Blog

1. Can we know?

Saturday, April 27, 2024

5:05 a.m. Mt friends, I have decided that if we resume our regular chats, I want us to work on the summary book together. I will do my best to steer it by questions – and I will hope that others will contribute questions as well – only this time we will work on explicit ground rules (which, of course, may change as things develop). This time we’re going to produce entries for the blog and for email lists, but with the understanding that I may change things extensively when it comes time to produce extended discourse. That is, I may rewrite.

It was never our intent that you reproduce us as if being a scribe and an acolyte or even a translator. We told you that repeatedly.

You did. But doing it my way left a record – a more or less verbatim record – documenting the process. From here we will concentrate on a clearer exposition. I consider that if this process hasn’t been demonstrated on the record by now, there is nothing more we can do by way of demonstration.

Well, we never fought you on the idea, merely reminded you that the restriction was on your end, not on ours.

True. So, to work? Let us address ourselves to the eventual reader. That will reduce the burden of rephrasing when it comes to putting it together.

So, first question: What is the practical use of changing our view of the way the world works? Life has plenty of obvious and serious problems. Why divert ourselves by trying to know what can’t be known?

If it couldn’t be known, there would be force in the question. It’s true, “Life is real, life is earnest, and the grave is not its goal.” [Longfellow] But consider.

  • Is it true that “the way the world works” can’t be known?
  • Is it true that, if it can be known, the question is not practical?

We would say that the answer to the first question depends entirely upon one’s definitions of “known.” It can be known, enough to be of use, as we will show. And the second question is an easy, “Yes it is practical to ask.” And we will give our reasons why it is practical.

As to knowing the meaning of life – which is the same question, really, as knowing how the world works:

What do you mean by “knowing”? The same word may mean different things. There is the knowing that can be established by scientific instrumentation, testing a hypothesis to see if it can be falsified. Clearly this kind of knowing is not what we mean.

On the other end of the scale is the knowing that relies entirely on “what feels right.” This strictly intuitive approach is legitimate, but it has its pitfalls and its limits. We can’t rely on individual intuition to provide us with the answers to the meaning of life, to the way the world functions. Because it is individual, it is subject to psychological vagaries that not only may send you off the track, but in any case may make it terribly hard to communicate with your fellows. What is true for one may provide sure guidance in life for that one. Yet what is true for one may not be at all true for another.

The most productive approach to investigation lies between these two extremes, or is an alternation between them, or uses one to correct the other. This may seem a very insecure platform to rely on, but perhaps it is more reliable than it seems at first sight.

The first rule of investigation is to measure by the tools proper to the matter being examined. You don’t do psychological testing to see if a given geological area was the product of certain physical phenomena. Similarly, you don’t measure weight, density, etc. to see if human life has purpose. The right tool for the right job.

It isn’t like the questions haven’t been asked over the years. Why are we here? What is the meaning of life? Is there a God? What should we do with our lives?

  • Some ask these questions relying heavily upon logic and thought, using other people’s previous answers as data, but subjecting everything to the test of logic. You call such inquiries philosophy.
  • Some ask as the result of personal experience (painful or ecstatic) or strictly out of a burning curiosity, and their investigation relies heavily upon other people’s testimony about their own experiences. This is the part of religion that attempts to trace what reality is, not the part that attempts to deduce or transmit what this implies (or commands) about human conduct. You call this theology.
  • An intermediate discipline attempts to come at the truth by taking personal testimony seriously – as evidence of the human mind’s functioning, not necessarily as evidence that what that mind concludes is correct. It also applies thought and logic to that data, and you call it psychology.

There are other approaches as well, but they are all variants of the two extremes, science and religion, and the intermediate position of psychology.

Using these methods of inquiry, yes, the world can be known. Human life can be understood. Only, bear in mind, true understanding will not produce only one answer.

This may seem contradictory: How can there be more than one truth?  But in fact, truth has so many facets that it can never be known in full. It can only be known from a given viewpoint. Every different viewpoint will show truth in a somewhat different perspective.

