On politics and psychic exploration

[A continuation of the discussionposted yesterday, broken into two because of the length of each part.]

Tuesday, June 29, 2010

All right. Are we still on the topic of the interaction between politics and psychic exploration?

The entire topic could be summed up thus: Given that person-groups reflect and interact with social-groups, there is nothing more effective than healing one’s own person-group, and nothing more seductive and distracting than putting off working on one’s person-group in order to pretend to correct one’s social-group, or, even worse, other people’s social-groups. This is not work but a pretense of working. It may be and often is an evasion of working.

“But,” I can hear people crying, “are we to do nothing about the world situation until we ourselves are perfect? That’s a formula for doing nothing.”

And indeed it would be. No, that isn’t quite what we mean. After all, you don’t hear us objecting when you interrupt this to pour another cup of coffee, or empty the dehumidifier, or do anything of life’s many little things to be done. Should we say, “no more coffee until you have resolved all your problems?” But on the other hand, neither would we say, “pouring a cup of coffee is good work; emptying the dehumidifier will help solve the oil blowout, or will resolve the political deadlock.” You see? Not everything one does in the world is an evasion — but don’t confuse it with real work, either.

Working to resolve social issues can be very good work. How do you do it, rather than pretend to do it? We are saying, perhaps your most effective actual, practical action is internal, healing the splits that resonate up and down the scales.

If, doing that, you also work in government trying to avoid problems through regulation, or if, doing it, you also work at the oil business, trying to avoid problems by better practices, or if, doing it, you also work at the business of harnessing public awareness, trying to avoid problems through effective pressure on those more directly involved, well and good. But if you do any of those things while not working for your internal harmony, your person-group [internal] action may be contributing more toward making the problem worse than its external actions contribute toward making it better. You have heard “as above, so below”; it may equally be said, “as within, so without.” And — a footnote, practically, because to us it seems so obvious that we need to remind ourselves to remember to mention it — the worst, most harmful attitude of all would be to harbor and nourish and aggravate internal civil war by looking on at social problems and becoming fixed in condemnation.

I remember, maybe half a dozen years ago (I can’t remember just how long) realizing that I needed to stop where I was going, for I was moving ever closer to hatred of George Bush and all he stood for and all he was doing. At the time I thought it was purely personal. I didn’t want to (couldn’t afford to) live in hatred. Now I begin to see that our inner selves — even if unexpressed — do manifest in the outer world, just as religion has always said. And I remember Abraham Lincoln saying he could not judge Bush as harshly as I was doing, because he had been in that position and I had not.

That is so for you, and it is so for everyone looking on at anything they have not personally experienced. It is safe and fair and scarcely to be avoided, that you judge (discern) consequences. It is neither safe nor fair — and can be avoided — to judge motivations and attitudes. That is, love the sinner, condemn the sin. Light the candle, don’t curse the darkness.

And “lighting the candle” is working to heal ourselves, first and foremost.

That work is always there at hand for you to do. Done humbly and willingly, it is always good and effective work — and, in a sense, you don’t care what the result is, or whether resolution ever seems any nearer. It is the working toward wholeness that is the work, ultimately.

Of course, there is no need — no, nor any possibility — of waiting, to do good work among your fellows, until your internal (or seemingly internal) problems have been resolved. For one thing, it is in interacting with others that you work on yourself. For another, given that the distinction between individuals is only fictional, in a sense, and certainly is not real in the way it is commonly supposed to be, working with others is working on yourself, if done from the right motives of love, charity, concern, sincere desire to aid your fellows in your common journey.

What would be not good work — would be worse than an evasion of your true task — would be to try to fix somebody. Help if you can, and as you see opportunity, but do not presume to know another’s situation as well as they do, however much you from outside may see that they from inside do not. Remember that they from inside live what you can not, and cannot perceive, much less judge, much less condemn. What else do you suppose that Jesus was saying when he said, before you try to remove the speck from your neighbor’s eye, first remove the huge obstruction to vision from your own eye? You can’t do real work by pretending to work, and you can’t help by avoiding your real work.

A lot here, this morning, all starting from a dream! Thank you.

