefore terrifying), and that isn’t wrong. But it isn’t the whole story either, you see.

This particular genesis of hatred is not the only one. But it is the most common by far.

Does that imply that if we could overcome the resistance of the 3D personality to realizing that it extends beyond the 3D, the world would be a more peaceful place?

It should scarcely need stating. Instinctive societies anywhere are inherently peaceful; it is the separation from one’s roots beyond the 3D world that leads to a society’s madness. And we are not quite saying, indigenous societies are sane and the technological post-Christian Western world is crazy, or, say, crazed. But we would say that if you will look around you, you will see some societies that take instinct and folk-wisdom for granted – Italy, say; Poland; country-folk pretty nearly anywhere before they are disillusioned and mentally overthrown by the assumption of superiority by city culture. These are not societies roiling in hatred, and they aren’t very easily roused to hatred based on abstract ideas and plans to reshape the world.

Unlike technological, materialistic America. Our rulers, I mean, not necessarily those of us who happen to live here.

Well –

I know, don’t give ourselves a pass as if we were living here by coincidence. We must bear some responsibility for what is done in our name.

That isn’t quite the nature of our reservation. It is more to the nature of your attitude than to the substance of the comment.

Okay, I get it. You don’t like me making blanket condemnations.


It isn’t so much what we don’t like, as what is good for you. To issue a blanket condemnation is to show that you don’t understand, or rather than you are suspending your understanding. To understand everything, someone said, would be to forgive everything. In your life you mostly know this. And, in fact, a teaching opportunity: Consider your reactions as opposed to what you would prefer your reaction to be, what your reaction often is. Where does the difference come from?

I think you’re going to say it is the difference between a reaction from my 3D-only personality and my larger personality which presumably knows better.

Well, knows better but also isn’t hurting in the same way. First-tier experience hurts, we said. Well, anger often proceeds from injury.


And this is one reason for bringing to political and social questions the knowings you have developed in your “higher” moments – that is, your moments of meditation, or of communion with your larger self. The closer your connection with your self beyond 3D limitations, the more accurate and effective your reactions within 3D, you see. It is in effect a fountain of wisdom that cannot be matched by any amount of 3D experience.

Forces and individuals

Again I am hearing time’s winged chariot at my heels, so to speak. A sense of “no time to lose,” even despite the need sometimes to cool our heels till the time comes around (if only to give ourselves time to recharge).

I’m getting a sort of visual, force issuing as from a high-pressure firehose, then as it enters the matrix of channels being diverted and channeled by the nature of the terrain. Not a very good description. Can you amplify and correct?

What you are getting is that human life is a combination, an interaction, of two forces. One is, as we keep saying, these vast impersonal forces, flowing through you (and around you, and all but engulfing you), each one to his or her own carrying capacity.

And do the forces ever exceed that capacity?

They do, and those vessels break. But let us finish describing your situation. The other force is what results when your share of these forces run through what you are. Because each of you is different, the appearance of the force flowing through you will be different. It may be classified by various schemes, but those schemes will be reporting averages. Thus Leo energy is different from Scorpio energy, and both are different from Gemini energy. But the commonalities do not amount to identity. One Leo is not interchangeable with another. You are all individuals. That is the point of your existence, after all.

You, who you are, what you have made of yourself at any given point, are unique, and so the forces flowing through you are going to be colored by your essence.

Temporarily, you mean. While they are flowing through me.

Well, it requires careful saying. The forces – let’s think of them as white light – are no less white after they have shined through the maze of obstacles, baffles, redirections and contradictory paths that you are. But you shine with the energy of that light, but the color of your own pattern. You see?

Yes, that’s very clear.

Good, but let us stop there, and you do other things, even if of less allure.

Okay. Thanks as always.


Only Somewhat Real: Evil

Friday, October 6, 2017

I am undecided whether to ask you Henry Reed’s somewhat involved question, or invite you to proceed on whatever track you are on.

Remember, “interruptions” and seemingly fortuitous interactions are as much a part of the pattern of events as any consciously formed plan. A good teacher uses what comes.

Very well, then, here is a long message Henry posted on my blog. I have my own reaction to it, and I gather that you’d just as soon I set that out so you can correct and comment as usual.

In this case it will be a matter of our commenting on your view rather than upon your attempted restatement of our position, but fine, go ahead.