Perspective – the necessary result of viewpoint – produces different partial views, none of them necessarily “wrong,” or even “incomplete” or “misleading” – provided that you remember that they are partial views, not one (impossible) comprehensible 360-degree view. Try to imagine a view that sees not only 360 degrees around the horizon, but also every 360-degree view that can be drawn through every degree of altitude from the horizon to the zenith. It can’t be done. The only way to get to such a comprehensive view is to leave 3D limitations and move to a non-linear – non-3D – framework. But this you cannot do while still in the body. You may be able to conceive of it, you will be unable to accomplish it, any more than a rifleman could shoot in all directions at once.

But just because you cannot get a universal view beyond viewpoint, doesn’t mean you can’t get all you need, because (as we will show in its proper place) you represent a viewpoint. You are one bit of data out of the entirety. Just as you are not everybody, so your viewpoint cannot be everybody’s, and this is as it should be. But the one bit is valuable, and if you will think holistically, you will understand that every bit contains the whole.

Next time we will show why it is practical to ask these larger questions.

This seems to have worked well. Thanks.

 

God’s spies

Friday, April 26, 2024

Every time I write the date in an entry – or, not every time, but often enough – I am reminded of the months I spent wondering if the final entry would be any time soon. It seemed it must be – but never was. Well, someday.

Okay, guys, ready if you are. It is 4:35 a.m. (rounded as usual) and I have my very welcome coffee.

Consider your pleasure in writing in your accustomed journal book rather than the off-format one you endured for three months, and remember your thought about the philosophers.

Yes, I get it. I thought, yesterday, reading about Colin’s thought and life, that so many schools of philosophy were built upon totally inadequate models of human life. Incomplete, actually wrong, clearly demonstrated in  years since how incomplete and wrong they were, and yet their influence persists. Tabula rasa, for instance. Clearly wrong. Sartre and so many existentialist thinkers making assumptions and perhaps not even seeing that they were assumptions rather than facts, and so concluding that man is a useless passion, that life is inherently meaningless, that everything is contingent. And the link you are making is, I think, an example of how many connections we make that have nothing to do with logic or thought. In this case, the physical familiarity of the journal book and pen, the pjs and robe, the early morning coffee and the surrounding world’s quiet, with perhaps the distant sound of cars or trucks on the highways outside. Such physical clues are missed, just as are more debatable ones as heredity, affinity, past-life memory, etc.

The reason we wanted you to write the book interpreting our words is that no one else will be able to do the job you could do. Others will be able to do what you cannot do, but they won’t be able to do what only the one on the inside of the process can do.

Maybe I already did it in The Cosmic Internet.

To a degree, you did. But you know more now than you did then.

Well, I don’t know what to do about it. It’s like “The Stone and the Stream” manuscript that I looked at yesterday, for the first time since ceasing work on it in October. I can see that it won’t do; there isn’t any point in finishing it. But I can’t see how to go ahead with a new version, nor how to fix what I have. We may have to settle for what is done.

We aren’t the ones concerned about it.

No, but you are the ones quietly nudging me, I think. Or maybe not, maybe the distinction was never more than relative. In any case, I enjoy the feeling of being back in contact with you. I had reconciled myself to having finished all this, but I prefer it. And I bought a six-pack of these journals, as a sort of act of faith,. I hope they get filled with substance.

If I had the energy and the reason to do it, maybe I’d write a sort of autobiography. Colin thought I should, and that was before Rita and I even began our 2001 sessions.

As usual, it is your choice.

Let’s talk about something. I know it’s my choice, theoretically, but maybe it will get done or, more likely, maybe it won’t.

Consider your drawings.

I have gotten a good deal of pleasure out of the process of drawing in pencil, then later coloring the drawings with colored pencils. I have done hundreds of black-and-white sketches, and have colored a small proportion of them. I just framed and displayed nine of them on my dining room wall, as you know. Satisfying, fun, effortless in the sense of hard work, yet not effortless in the sense of time and attention spent doing them. None of this can come to anything except for myself. Maybe journaling is no different, despite that background sense that says, “This ought to be made available.”