Some time you might look at that “starting from.” Causation isn’t as simple as it appears to you.

Nothing is, I notice. Well, see you Thursday. Thanks again.

The non-3D and our recognitions

Wednesday, September 18, 2019

6:05 a.m. Gentlemen? I think we were going somewhere before we had to consider good and evil. I hope you are keeping track.

We are; we are also responsive to the moment. It doesn’t matter to us how an argument develops. As we have said, there are many routes to get there – wherever “there” may be defined at.

Let us go back to considering good and evil. Now that we have agreed upon the desirability of being whole rather than good – that is, of recognizing that you are whole rather than however you define yourself as good – we still have to consider what that means.

It occurs to me, writing that, that Jesus somewhere said don’t call me good, there isn’t anybody good but the father. If I’m remembering that rightly, this would shed light on what he meant; no 3D person can be made up of good only.

A word on process. Can you see that who we deal with on the 3D end of the scale helps determine what can come through, and what its flavor will be? If you were still the Christian you had been raised to be, or if you had rejected the essence with the trappings, you could not make such associations and speculations. Similarly, if you had had no religious upbringing at all, or had never read the gospels of your own volition, would you have had the data? So, as we say, it makes each potential conduit unique. In some cases that uniqueness may not add anything particularly valuable; in others, it may.

Interesting you mention that. I was thinking I should re-read the gospels again, then was thinking how little interest I have in the other books of the New Testament, or of the old. In fact, I am pretty much ignorant of the Old Testament and I have forgotten whatever I knew about the various epistles of the early church leaders. What I listen to is the recorded words of Jesus. They speak to me. The rest of it is no doubt of great value, given that religions and civilizations have been built on it, but for whatever reason it is not alive for me. Only the words of Jesus, and what they suggest.

Hence our work with the Gospel of Tomas, relatively uncontaminated by later editing, and unconcerned with narrative.

It occurs to me, too – not for the first time – that pretty nearly everybody ought to have non-3D connections with various kinds of Christians by now. It may be that this is how the thoughts and even the presence of Jesus are to spread to every part of the world, not in mere geographic evangelization, as the Victorians believed.

Let it occur to you, then, as well, that spreading influence by resonance in the non-3D is the only way to avoid all the inevitable distortion and politics that would accompany expansion through physical contact and persuasion and conversion and, often enough, coercion.

A sort of subterranean process continuing through history while the surface currents concern themselves with other things.

Yes, only don’t assume that the non-3D has as its purpose to make everyone Christian.

God forbid!

Yes, we smile. But after all, Jesus was not a Christian, any more than the Buddha was a Buddhist.

No, and I don’t imagine for a moment that the end-result described would be anything so oriented on people being “good” – that is, obeying external rules and waging internal warfare – rather than whole.

However, that doesn’t mean that religions were failures or detours or conspiracies. But neither can they or any of them be a panacea, and this is of course the temptation for the religious.

The joke has been welling up within me for three paragraphs’ worth, so I suppose there’s a reason for me to express it. The guy said, “I’m an atheist, thank God.”

Well, there is a point to it. There is a whimsical illustration of a couple of related facts. (1) Atheism itself can be a form of religion; (2) even in a vigorous intellectual rejection of religious attitudes, the same attitude may inhere, unsuspected. Now, it is only a joke, so there’s no reason to put too much weight on it, but still, there you are.

In paying attention to the words and the underlying attitude of Jesus, you are doing what you did when you read that book, so many decades ago.

Yes, I loved that book. I had forgotten about it. I forget what the title was, but it compared the world’s higher religions not by analysis or argument but by citing their scriptures. I can still remember it, a purple dust jacket, if I’m not mistaken. Perhaps I can find it in my library upstairs; I am unlikely to have discarded it. If I do, I’ll cite it. I imagine it is long out of print, though. [I was unable to find it.]

Our point here is that that is an intelligent approach to religion when you are no longer contained within one. Seek the truth where you can find it, and the truth will not inhere in rules and regulations, nor in prohibitions. It will inhere in certain statements that your inner self will recognize as truth.

And how – we might ask – do you suppose your inner self does that?

You know I know.