[Henry Reed: A professional Intuitive posted this recollection, and it seems to relate. Perhaps Nathaniel might comment:

[The other day, after the Vegas attack, comedian Jimmy Kimmel … stated that it seemed like a window onto evil had been opened. This made me think of something my clairvoyant professor had said back in the mid ’70s…. He said that the first bomb testing, and all the bombs that have followed, have actually “blown holes” in Earth’s spiritual layer of protection…. With each ‘hole’ a tremendous amount of evil or dark forces has been able to enter. They have come streaming or flooding in. In his words it was like a “vacuum cleaner” sucking in tremendous amounts of negativity.

[Then the drug revolution went hand-in-hand with this. He explained that loosening one’s consciousness thru drugs allowed many of these dark forces to have access to them. To easily come into (either partly by influencing or more totally inhabiting) bodies. That with this much dark forces on Earth now it is no longer safe to do mind-altering drugs and he even discouraged social drinking. (You see literally the evil that literally comes into some people who drink often). Some people I know do peyote rituals, insisting it is fine and the native Americans did it. But here again, this creates a “loosening” of the finer bodies (etheric, astral and spirit layers etc.).

[With the prevalence and existence of SO much negativity on Earth now along with the heightening of energies our way of living cannot be the same as in the past. He said that Earth’s protective layer is now more like “Swiss cheese” — extremely full of holes, giving free access to negative forces…. Indeed literally many ” windows onto evil” have opened. If only people more in general could understand the many layers of existence. [He also said] that as time went on closer to the millennium and after, good spiritual forces or beings would have to be streaming energy to the planet just to keep us functioning long enough for a major event or change to happen. And that these “speeded up” energies would be something that a segment of society would not be able to handle. Some people would become erratic. We are seeing lot of this happen…. Interesting that Jesus had said something like “except that things be ‘speeded up’ there would be no one left alive.”

[MOST SIGNIFICANTLY, as I see it anyway, weapons of killing SHOULD NOT be easily accessible to the public!! This should NO LONGER be possible! The human climate is changing and has changed so dramatically that this can no longer be possible, as I see it anyway. There is way too much instability now.]

My thinking is that this is all confused. I think it is inaccurate use of metaphor, for one thing, inappropriately concrete. Atomic bombs, being physical, can’t blow holes in something that isn’t. But – I don’t know, I suppose. I could be persuaded to think I am being too rigid.

Always a good attitude, if uncomfortable, being ready to be made to re-think.

All right, let’s examine it.

Atomic bombs

“A window on evil.” Doesn’t this metaphor suggest that you are on one side of the wall and evil on the other, and if only the window weren’t open, you’d still be separated?

For many years I have been quoting somebody, can’t remember who, who pointed out that the line between good and evil is not between people but within them.

Correct. But, a careless or ambiguous metaphor does not necessarily discredit an argument, still less an insight or position. So, let’s look farther.

At the most simple and physical layer, atomic bombs do not blow holes in a layer of protection that would by nature be non-3D and would be internal. Clearly at the literal level, this would be inappropriately concrete. But look at it symbolically, and there could be an argument. Certainly the implied devaluation of the sanctity of life that has followed the use and development of such weapons might be expressed that way. However, as a literal material description of reality, no.

The entire thought coupling atomic bombs and the current manifestation of evil rests on interrelated incorrect ideas:

  • A physical event caused – and further such events continue to cause – rupture in a postulated spiritual protective shield.
  • The spiritual shield existed in the first place, with one side being protected against evil on the other side.
  • Proportionate to the number of explosions in the physical (3D) part of the world, “windows” have opened between the 3D and non-3D worlds. But when you remember that there is one world, and that 3D and non-3D alike are subsets of what we are calling All-D, where is there a place for walls and windows? (Yes, we recognize that the window was metaphor, but within the construct of the metaphor, that is the function, and, as we say, where is the possibility?)
  • Great amounts of negativity were allowed into 3D by the disruption of this spiritual shield. Without the shield, without the separation of spiritual and physical, without the segregation of good from evil to begin with, what is left of this idea?
  • Without a spiritual protective layer to be breached by a physical event, where is the potential for it to be full of holes? The analogy resembles the hole in the ozone that was detected decades ago, except that ozone depletion was described as resulting from physical causes affecting a physical substance and system (ozone and the surrounding atmosphere). No one suggested that the ozone interacted with or was adversely impacted by spiritual forces. However, bookmark this sentence, as you sometimes say, because there is a core of truth here that we should spell out.