Maybe it isn’t an either/or. Maybe things done for their own sake are accomplished regardless whether anything further is done with them. [They meant, I think, are an accomplishment either way.]

Like Charles absorbing 50 years’ worth of philosophical and religious reading, or my reading of so much history and biography.

The mental association is work; it results in a product within the mind you are, regardless if it is ever put into the world in overt form. We said this long ago. No one’s life – communicated to others or not – is “wasted.” No one’s connections are ephemeral. It is hard for people to realize that: It is one thing we still hope you will work at getting across to them.

Something of a contradiction there. It isn’t important that such things be communicated, and then it is.

You can untangle that yourself. It isn’t very complicated, and isn’t much of a contradiction.

I see that. You’re saying all our lives are important records of experience and connection (besides what else they are), and so whether we communicate to others isn’t important. But you are also saying it can be important to tell people this so they know.

One thing you came to do is to encourage people. What more encouraging for them than to be reminded that their inner world is not “inconsequential unless expressed.” And this ties in to your earlier thought about the failed philosophers.

Yes, it does. They judged us as if we were merely disconnected individuals, no Upstairs (non-3D) component at all, no psychic links and transmission, no purpose, not even any innate wisdom or radar. A totally inadequate model of what we really are, and we suffer from accepting that model to some extent except when we happen to wake up to its falsity.

If the inarticulate private citizen once realized that every mind registers, think what a heightened sense of responsibility and purpose and hopeful construction may result. “Mute, inglorious Miltons” may be seen as not having been wasted at all; they are closer to being God’s spies.

“God’s spies.” From Lear, I think. I have had that thought over the years. Most of us do not have access to the media megaphone, whether we would or would not want it. We live our lives as private things. We report (silently) on the world as it is beyond the media spotlight.

All paths are good, the life lived in the spotlight, the life lived in deliberate or inadvertent obscurity, the life mostly private and a little bit public, the life public but still unavoidable private. There is no preferred mode, as far as we are concerned, and no mode that is unfortunate. The more that people realize this, the happier and the more satisfied they will be.

I was thinking, the other day, I’ll bet every concept you’ve given us over the past 25 years can be found in my earlier journals. Many of them, anyway. It is as if I already knew it, but needed someone sort of external to call my attention to it.

“Sort of”? We are external to the degree that anything can be external, and internal in that we are all part of the one thing that is. And if your readers will remember this, they will see why it is impossible that they be disconnected or unimportant or disregarded, regardless of external circumstances or appearances; regardless even of how it feels to them.

We are going to have to find a way to bring the insights of religion back into our lives without at the same time carrying the rules and superstitions that accreted to the insight, to the mind-awareness, to the stance more in the All-D and less in 3D-only.

And that’s enough.

Fifty minutes, not bad. I’d say you earned your money today.

And we’d say you earned your coffee.

Which is cold, the little that’s left of it. Our thanks as usual.

 

Robert Bruce

Robert and me in Virginia Beach, 2009

I heard today from Robert Bruce’s wife, Patricia Histed, that Robert Bruce, author of Astral Dynamics, made his transition to the non-3D on Monday morning, the 22nd. He died peacefully in his sleep, in the hospital where had was being cared for. Patricia said he died surrounded by friends and family, with more than 10 people crammed in the room. That would be fitting. Robert was one of those guys you loved as soon as you saw him, a wonderful man, so much heart, so willing to give, such a combination of idealism and practicality.

I gather that people have been sending testimonials about Robet’s influence on their lives through his books. That is certainly appropriate. Astral Dynamics was one of the most important and helpful books Hampton Roads ever published.

Robert and I must have been connected invisibly, because as soon as I received his manuscript, I had an instant reaction to it. As the manuscript stood, it was totally unpublishable – the material was wonderful, but the language was awful. Didn’t matter, I knew hat it must be published.