Yes, but this is not primarily for you. It is partly rhetorical, partly directed at whomever it spears.

The answer is logically contradictory, not that that matters.

That’s why we love working with you!

You’re welcome. But it is. The non-3D part of us recognizes truth when it sees it – and it ought to, given that it steered us to it in the first place.

Precisely. But let’s look at that just a bit more analytically. What you just said amounts to this:

1) Your non-3D component knows vastly more than you can know consciously, of course.

2) It would be self-defeating for your non-3D to coerce your 3D mind, given that the whole point of 3D existence is conscious willing choice.

3) Nonetheless there are more and there are less productive paths to take; some are more desirable than others, at least from our point of view. Yet, we cannot constrain.

4) Given cooperation from the 3D self, we can gently steer you toward truth, toward growth, toward fulfillment. We can’t force you to accept the gifts, but we can show you where they are. But how much we can do this depends upon your internal makeup. If the 3D personality we are dealing with is rigid, how much can we do? If it is frivolous, how can we put its attention to great but subtle opportunities?

5) What we can do is point you to whatever opportunity best harmonizes with your nature, so that you will be most likely to see and appreciate the opportunity.

6) Once the 3D consciousness seizes the good – that is, once its attention focuses on it – then it is a matter of the 3D personality choosing to accept or reject, but at least the opportunity has been presented.

And one of the lures you use is our resonance to past-life (so-called) personalities.

Of course: 3D calls to 3D in a very specific way, as you learned while doing retrievals in Lifeline at TMI.

I think I side-tracked us a bit, but that’s our time for the morning.

We’ve never met a side-track we didn’t like.

Thank you Will Rogers. Okay, till next time.


For those feeling overwhelmed

Tuesday, June 29, 2010

5:30 AM. “Sometimes I feel like a motherless child” running through my head.

A dream in which I and many others had gone — and paid — to hear — Carl Jung? Colin Wilson? — speak. I had spoken of it to dad and he was there — several of my family were there, I think. Jung, not Colin. He spoke briefly and then disappeared and the audience waited and realized he wasn’t coming back. I went after him, climbing up into the bleachers to try to see where he had gone. Went around back somewhere. Was told he had gone, and felt quite bitter about it — it wasn’t fair that he should arrive, speak a few sentences and leave. I said, I think, it was just what Colin did, or was Colin’s fault (meaning, for letting himself be over-scheduled).

Went out to find my car covered in snow needing to be dug out (like all the other cars, of course).

What was that all about, pray?

You are forgetting other bits. You were trying to give your father a glimpse of your inner world, but circumstances not of your making prevented. You felt cheated, for of course the situation wasn’t typical of such occasions, wasn’t the way things are done, wasn’t right. And you were mightily disappointed because you’d wanted to hear the speaker, had hoped to absorb some of his wisdom. And then there was the chore of digging out from under that accumulated snow, so that you could drive away, suddenly ahead of you.

Disappointment followed by work meaningless but necessary, I hear.

Disappointment followed by hard searching followed by work in order to get on the move, yes. Don’t forget to transcribe our little interaction of last night.

[Begin transcription]

9:15 PM. Gentlemen, I hope I am going to be worthy of your trust. This is shaping up to be a big job, and I don’t know if I’m industrious enough, organized enough, to accomplish it.

“The difference between doing it and not doing it is — doing it.” Michael [Langevin, whose saying it is,] is right.

I’ll tell him. But — how can I do it when I can’t seem to give it more than the initial session and the transcription and sending it out?

Habit will make it easier, as it made conversations easier.

Well, I hope so.

Righteous persistence —

I know. All right.

[end transcription]

Very well. I notice, looking back, that toward the end yesterday you mentioned that allowing for more than one viewpoint “preserves your internal freedom of motion.” That seems connected to the car being covered with a deep layer of snow.

What is snow but frozen water that precipitated? Not ice that is also frozen water but formed standing, but frozen water from the skies. And water well represents the emotions, as something from the skies may represent messages from the gods.

That doesn’t seem entirely right. Dr. Jung, can you help me see this?