To sum up the portion on atomic testing, we would say, no, this is bad theory, inappropriately concrete, and if meant only metaphorically, much more misleading than elucidating.


In relation to drugs, however, this is on firmer grounds. Notice immediately one difference.

This one is attributing a physical mechanism – drugs – to individuals rather than to society as an abstraction, and it has a more believable mechanism.

Believability isn’t the issue. Ever. Believability isn’t a constant, for one thing, and for another it is too closely related to “common sense” to be relied upon. In other words, what is believable to you today may not be tomorrow, and what is believable to one may not be to another, and what is believable may be so only because it accords with prejudice or background ideas. However, the question of believability aside, it is true that drugs affect the individual mind. Do they therefore affect the individual spirit?

That isn’t a question I have thought to ask.

Think in terms of what we have been encouraging you to think of as the structure of the world.

So much easier to take dictation.

So it is. Think.

Well, if 3D and non-3D are two aspects of the same world, and everybody is in both, with our consciousness in different places, sort of, the differences between mental and spiritual aren’t necessarily even real. I mean, whatever spiritual means, we are it. And it can’t be something walled off within us, this much body, this much spirit, maybe this much mind. If there is a difference among them, we’re closer to raisin bread than separate bins of wheat, raisins, yeast, etc.

Does it affect your spirit when you take aspirin?

Does it affect my spirit when the headache goes away?


Well, “exactly,” only I don’t know quite where that leaves us.

Drugs, even psychotropics on one end of the scale and pain-relievers on the other end, are all physical substances. They affect the physical body by producing chemical changes. Those chemical changes may be mild or profound, and they may have effects on the 3D consciousness – which is really what we’re talking about here – ranging from disorienting to imperceptible. Where is the scope of action for the physical substance to affect a postulated spiritual barrier? What they affect is consciousness, and their chief effect there is indeed to lower the barriers, but they are internal barriers, they are not barriers between the individual and the outside (even if non-physical) world.

I have long said that LSD, which is the only drug I have any experience with except marijuana and a one-time wakeup experience of mescaline, does not bring chaos or harmony, clarity or confusion. It instead magnifies what you are, so you cannot miss it. You may be overwhelmed by it, but it is overwhelm by what you already are, unsuspected. At least, I think so.

That is substantially correct. Again, the metaphor implies invasion from without. Absent that, what remains?

However – and you should find this interesting – despite inappropriate metaphor and inadequate examination of premises, this is still a valid perception, that the current moment is one of heightened activity.

Long-repressed content

I was going to comment on perception versus interpretation, but I get that the point here is that this is a time when – oh, of course – when what was unconscious is becoming conscious (whether we would prefer it or not) and therefore the negative is coming forth full strength, having been so long repressed.

It isn’t that the negative has been repressed, it is that the awareness of, the acceptance of, the negative has been repressed. And like any long-repressed psychic content, it is now erupting full force.

Yes, I see that. And, because life is good – because we are good as well as evil – protection flows forth along with destruction.

It is your choice, always.

This is very helpful, and a lot more thoughtful than my reaction would have been.

It’s mostly a matter of slowing down, of sinking in, unafraid of what you may find. You do it by talking to us. You could profitably do it in your day-to-day interactions, as well.

I was about to say, “easier said than done,” but it is just a decision, isn’t it?

That’s what it is, and your lives are built upon a continual stream of decisions.

And as to the commercial for gun control at the end?

Change the consciousness, and the manifestations of the consciousness change automatically. There is much more going on behind the scenes than you can know – we are talking in 3D terms here, not speaking of non-3D manipulation – and the issue is not what it seems to anybody on any side of it. Stick to what you can do, rather than obsessing over what you cannot do.

Don’t go marching off to a pretended siege of Babylon, as Emerson says.

Some psychological situations never change, which is why older wisdom still applies.

Many thanks for all this.


Only Somewhat Real: Suffering, in 3D and All-D

Tuesday, October 3, 2017

Seems to me you have a good opportunity for teaching us how “all is well” coexists with all not being well, in the latest terrorist incident, in Nevada.