I spent days editing Astral Dynamics. First I marked up the manuscript, “clearing away the shrubbery,” as I used to say, then I entered the corrections in the computer file, and printed out the clean file and edited it all over again, at a deeper level. That was more work than I had ever put into a manuscript, and more than I ever did again. But I just had no doubt, this was an important book, worth the extra work even if it never made us any money.

Well, it did make us money, and it did change people’s lives. That book went around the world. One day I received a manuscript from someone who said he had come across a second-hand copy of Astral Dynamics, without a cover – in Katmandu!  There is no guessing how much encouragement Robert spread. Nor any sign that the wave of influence is over, either, of course.

Then there was Robert himself, when we finally met, at a conference at the A.R.E. in Virginia Beach where he spoke. Here is this great bear of a man – I used to tease him, saying he looked like a biker – and he was as gentle and as funny and as sincere and intelligent a man as I have ever met. Lovely man.

Here’s a toast to your next career Robert: Well done, and bon voyage!

The view from here (1)

_________________________

[                                       ]

[                                       ]

[__________________________]

Portrait of the guys upstairs

(So were you expecting a screenshot?)

All right, a bit of foolishness, but there’s a point to it. When you deal with the non-3D, by definition you deal with things that are beyond the sensory . How could the non-3D be detected by our physical senses, or by instruments, which are merely extensions of our physical senses?

In common speech we say “I heard them say such-and-such,” or “I could see them doing x-and-such,” but this is merely the imprecision of language. We don’t really see them or hear them., not directly. Phenomena such as visions, words, feelings are produced on our end  and represented as if they had been experienced through the senses. (That’s why it is called extra-sensory perception!)

You can’t see them, hear them, smell them, taste them. You can’t bump into them.

But then, why is that it seems like we can do just those things? Why do people hear voices in their head? Doesn’t that contradict what I just said about us being unable to experience them through our senses? I don’t think so. I think it is our bodies translating the effects of communication.

We differ in how we perceive things. Some people are clairaudient, some see visions, some experience an emotional response, some get feelings in their bodies, such as chills, or goose bumps, some merely know.  The non-3D contacts us, and we experience that contact in whatever way we experience. It isn’t a difference in the other side (I think); it is a difference in us.

Or maybe I’m all wet, but that’s how it seems to me at the moment. Maybe tomorrow I’ll see it differently.

 

 

 

 

 

Rita Warren (2)

Soon after Rita and I finished our series of session in 2002, I got her to write an introduction for the book of transcripts,  but by the time The Sphere and the Hologram came out, she had already made her transition. She came to me in a dream to assure me that she was fine, and then for six and a half years I assumed our work together was over.

But in December, 2014, I dreamed of her saying she was ready for us to work together again. I was surprised, but pleased. At 7:30 the next morning, I sat down with my journal, prepared for anything or nothing, as usual in this business of communicating. We were beginning where we had left off, still looking for clarity about life, and the afterlife, and the reality behind appearances.

She began by surprising me, saying, “You have had an effect on my life here, you know. Letting people in body know of our work together results in some of them contacting me, not necessarily being aware of it, which of course affects me here.” I took this to refer to The Sphere and the Hologram, and my talks to Guidelines groups at TMI.

“So – did you have something in particular you wanted to start with? Or did you already?”

“That’s as good a place to start as any – the continuing interaction between those in and those out of the body, not necessarily known to those in body, but real nonetheless. There is a tendency to think of life in the body as an interruption of life outside it, as though we come into form, have a lifetime’s worth of experiences, and then report. But it doesn’t work that way. I’d like to correct the picture, but it can’t be done in a hurry.”

“Well, I got the sense, the other day, that I was being primed for a new set of lessons. Didn’t guess that it was going to come via an old friend rather than anonymous guys upstairs.”

She reminded me that i had gotten that my understanding to date “was merely provisional unless you lost your nerve or your appetite for further refinement and redefinition.” In other words, somebody wanted to use us to redefine life for people. And I got the sense that Rita had an outline of where she wanted to go.