In this case you might look at it this way. Are you not feeling “snowed under” with the work you have ahead of you, with the sheer volume of material from the heavens? And was it not unexpected, did not come to you out of the blue? Taking the car as a representative of your earthly vehicle — your body — do you not need to do the work of freeing it from the burden of the snow that renders it unable to proceed even when the way has been cleared? In other words, are you not having to take care of your body — tending to your teeth, changing your patterns of eating — while doing all this?

Thank you, that is remarkably clear, given that I couldn’t make sense of it earlier — as in, when I set the pen to learn what you would say about it. And the earlier part of the dream?

You have felt yourself unable to get your family any glimpse of what you live — with the exception of one brother and sister who, you will notice, were not among those there. Here, you thought, was your chance, particularly to perhaps get through to your father, and he was there wanting to hear. And the speaker gave only a few unsatisfying words and so the opportunity was lost. Your searching for him did not result in your finding him, for he was not there to be found. You associated him in your mind with your friend and original inspiration Colin Wilson, who does too much and over-commits.

That is, you cannot count on others, however famous, to give those you care about what you think will help them. And, in working at delivering the message yourself, you know not to over-commit. And this was followed by the practicalities of getting out from under.

Thank you. That’s remarkable. I take it I might as well send all this out as part of the messages?

You are not the only person feeling overwhelmed by the burden of messages from the skies; not the only one who has looked outward for someone to explain themselves to those they loved, only to be disappointed and ultimately to realize that they themselves must do it if it is to be done. So, yes, this dream is no more merely personal than anything else in your lives.

Yes. While you were writing that — or I was taking dictation, whatever — I thought of a couple of people on this list specifically. If they take it as meant specifically for them, well, who’s to say it wasn’t?

Wholeness v. goodness as ideals

Tuesday, September 17, 2019

4:30 a.m. For some reason, my mind casts back to 1997, the year I rented a cabin to live in, and wrote the first draft of Muddy Tracks. I’d get up in the morning, fire up the computer, which took forever to boot, go make coffee – in a percolator, if I remember rightly – and then sit down to work. A very happy time, decompressing after so many years of doing everything but what I wanted to do. Anyway, that was the routine, and I found it very comfortable, very pleasant, as I do now, more than 20 years later.

All right, let’s resume. Goodness v. wholeness.

Perhaps it has not yet become evident that this is a conflict of perception, not of essence. It isn’t better for a person to be whole than to be good, it is better for that person to conceive of, to picture, himself, herself, as whole rather than as good. If it were possible to be entirely good, fine, who could argue against it? But it is destructive, or let’s say obstructive, to be one thing and think oneself another.

Well, that puts it in a different light entirely. I don’t see why you couldn’t have said that in the first place.

Context is all.

This, then, is a conflict of ideals, rather than of states of being.

Yes, but that will take some spelling-out.

I don’t see why. It’s simple enough. If our ideal is to be good, we will suppress awareness of every part of ourselves that is not good; we will suppress manifestation of it. But all this will do is force that part of ourselves into the unconscious, where it will be beyond our control. If our ideal is wholeness, though, we will welcome awareness of what we are, without manifesting it deliberately but without disowning it when it does manifest, hence keeping it more in our consciousness, hence more under our conscious control.

Occasionally you surprise us.

It suddenly clicked, and became clear. As I said, I don’t see why you couldn’t say this a good while ago.

Perhaps we could have; there’s no knowing, even after the fact. At any rate, here we are.

It never ceases to amaze me, how things can be murky one minute, clear the next.

What should concern you by contrast is how murky how much of life remains and will remain.

I guess I’ve long since given up hoping to bring it all to light.

You have sort of given up. We would say you refocused, and focusing usually involves narrowing of field.

So I guess we’re finished with goodness v. wholeness.

Very funny, as you would say. After a flash of insight comes the work of assuring that the new insight remains in context, so that it does not become like the cryptic scribbles that are left from a dream in the night.

Bear in mind, this insight is a very practical insight. It tells you what to do, how to live. It does not shade off into the question of why evil exists or even how it exists (that is, how it manifests) in the 3D world. But practical is worth more than theoretical, if you have a choice. It’s just that sometimes you need to re-examine the theoretical in order to provide new practical awareness.