Yes, it will serve.

My way is that once I know that something like that happened, I avoid anything more than the bare fact itself. I don’t immerse myself in the detail and the analysis that is sure to follow. I suppose that is somewhat ostrich-like, but it seems to work best for me.

Not your reaction to the JFK murder, however. Could your subsequent reaction to tragedies have been molded in reaction to your reaction to that event?

Interesting thought. I didn’t even want to know anything about various theories as to who really killed him. I accepted the official story, and my mourning was too deep to allow me to touch the questions, for decades, literally. It must have been 25 years before I emerged from that shell-shocked condition.

And you weren’t about to allow yourself to be equally traumatized again.

No. I walled it off. I remember that. I felt Bobby Kennedy’s murder deeply, but I stayed away from reading about it after the first week.

Now consider the situation. In the 3D world, there was your suffering and there was the resultant habit to deal with the possibility of similar shocks. What about in the All-D, where your 3D reactions were only a part of the reality?

I don’t know, you tell me.

Outside of time and space – which in context means in the world beyond the constrictions of 3D-ever-moving-present-moment life – what was real? Your day to day movements of your body? Your moment-by-moment words, thoughts, emotions, reactions? It probably seems like it, but no. Outside of the present moment, what is real is –

Well, we’re going to have to backfill for a moment. It is true that in one way every moment of your lives is real and enduring and vividly alive. That is what the Akashic Record is, really, each moment held like a fly in amber, except alive. But it is equally true that this could be considered your soul’s record, while your spirit’s record is in what you sometimes call the completed self.

I think you mean, the spirit’s record could be thought of as the end-of-the-story record, rather than the moment-by-moment record. It is how the spirit was changed by the events and by my reactions to the events, from the point of view of “that life is over and done with; here’s the net result.”

Yes, that is the sense of it.

Which as usual begs the question of how there can be a net effect when every possible path in my life is taken, including any paths in which JFK wasn’t killed in Dallas. As usual, the question is, why wouldn’t they all cancel out.

And as usual the answer is, they don’t cancel, they add. The result is not a result of attrition but of addition. The very plethora of results is the answer.

I keep forgetting that. My tendency is to think that a life will produce a result that will be built upon, and I keep getting reminded that a life produces a huge range of results, all of which considered together, and only all of them considered together, is the result.

It makes a difference. Many a conundrum in logic disappears when you realize that common sense is misleading you by over-simplifying the situation.

A hierarchy of reality

So, to consider our response to your question. What is real in your life, as seen from the non-obstructed All-D perspective, is the result in you of going through such experiences either directly or vicariously. Yes, your moment-by-moment reaction is as real as the 3D world, but in a way, it isn’t any realer, even though it continues to exist in a way the moving-present 3D world does not.

To put it in a hierarchy of reality:

1) The 3D experience itself, including bodily impact, anything sensory.

2) The psychic portion of the 3D experience; what enters the Akashic Record.

3) The net effect on this version of your life of having gone through the experience.

The first tier hurts; the second tier has meaning; the third tier contains the potential from that life forward.

Well, what about the time I healed Joseph Smallwood’s injured back? [As described in Chasing Smallwood. I, working in an altered state from 1994, changed what had happened in 1863, with momentous consequences. Impossible, according to conventional views of reality. Less unusual than we might think, according to the scheme sketched out by our non-3D friends.] Didn’t one life move to at least the Akashic Record version of another life and alter it, thus opening a new path for the entire life, at least that version of his life?

And perhaps you might have been able to – still could – cause him to move his body [during the battle] to avoid the crippling blow. That would be at the first-tier level of reality. Wouldn’t that be a good thing?

I’m sensing a trap. I don’t know if I would still be me if he didn’t have his altered-state experience of an angel healing him. If that is a true risk, I don’t suppose I would change things even to spare him. But, is it a true risk?

Remember, you are considering one given time-line. It isn’t like it would remove all other possibilities or even one of them.

Ah, but in effect I would be creating a new possible time line, and I would be somehow tied to it.

Haven’t you spent years wondering why you couldn’t live in a timeline in which Kennedy did not get killed?