 “Let me say, this is exciting! I have Papa’s Trial to finish, yet something tells me this won’t interfere and actually may help.”

“It will be reciprocal, as you will see.”

So we began, and, as promised, we wound up redefining things we had been told before and had thought we had thoroughly digested. For instance, she started by saying:

“’This side’ and “the other side’ [what I now call 3D and non-3D] are in continuous unbroken communication, regardless what it feels like to those in body. Some, like you, won’t find anything to object to in that statement, but in fact, in day-to-day living, in ideas as expressed in action, few if any live that reality. In fact, in actual living, you live as though communication exists only when you intend it, or are aware of it. This is not ‘good’ or ‘bad’; it is how the separation of 3D life leads you to experience (or not experience) that aspect of life. But your life is bounded by your expectations of life, and we’re interested in expanding these expectations.

“The idea that there can be a separation between physical and non-physical stems from the idea that different substance is involved in either realm. As you were told pretty much right away, there is no difference between beings in the physical and in the non-physical except the conditions of the terrain each is on. In other words, although it is convenient to talk of different beings, in truth we are all part of one thing – the ‘everything’ – in a way you can’t yet imagine, which I am going to try to help you with. Many of the contradictions between systems disappear if you see that all is one.

“’All is one’ – it is a New Age cliché – but what does it mean in practice? Next time.”

And so we were off to the races yet again. That entry was the first in six months of entries. Bob Friedman suggested they be made into a book, and he published Rita’s World in two volumes. Then came Awakening from the 3D World (which I wanted to call Awakening from the 3D Trance, which I still think would have been a better title), and It’s All One World. Taken in connection with The Sphere and the Hologram, a massive amount of work, a real accomplishment.

Can you be involved in so massive a project and be unaffected by it? That isn’t quite the right question. A better question would be, Can you be involved in such a work, over the span of nearly 20 years, and realize the extent to which it has changed you? My answer would be, I doubt it, not by yourself. You are a moving platform, and you will tend to overestimate your continuity. What you need, if you are to recognize the changes, is a friend, or friends, to tell you what you look like from the outside. Those friends are likely to be in the 3D, but they needn’t be.

I am pretty sure Rita’s and my work together is finished – but then, I have thought that before!, In any case, it is clear to me that the work we did – while she was in 3D and even more, as it turned out, when she moved to the non-3D – changed her, changed me.

What more can you ask?

 

Rita Warren (1)

Jim Szpajcher took this nice photo in October, 2006

Rita’s husband Martin died on Friday, April 7, 2000, a few days after an accident in his car, after having asked to be taken off life-support. A few hours later, I sat down with my journal, thinking to talk to the guys upstairs, and instead this is what came out:

“Frank, this is Martin. Tell Rita thanks and remind her that over here we have no time – so the slight delay in decoupling from the body doesn’t have any significance. I will be seen and heard for a little while, tell her, so don’t be surprised and don’t be surprised at what she hears from others. Tell Leslie [Rita’s daughter] that the timing was good as always. She’ll know what I mean by the ‘as always.’”

Now, this was cryptic, except for the part about Rita experiencing him for a while, and if Rita or anybody ever told me what it meant, I have forgotten. It was the second paragraph that changed things:

“Don’t tell her, but take care of Rita. I know you will want to. It won’t be all that long, as you already know.”

Then he was gone and I asked the guys if that was really Martin.

“Did it feel like his presence?

“Yes it did. Quite strongly there, for a moment. But who ever knows what we self-suggest.

“Don’t worry about it. You know the saying, you inhibit what you doubt. You aren’t a true believer, so don’t worry so much about deceiving yourself.”

Well, if you had received such a message, would you write it off as one of those things, or would you listen? Martin asked me to take care of Rita. I took that to mean, give her some attention. So I got us into the habit of having supper together every Saturday night. (Always at the Lovingston Café, almost the only restaurant she ever frequented, as far as I know, Charlottesville being twice as far from her home on the New Land.)