So we’re bailing out of the larger question?

We are anchoring an important insight before proceeding to that or any other matter.


Everyone lives according to an ideal, or to multiple, often conflicting, ideals. If you were the units you think yourselves to be, you could have one ideal, perhaps. As it is, each of your constituent selves (or, call them sub-selves, it that helps) has its own ideal. How are they all to be harmonized so that you are not working against yourselves? One way is to have one over-arching ideal that all can agree upon.

This will not be possible at all for some self-divided people. It will be possible to some extent for others, and possible to a great extent for a relatively few others. Someone fused into one thing, such as Jesus, can have – will have – cannot not have – one ideal.

We keep coming back to Gurdjieff and his multiple “I”s that take turns running us.

It is a key insight, and as you apply it to different situations and conditions, it sheds light on them.

So, one over-arching ideal. What can serve so well as wholeness?

I see. Every possible attitude, value, or combination is contained within wholeness.

Yes, and what other ideal can contain everything? Goodness, by comparison, is continually choosing, discarding, rejecting, criticizing. You can measure up to an ideal of wholeness, for after all, what is it but acceptance of what you are and how you have been created and faith that you are as you are for a reason. But how can you measure up to an ideal of goodness?

Is this why you had me get so close to Hemingway, for more than a dozen years now? He is a case-study of a man whose impossible ideals tormented him, wracked him with guilt, led him to deny what he had done, filled him with remorse and despair and yet continued valiant attempts to reach the unreachable.

You could write about that and provide people insight into him. An essay, not a book.

But my point?

He certainly provides a valid example. He would provide insight into the faith filled despairing lives of the saints in terms comprehensible to your age.

Except it is too late for me to do it.

You don’t know that.

In any case –

To have as your ideal to be good is to invite repression of all in you that is evil, and to set yourself an impossible task, because one man’s evil is another man’s good. This refers not to other 3D beings around you; it refers to the multitude of strands within you.

It almost sounds like the proper ideal is tolerance.

If tolerance did not shade so soon and so easily into indifference, that would be so. Anyway, wholeness is a belter ideal. Tolerance will come in its wake, but it will be a judicious tolerance. There is no great advantage in learning to be tolerant of mass-murder, or torture, or any of the manifestations of individual or social insanity that are liable to pop up.

Again – or perhaps we haven’t yet quite said this –

[Prolonged pause]

And I went drifting off. Again? [Pause.] I see it’s lost.

Things are never lost; they may be beyond reach at a given moment.

This went surprisingly well, very fluently.

And you needn’t prolong it merely to fill out the hour. The point is made.

I sure wish I knew what you had started to say, though.

In due time, perhaps. Or perhaps it didn’t need saying, or was best left unsaid, or perhaps it is waiting for its time to come round.

If you say so. Well, thanks for all this. We really did light up the subject, in a way I wouldn’t have expected. Till next time.


Of the making of books …

Friday, May 7, 2010

12:30 PM. I just realized, as if from the outside, that I have always read a certain type of book as if in active relation to the author. That never occurred to me before! A history book may center on events or may center on an author’s experience of, or re-creation in his mind of, the events. Thus Bruce Catton is an active presence in his books as was Bernard DeVoto, say, less agreeably, in The Year Of Decision.

Well, with these authors I was in a relationship not very different from that I presently have with Hemingway, for example — but I didn’t know it, because I didn’t realize that (1) they were still alive, (2) they could hear my thoughts, (3) they knew what I know because able to commune with me directly.

That is a huge deafness to have to overcome! If I can help people to do so, it will have a correspondingly huge impact, good and bad both, but mingled, entangled, effects cannot be avoided in a world of duality.

There is an article (column) in this, and an IOMOK post. How-to and why you can. Also, it is the introduction to a book of conversations. The inevitable, indispensable introduction, I suddenly see. Odd how things clarify in lumps like that, rather than slowly.

Thursday, June 3, 2010

8 AM. I have recorded 60,000 words in a little more than a month. Sobering, in a way. It shows how little it takes to accomplish something, if you work consistently.

60,000 words, almost without effort. I think, at this rate I can accomplish a lot. It isn’t too late.