For the first time, I’m beginning to understand. Not all timelines lead to the same place, of course. From your third tier of reality, where we come out is more important than what we go through to get there.

That’s the idea.

Can’t avoid the speed bumps if we want to traverse the road.

That’s a little too simple, but close enough. Now, enough for a while.

All right. Thanks for all this.


Only Somewhat Real: Passion and conflict

Physical train wrecks and psychological debris and vast impersonal forces flowing through us.

This will go better, the more each reader brings to mind specifics as we discuss the general principles. That is, you all know how these forces sweep through your lives; you see it first hand, you see it in dramas and histories and twice-told talks. Passion and conflict is at the heart of story, after all. No conflict, no story. But is conflict as simple a thing as self-interest colliding with self-interest? You could make a reasonable argument that that is all it is, but we would say that argument would amount to “nothing buttery,” and would clarify nothing.

Lust manifests! Anger, envy, swollen pride manifest! You see them on all sides. Conversely, anybody could tell first- or second-hand stories of noble actions, of self-sacrifice, of quiet unnoticed heroism. Scratch any story and you will find people acting out of motivations, and scratch the motivations and you will find desirable or undesirable passions, maybe quiet, even placid, but passions. An old woman may be invisibly passionate over her flower garden, or her pets, or – anything, really. The key here is not “woman” but “invisibly.” Although passion is at the heart of all drama, not all passion expresses itself in a dramatic fashion.

The point is that these forces make up your life. The man who sacrifices his life day by day at a meaningless job, that his children may live and hopefully may live better than he, is acting from conviction, and what is conviction rooted in, if not some passion?

We will not continue to pile up examples. Look at other aspects of your life, the events around you and those you only hear of. Wars, cooperation, disasters and disaster relief, millions of private enterprises commercial and otherwise, and millions of pointlessly destructive activities like vandalism. Music, art, poetry, technology, finance, scholarship – all the forms of human activity you can think of. At some place they connect to passion.

So where does it come from? In trying to answer that, realize that plugging in a word like “instinct” is not an answer (because not a process, not a linking-together of things, but a word implying “nothing but”); it is a decision not to inquire. So – inquire. Where does this force come into your life from?

Spirit and soul

You may think, “I was born with it,” and that is certainly true, but it doesn’t actually answer anything. All it says is that you have never lived without it. (Nor could you.) But we knew this: Soul without Spirit is not living in the 3D world; it is closer to being a ghost of itself.

All right, but that sort of answers the question, doesn’t it? These forces are the forces of Spirit.

Fine. And what are the forces of Spirit?

I take it the answer is not as simple as “The electricity that runs through the wires,” or “The light that shines through the fiber optics.”

That would be merely to restate in other words what was said. Resist the temptation to consider the Soul as in 3D and the Spirit as coming from the non-3D somehow. Try to see both inhabiting the All-D, so that, although they coexist in the same space, Spirit is mostly not comprehended by Soul. You could say, pretty accurately, that Soul is bound to its 3D limitations in which it was founded, while Spirit inhabits all of reality, not only the 3D portion of it, hence is invisible to greater or lesser extent depending upon how conscious the Soul is or becomes. Spirit is always here, always functioning, but is it not always perceived, and rarely is perceived in the same way at different times by different Souls.

That certainly makes sense to me.

The next step is to realize that since Spirit interpenetrates your being, its vagaries are going to affect you, often directly.

I didn’t realize that Spirit has vagaries. I think of Spirit as – well, as a vast impersonal force, the way you have been describing it.

You are thinking of Soul and Spirit as two different kinds of things that happen to intersect in human enterprises. But Spirit created Soul. It animates Soul. It shares its essence with Soul.

I thought we were saying that a Sam creates a soul of its own essence.

Do you think a Sam’s essence (even in so far as it is personal) is somehow different from Spirit? That we have Spirit on the one hand and Sam on the other?

I guess I don’t know what I thought. I never thought about that as a problem at all.

Well, let us give the kaleidoscope a shake and see if anything emerges more clearly. Look at it this way. Sam = Spirit creating and incorporating and developing and fostering Souls. In being so engaged, it loses some of its freedom of action (somewhat as a parent does to a dependent child) and becomes part of a compound being. So the difference between what we call Sam for convenience and what we continue to call Spirit is whether one is or is not part of a compound being.