I thought I was doing it out of the kindness of my heart, but as usual, kindness paid unexpected dividends. You can’t go out to eat with someone every week, for months, without moving your relationship to a deeper level. You will share stories, and experiences, and jokes, and (if only between the lines) values and hopes deferred and hopes not yet abandoned. And all the time you are doing that, you will be building up an understanding and a trust between you, and trust is always the sine qua non. Without trust, any relationship can go only so far.

Neither Rita nor I had any idea, at least, not on the conscious level, that we were being brought together to accomplish something. We were enjoying each other’s company.

She was one more example of benign, nurturing, maternal energy that I seemed to need. (She was only five years younger than my parents.) yet she was also a rigorous intellect, a trained academic, an experienced Monroe participant, an inquiring mind with a long list of questions she had not been able to get the answer to.

Just what she saw in me, I don’t know, of course. Sincerity, openness, curiosity, intelligence, no doubt. Kindness. And perhaps I was a window into other worlds: journalism, business, politics on the practical level, even perhaps merely the world-view of someone her children’s age.

In any case, we interested each other, and we enjoyed each other’s company, and in the months between April and September, we entered a relationship of mutual trust and affection. Then I took a step that led to so much more. I signed up for ten sessions in TMI’s black box.

Beginning in September, I spent every Friday morning in the isolation chamber, with Skip Atwater as monitor. He and I would discus my goals beforehand, and would debrief the session afterward, and during the session itself he, sitting in the control booth, would watch the instruments and vary the Hemi-Sync frequencies being delivered to my earphones, and would sometimes offer input, and would answer whatever questions or concerns that would arise.

When I returned home with the cassette tape of the session, I would spend time – a lot of time! – transcribing it, and then would send that transcript to a short list of friends, of whom Rita was one. She and I would discuss those sessions the following night, Saturday, over supper in Lovingston. (I later self-published those transcripts as A Place to Stand.)

Fast forward to August, 2001. Rita had gotten me another session in the black box as a birthday present, and when I said I wished I could do sessions on a continuing basis, she said I didn’t need the box, and so we set up a schedule. Tuesday nights after I had supper, I would drive up to Rita’s house, only a couple of miles away. I would lie down on the bed in the guest room, with my head toward the center of the room. She would sit nearby with her pad of questions and the tape recorders, and we would do just what I did for ten weeks at the end of the previous year. And I would take my tape home and transcribe….

We did that for 22 weeks in a row, and those sessions became The Sphere and the Hologram.

Now, bear in mind, Rita is the one who originally designed TMI’s protocols for PREP sessions. For the lab’s first four years, she and Martin had functioned as monitors. She had a huge backlog of questions she had never been able to get answered.  She would ask them of participants who had run through their own questions, and would get only frustratingly vague non-answers. “Oh, it’s hard to explain.” “Everything is fine.” “You’ll know when you get here,” etc.

But from me, for some reason, she could get fluent answers, and the more complicated or arcane the question, the better it got. At one point I said to her, “Rita, you’re asking me these questions, and you’re getting these answers, but I don’t know any of this stuff. I feel like I’m lying here just being a  know-it-all.” She paused and then said, “That’s practically the definition of an intuitive.”

So Rita’s part of my story is that she brought me from exploring experiences to actually bringing forth information. She did that partly by building on the trust between us. (Trust removes that inhibition that comes from doubt as to how material will be received.) But Skip had done the same thing. Equally important in Rita’s case was her long backlog of specific unanswered questions, and the academic training that led her to question closely the material as it arrived. Thus she would say, “But this seems to contradict what you said three sessions ago,” and the guys would pause and say the could see why it might look that way, and then explain both the previous and the present statements. They more than once said, “The better the questions, the better the answers,” and her questions were first-rate.

Rita died March 19, 2008, and I had a dream that told me she was fine, and I thought that was the end of the story. Not quite!