1:20 PM. I am a little like the rich kids Upton Sinclair wrote about, who never accomplished anything because they never had to put their entire effort into succeeding. I don’t need to write books that sell, or lecture or offer workshops for money, so it is difficult not to slack off. Maybe Joanne, if she and I develop a good working relationship, will provide, second-hand, the impetus I need.

All right, guys — which should I attack first?

Healing yourself ?

The book of personalities (can’t be this one; I don’t even have a central theme beyond “they came to me in the wake of Smallwood”).

And, or, a novel?

The healing book is by far the closest to being finished, and the clearest in concept, hence easiest.

All right, I see that. I think maybe I’ll go back to work.

But do it leisurely, slowly. Steadily in the way the Hemingway/Jung book is proceeding.

All right. Now, the next difficulty seems small, but isn’t. When? What time of day? Receiving messages from the other side is certainly easy and fun first thing up. But then after I’ve sent that around, several steps from having put it onto paper, I need a rest, sometimes a nap. So when should I resume? Not till after supper? After lunch? Mid-afternoon?

Your instinct to have a certain time of day is accurate. It will help. Why not from 3 to 5? That is time enough for the longest of siestas, and can be rewarded by supper alone or with friends.

All right, that sounds all right. Let’s try that. And the healing book may not require all that much work, either.

All the more reason not to rush it. Work gently on it, and it will come and then you may go off onto other things and perhaps you will still have Hemingway/Jung in process. If not, that time-slot can go to something else.

The result sounds like high productivity without a lot of stress.

If you approach it that way.

4:30 PM. All right, an hour and a half reviewing notes on healing and the healing book. Productive. I suppose I could do the final half hour even though I’m at a natural break. Might as well.

Appearance and meaning

Monday, September 16, 2019

5 a.m. Wholeness, rather than goodness. Shall we pursue the topic?

Fine with us. You do not see where to go with this.

I don’t. I’m getting that we could look at it individually or socially.

Yes, but better to do something between the two.

Please, feel free.

On so many subjects like this, you must remember that the context you examine them in is everything. Look at something while forgetting what you have learned about the way reality really is, and you cannot possibly see with greater perception. But bring these new – seemingly unrelated – perceptions to the subject, and the knots may loosen, the maze may become penetrable.

So, here. The problem of evil. Hardly the first time people have agonized over it. Every religion is at least in part an attempt to see why evil exists in the world, and an attempt at strategies to overcome it. Every serious philosophy must grapple with this question. So far, none has found an answer that others find satisfactory. Manicheans see the world as battleground between equally extra-human forces of roughly equal strength. Some philosophies say evil does not exist per se, but is merely the absence of good. And everything else, all other attempts to see the structure of reality, fall somewhere between these two poles.

Partly it is a question of appearances. How do conditions seem, as opposed to how are they really? Partly it is a question of meaning. How should we see this or that in connection with what else we know?

And partly it is a question of values? Of what we wish to uphold or stave off?

We can see how you would think that this is not only so, but is what we ourselves have said in the past. But, no, not really. Your values are chosen partly by what you were, pertly by what you are, partly by what you wish to be. It is so reiterative a process, it may seem to be circular, but it is not. A cycle looks like a circle sometimes, but it involves an additional dimension.

It is a question of depth.

Yes. And that is also the question in a larger sense. Depth or lack of depth will affect your perception of how things are.

So far this is pretty abstract.

Still, that’s where we must begin, with context. It is always good to provide clarity.

Now, we said appearance and meaning. This too is part of an iterative process. How things appear depends upon the inner resources one can bring to the perceiving. What things mean depends upon the connections one can make. In both cases, changes in the observer lead to changes in what can be observed, and thus both appearance and its meaning seem to change, leading to further changes in the observer.

It’s the same old story: One size does not fit all.

Nor could it ever. There are two reasons, not just one, why you can never step into the same river twice. Yes, the river’s flow makes it impossible. But so does what we might call your flow. You are not the same, even between two attempts to step in the river.