So I take it that Spirit too can be subdivided into more or less individuals, some of whom make one choice, others other choices?

“As above, so below.” What is individual seen one way is community seen another way.

Huh! Well this is a startling development.

Think about it and we’ll come back to it.



Only Somewhat Real: WYSIWYG

Monday, October 2, 2017

WYSIWYG (Pronounced “wissywig”)

To continue, then: How can all be well when all is not well, at the same time?

And you heard the answer even as you wrote.

Well, I heard the analogy: How can we be individuals and communities at the same time?

Mostly it is a question of focus. “What You See Is What You Get” is an expression you use sometimes. Perhaps this is true in a sense not intended by those who invented it.

No, In computer terms, WYSIWYG means transparency: Literally, whatever you are looking at is the result. It means there won’t be translation errors, you might say. But you are using it to mean, depending on how we choose to see things, that’s how they are.

Well – not quite.

Smiling. I get that a lot.

Better than “Dead wrong,” probably, or “Don’t be ridiculous.”

Better. Still smiling. So –

Depending on how you choose to see things, that’s the aspect of them that seems to you to be real. That often seems like the only aspect that is real. In this case, closer to “choose your own reality” than “create your own reality.” It isn’t that you are shaping reality by how you choose to see it, but that you might say you are shaping you, shaping your reality (which after all is the only reality you can know, your reality; you can’t know the ultimate reality any more than we can. Our perception of reality is always going to be less than whatever reality really is in essence).

So, then, accepting that, how does it tie in to the vast impersonal forces you keep mentioning?

First, are you clear that life is how it appears to you, more than how it really is?

I’d never get away with a sentence like that, but I know what you mean. Life is always our personal subset of reality. We never see the entire picture, only our subset which we often take to be the entire picture. I am clear on that, yes. Even the fact that each of us has uncounted versions living different timelines tells me that reality has to be bigger than anything anyone or any one timeline can apprehend. By definition, really.

All right. So then it shouldn’t surprise you – though we suspect that it will – to hear that the shape the world is in is no more fixed than anything else, except in any given timeline.

That makes perfect sense, and you’re right, it never occurred to me. Not sure why. Or, actually I suppose it has been obvious all along, but in a different context that I didn’t happen to associate with this one.

Most of learning is less the acquisition of new facts than the associating of what you already know in different contexts.

And I’m starting to get your drift.

Systematic inversion

Well, it shouldn’t really surprise anybody that the world they see around them is integrally connected to the version of themselves that is walking that particular timeline. I mean, how else could it be? You and your world can’t be connected only arbitrarily. External events are only seemingly external and unconnected, as Rita was at some pains to point out in the context of the newly dead soul realizing that its 3D life had all been internal after all. It is in the confusing of external and internal that so many people’s anguish takes place. And perhaps you can spell that our in our place.

You seem to be saying, if we didn’t take “external” events to be more real than the internal life we know first-hand, we wouldn’t be so upset at how badly things go. Can that be what you really mean? I know, “not quite.”

It’s hard to find an equally useful phrase, you will admit. No, this requires some careful spelling-out.

Up to you, I think. It’s just a jumble to me so far. [More or less immediately:] I hear you: Slow down and center. So I will.

You will notice a pattern. Once we point it out you will, anyway. When there is a lot to be said, you sometimes start to race your editorial motors, and it doesn’t improve reception.

True enough. So –

If you take external events to be self-evidently real, if only because they seem to be perceived and accepted by everybody around you, you are going to wind up giving them primacy of reality. I mean, they will seem realer to you than the many thoughts, feelings, emotions that make up your life. It is crazy but natural: What is remote from your experience will seem more real than what is immediately at hand.

And don’t think this means only events you may see on the news. The things that happen to you – the innumerable things not necessarily of any importance that make up the external interface with the world also may seem more real, because more undeniable and more unmalleable, then the internal events. So, tying your shoe, eating your breakfast, driving your car, reading your mail, talking on the telephone – that kind of thing – is all going to seem realer to you than your own thoughts! It’s crazy, seen from our viewpoint, except that we do understand the underlying dynamics.

So do I, now that you come to explore them: We are used to crediting our senses more than our intuitions. Sensory data seems objective, intuition or call it non-sensory data seems at least debatable.