“But” – we hear you object – “there must be some ultimate view of reality. There must be some way things really are.” To this we can say only, “Perhaps there is; perhaps there is not.” In neither case can you get to the bedrock of things. At most you will get to an explanation that satisfies you, now. Don’t expect to get one that will satisfy everybody, nor one that will satisfy anybody forever.

It is easier for me to understand that we might not be able to see beyond all illusions than that there might not be an ultimate view. Something must describe it all, whether or not we here can become able to see it.

Do you think so? That is because you have an unconscious assumption that reality doesn’t change. What basis do you have for assuming that?

That’s an interesting thought.

Yes, isn’t it? People like certainties. They work to understand, and at some point they decide they have done enough. They decide, “Now we’ve got it.” Of course, it doesn’t appear to them to be a decision. To them, it appears that they now know, and, knowing, need go no farther. People find it hard to deal with uncertainty and with leaving open-ended questions open-ended. Thus so many “final” answers, mutually contradictory but similarly certain.

Now, are you definitely saying that reality continues to change?

No. Neither are we definitely saying it does not. Either way, how would you know? How would we know? We or you or anyone could and can (and, often enough, do) decide, “This is the way it is,” but, again, that is mostly a decision to stop looking.

Finding a place that is comfortable enough to be a staging-camp for a possible later further ascent.


In terms of appearance, obviously as you change, you discern more (or, if you are losing ground, so to speak, you discern less). The reality you can perceive – which is all you ever have – changes, and you learn to deal with this changed reality. When you think All is one, it is a different world to you from when you think all is chance and accident. When you realize that there is no external in the sense of something unconnected to who and what you are (because you can only perceive that which is related to you), it is a different world from one in which unconnected forces exist. But even as perceptions change, your assigned meaning changes, and not mechanically. You may choose to see things as meaning (you’d probably think as “proving” or “demonstrating”) one thing, or as a different thing, and the choice you make will help determine the next thing that happens to your perceptions

It’s almost a fun-house, set up to distort perceptions.

No! It can look like that. You can interpret it as that. But that isn’t any guarantee that it really is that. And that’s a good example, right there, of how the process of assigning meaning to perception may result in conclusions of great definiteness that may have little relevance to anything but one’s momentary state of being.

Now, it may appear that we haven’t advanced an inch on our task of examining evil in 3D life; may appear, in fact, that we have lost ground. But the motto of the firm is “flexibility.” The more flexible you are, the better your chances of being able to see what is not directly within line of sight.

Well, I get that. I seem to remember you all offering me a chance to stay at one staging-ground or move on, and my saying Let’s go.

It happened twice, actually.

That’s right, I had forgotten. Can’t remember when the first time was – it had to be some time after 2005 – but at that time I said, “Let’s hold up for a while.” I’d forgotten.

And then later you changed, conditions changed, whatever, and when we offered again you said “Let’s go for it,” and off we went. There’s no such thing as an unalterable decision, nor is there any reason there should be.

Things take as long as they take.

How else could it be?

So let’s talk about wholeness rather than goodness.

Yes, we’re smiling too. But surely you can see that the discussion that now follows will be different from what it would have been if your mind had not been turned by this bit of brush-clearing.

If we can hold it.

Don’t worry about that. Re-minding is much easier than putting it in your mind in the first place.

“And enough for the moment.”

Precisely. And we’ll see you next time.


On past-life research — something new?

[The things we forget! As I go through my files on computer, I find these three emails, the first from my friend and partner in Hampton Roads Publishing Co’, Bob Friedman, the second from author and past-life researcher Joanne DiMaggio, and the third again from Bob after I had forwarded to him the second. This is from the time when I was posting my communications with Hemingway as they occurred.]

From: Robert Friedman
Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 10:51 AM

Frank, this stuff is so good, and I hope you’ll continue. I think you’re on to something here about the inner-outer material, and the perspective of the other side as it relates to this life, and other connected lives (which presumably are going on at the same time). Relationship to the “higher” self, others who play their roles in the various lives and “in-between” lives. I doubt you/we could ever get credibility on a book that just purports to be channeling or talking with Hemingway. But you/we could sell one that provides a lot of interesting material on the relationship between up there and down here, how it works, how it can be used practically down here, etc. This is part of your life’s theme in any case. But I think playing out in the dialogue with a Hemingway or other “celebrity” types gives it more cache for the book market, while also delivering on material the seekers would love to have. Not for everybody, but the serious seekers might love it.
Food for thought.

[I then forwarded an email from Joanne DiMaggio:]

From: Joanne DiMaggio
Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 10:12 AM

Hi Frank,

I finished reading Chasing Smallwood over the weekend, but I already know I have to go back and re-read it. There was so much profound information in it, that I don’t think anyone can absorb it after one reading. Probably not after two or three either. It’s that good. I kept thinking–how can we get this information out to the masses? How can I get people to read this book? Of course, I can do in many ways, but the urgency and the desire to help you share these ideas is very much with me these days.

I have to tell you, I saw so many parallels between what your process and mine. In the very beginning when I started doing inspirational writing (HAVE to find a new word for that!), I did it exactly as you did–in a dialogue format. In my case, it was with an entity who called himself John Mellington and said he had been my son in a previous life. But then at December 1991, I received a message from my previous personality. It jolted me because I never expected anything like that and I thought–if we have the same soul, how can my 18th century self be writing to my 20th century self? It boggled my mind–but here you did it so brilliantly in CS that it seemed as natural as breathing.

Years ago, I lamented to a channeler friend of mine–the fellow I told you about who channeled Dr. Fredericks the Akashic Librarian–that there was nothing new in past life work. It was all the same old, same old, just told a different way. At that time I was especially interested in how past life patterns repeat themselves in current realities. He sat back and said–there’s nothing new because you haven’t written about it yet. That was close to 20 years ago and I still haven’t thought of what could possibly be new. But then I read your book and there it was. This was obtaining past life information on a whole new level (at least for me–but ironically I had been doing it all along and just had not verbalized it). I had always maintained that the ONLY way to judge history is to view it through the eyes of someone who lived through it. Joseph brought that time period alive for me and I came to understand the rationale of the people to a much greater extent than anything a history book would have shared. I got the same kind of history lesson when Donald Norsic, the reincarnation of Nicholas II, told his version of the murder of his family.

I loved the thought that we in the physical are focus points for the “rest of us” who aren’t in the physical. I had not given any thought that they (and we) were looking at things through the same eyes–like having them looking over your shoulder as you observed something. The idea that you were able to help Joseph heal his back blew me away. I had a similar experience–only in reverse. When I walked into the parlor at Monticello in October 1993, I felt a searing pain to my lower back. It nearly crippled me and I barely got home. That pain lingered for six months until I had a reading with Dr. Fred and he said that I walked through a ley line and picked up the energy from the time when I was hit in the lower back by a fireplace poker. Psychic Betty Riley confirmed the same thing. Once the confirmation was made, the pain disappeared and I later learned in a regression what had happened.

The comment made on p. 158 “one person in chains puts everybody in chains” is close to the message I got from “myself” in December 1991 when I was told–“One soul freed, frees us all.” I entitled my still unpublished book, “One Soul Freed.” I also found the reference to someone being considered a slave if they had 1/8 black blood in them. This is no doubt how Jefferson ‘s children with Sally were considered slaves, because they were 7/8 white. I’ve never understood the logic to that math–but that’s the way it was and your Joseph only confirmed it.

I took copious notes throughout the reading of the book and so many ideas swirled in my head. (One being you could have used a second set of eyes proofreading the galleys).

So I guess it comes to this–how can I help you other than to host you at an upcoming A.R.E.  program? You said you had a sense we would be working together. Have TGU given you any suggestions? I’m ready whenever you are. There is just so much here to work with–so many offshoots of other books. I have a few ideas we can discuss later, but you’ve really refueled my jets and put my brain on fast-forward.. God I would love to have some of my shrill right-wing and left-wing know-it-all podium pounder friends read some of what Joseph wrote. Lord!


From: Robert Friedman []
Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 12:14 PM

Incredible! Talk about a synchronicity to what we’re talking about with Hemingway. A definite sign from the universe. She sounds like someone you might want to work with.

What is your reaction to her reaction?

[And of course, I have no record of my reaction!]