Does this seems like a stretch, then? To say that 3D life is a life that systemically inverts the order of importance of things?

I can see it. But seeing it doesn’t overrule the reality I experience. My lungs still function correctly or they don’t, and my part in that seems secondary to environmental forces.

Why, and how, all is well

Well, we aren’t trying to say that people in 3D conditions ought to be able to overcome them; just the contrary, in fact. 3D life was designed to work, not to be superseded or outmaneuvered. Our point here is that this systematic distortion in how you understand the world, rooted in how you experience the world, helps explain how “all is well” and “all is not well” can coexist, both being true depending upon viewing point.

It still comes perilously close to saying, “It’s all a show; those mangled bodies don’t mean anything.”

No, that is not the idea. What we are really getting to is that the reality is the energy flowing through those lives, it is not the external incidents that you can see, that result from energy flows, and redirect energy flows.

I’m starting to get what you’re driving at. They are real forces, real consequences. But the reality is in the real part of us, and not in the merely physical part of us.

You’ve gotten it by a spark leaping mind to mind, but your readers may not get it from the words they’ve read so far. Some may, some may not.

Well, how to put it any clearer? Our emotions, and that includes all the emotions of anybody in any news event, are real, and they are the point of the experience. They – and whatever changes they result in, within ourselves – are what we will take with us (so to speak) in the realer All-D world. Nobody carries a burned building or an exploded bomb or a deadly virus from 3D into All-D. They are all, you might say, local phenomena. In that sense, it hardly matters what happens externally on earth (i.e. in 3D). What matters is what happens internally to each of us, because that is what is real and that is what will persist. In that sense, all is well no matter the train wreck.

Although, it does leave the fairly large question of what about the psychological debris caused by the physical train wrecks.

That has everything to do with those same forces we keep promising to discuss. And of course, your time being up –

Next time. Okay, thanks.


Only Somewhat Real: Unfinished creation

Sunday, October 1, 2017

III. All Is Well?

Unfinished creation

We as 3D beings may be receiving different-colored input (so to speak), as well as coloring it ourselves?

You are part of a process, not only the result of a process. Creation isn’t finished, and creation isn’t something that was done to you, so to speak. It is something done with you, and is forever being done with you, not merely to you. Remember this, if you can.

As I was writing that, I got an image of people watching television, passively receiving input.

That may be how it seems to them, and it may be how it seems to you, but in reality even “passive” is active, in a sense. You might as well describe plants in a garden as being passive to input like water. Receiving is transforming, conscious or not. It isn’t really possible for you (that is, for anyone) to remain unaffected by anything that flows through you. Even an active decision not to be changed would be a change, you see.

The resolution would itself be a change from a prior state.

Even if it were a continuing resolution, yes, it represents an effect of an interaction.

Moral of story, be careful what you allow in as input?

Well, that could be a long subject if we followed it out. After all, what you choose to allow in can’t exactly be said to be random. But yes, you need to choose as much by what you won’t consider as by what you consider and decide upon. The point at the moment, though, is that you are never inert recipients; you are by nature, and inevitably, creators. That one particular aspect that you attribute to your God or gods is the one single descriptor that best includes all humans. Creators. But creation is not merely a matter of imagination, of focused thought, any more than it is merely of skilled hands, or channeled willpower. It is your essence, your continued and uninterrupted and uninterruptable effect upon the world around you and within you. Every moment, you create by what you are. You are creating your flower, remember; you are creating a habit-system (your mind); you are molding the possibilities of the present moment in the context of past moments and future moments. And of course it all proceeds in a broader context – past lives, other versions, interactions with all the parts of your Sam, and so on  and so forth.

I don’t know, that sounds kind of high-flying. Too mystical to still have any practical meaning, almost.

Choose your battles

Oh do you think so? Then you tell me (so to speak) the meaning of uncounted lives that last maybe 10 or 15 years in the middle of some African war-zone, or in semi-starvation somewhere in Asia, or in meaningless drudgery in middle America. We are not here referring to poverty or suffering or even a sense of ennui or depressed frustration, though there are plenty of exemplars of those. But, in general, how do you make sense of the world if you think (implicitly, as you often do) that the measure of a life is what one does with it?

All is well, then? Is that why you can say all is well? Because no matter how miserable a life people may have, it is a creation somehow?

You see, we just pushed a button you didn’t quite realize was still wired up.

You certainly did, I take it [you did so] deliberately.

Well, we aren’t sorry to have done so. the more you are aware of, the larger your options, as you know.

I put it, if it’s unconscious it controls you, and if you make it conscious, you control it.

It comes to the same thing. It is always well to have compassion for others and to do what you can for those who touch your life. But it is a hasty person who concludes that life is poorly designed because the world is full of suffering or – an even more common, if unconscious reason – because the world does not conform to our expectations of it, or our desires for it. Here’s an experiment: Why don’t you do something to prevent the slave trade of the 17th century? Or, why not prevent the Roman Republic from degenerating into the Roman Empire? Or stop the Opium War of 1842? Those are all worthy causes, and your ability to affect them is exactly the same as your ability to affect things halfway around the world today.

Between the lines, I get, “unless your life calls you that way.”

Well, unless your life brings you there, or brings them to you, yes. Explain.

You aren’t saying don’t help when you can; you’re saying don’t confuse feeling bad over a situation with actually doing something to help, and don’t spend your life feeling guilty that you are leading your life instead of somebody else’s. I get that the people who formed the anti-slavery society, for instance, were doing something that came to them, or they were finding a way to affect something that was affecting them. This isn’t a contradiction to what you’re saying, but an illustration of it.

That’s right. If you are called to a crusade, all right. But if you are called to every crusade, well – not only do practical objections arise, but what you are doing with your self-creation is not perhaps what you think you are doing. Look, all paths are good; we aren’t saying, “Don’t do that, it’s futile,” any more than we would say, “Don’t do that, you’ll make God mad at you.” We are saying what you decide will be what you do, and what you do (internally as well as externally) will be what you are. And it is “what you are” that ultimately will count.

Life is always good

But there is a larger point to be made, and a more difficult one, that is closer to our central concern. Life is good, no matter what it looks like to you. Human life on earth in 2017 is not mostly a failure, no matter how it looks to you. Your political and social and economic and ecological troubles – not to mention the huge spiritual vortex stirring up everything, ramping up the intensity of all conflicts, and not merely in the United States – all of this could tempt you to say, “All is obviously not well. We are doomed. The injustice of the world is suffocating us all.”

Here’s the thing: Can you hold that thought and feeling – which is not wrong – and still realize that all is well because all is always well?

I think people would be glad if you could help them with it.

We can, probably making them angry in the process because it involves associating two lines of thought that they typically are careful to keep separate, even if they shuttle from one to the other several times a minute.

Exaggeration for effect, I take it.

Not much of one. On the one hand, follow the news, with its unending serial of disaster upon problem upon intractable conflict. You mostly do it all the time, scarcely even noticing. Studying it in history isn’t all that much different from allowing it to flow through you via television or computer or gossip. Even sagas of heroism, altruism, even success stories, take place against a background of on-going train wrecks. Or, if you prefer to believe in the existing state of affairs as desirable, you see it as a past record of achievement now being threatened by the forces of (the left, or the right, depending upon your villain of choice). Either way, this half of your mind is pretty firmly mounted in a setting of on-going unfairness, stupidity, incompetence, malice and – in general – a throwing-away of all good possibilities, and unnecessarily.

True enough. That has been my experience since Nov. 22, 1963. [The day the assassination of President John F. Kennedy changed everything.]

Certainly. You compare what did happen with what you think might have happened, or should have, could have happened, and it all looks like waste.

It does.

So you understand half of the dilemma, the half that looks around and says all is certainly not well, and anybody who thinks so is blind or stone-hearted. And by nature and on faith you nonetheless hold to the conviction that somehow all is well, regardless.

I hold to it, I feel it, but I certainly can’t explain it or even defend it.

And, unlike many, you are able to hold both incompatibles at the same time. Do you know why?

I do since you just conveyed it. (At least I imagine that’s what just happened.) It’s because I got “all is well” not from somebody else, either first-hand or second-hand, but from essence. The guys flowed it through me, telling Rita in 2001, and I never doubted it, even if, as you point out, it is incompatible with everything else I know.

That is where we can go next, then. How can both be true, and what does that tell us about those vast impersonal energies flowing through you, which we remind you is our main focus at the moment.