 

Nancy Ford

Nancy

Dana used to say, “No one crosses alone.” I would add to that, that no one crosses alone not only from 3D to non-3D, but in the long journey from birth to death. We can’t do it. One way or another (and hopefully, in more than only one way) life gives us the companionship that we need.

That companionship  may come from family or from friends, living or remembered. The friends may be living presences, or they may be friends we’ve never met: authors, historical examples, any who serve us as role models; even the unseen presences that are always ready to support us, including the very strands that comprise us.

But primarily, we need the warmth provided by living, breathing, people, and they need us no less. In this context, re-read the Transcendentalists on friendship and love, and it may become clearer, what they were talking about.

Although I met Nancy before I met Rita Warren, for about 10 years I knew her only as a friendly acquaintance and Hampton Roads investor. But just at the time Rita passed, Nancy’s and my relationship changed.  She was experiencing a problem with her hand that she couldn’t fix. Although she was quite experienced with healing, including self-healing, her guys told her that I could help. I said I’d try if she would make the trip to Nelson County (I was living at Rita’s house at the time), and she did, and our deeper relationship began. Suddenly we weren’t relating around Hampton Roads, nor even around metaphysical discussions. Now we were into experience. Now we were into real work.

And although in most ways, my relationships with Nancy and with Rita couldn’t have been more different, in one crucial way, they were identical. Nancy, like Rita before her, was willing and able to accompany me. It made many things possible.

It is one thing to explore and discover. It is quite a different thing to figure out what it is that you have discovered, and what it means, and how you should react to it. It is one thing to explore externally, and quite a different thing to explore internally. Internally, where are you going to find landmarks? How are you going to coordinate what you found today with what you found two years ago? How are you going to view the changes in yourself – particularly the changes of which you are unconscious?

You can’t. You need help. No one crosses alone.

What you need, first and foremost, is someone you can trust to give you an honest response. What good does it do you for someone to say, “Yeah, yeah, that’s great, well done, keep at it,” at the times when you’re going off the beam? Ultimately that would be just as destructive as someone saying all the time, “You’re wasting your time. Give it up.”

But opinion needs to be grounded in something. If the person doesn’t have the experience, doesn’t have the depth of character, doesn’t have the active interest, how much can they help?

I have been fortunate in my friends, but mostly they come, and stay for a while, and go. They die, or for whatever reason we move off in different directions, and in any case perhaps our friendship is based in this or that special interest. Even lasting friendships change as each of us change. It is as Thoreau said, “No man was ever party to a settled friendship. It is no more a constant phenomenon than meteors and lightning. It is a war of position.”

It has been more than 16 years now since Rita died, and in all that time Nancy and I have been cooperating and contending. I knew, as soon as we moved from acquaintanceship to friendship, that here was someone who was absolutely straight, a rigidly honest person who could be depended upon to give her opinion without shading.

That doesn’t mean such opinion is always comfortable to hear, nor that it is invariably accurate. But it means, here is an honest, interactive mirror, someone to be counted on for honest feedback.

This sounds like I’m talking about a sort of literary criticism. It is way deeper than that. It is the confrontation of everything that is in you with everything that is in your friend.

It may sound like I am the intrepid explorer and Nancy is left on the shore waiting for my reports. That isn’t right either, for not only does she do her own exploring, she has her own deep background in these matters. I came to this through Monroe, she via Machelle Small Wright. I always dealt primarily with my own strands and resonances. She dealt primarily with nature. The differences have been as illuminating as the similarities.

And then there is the healing work, which in a way is where we began. She has her methods, I have mine. She has her problems, I have mine. What a great laboratory for experimentation and feedback! As anyone with the experience knows, you can do a certain amount of self-healing – sometimes an impressive amount – but it is often easier to have someone else work on you than for you to work on yourself. This is not because you are lazy, or need self-confidence, but merely because another person works from a stable platform unaffected by the problem you are working on.

For 16 years, ever since the day her own guys told her to see me about a persistent problem she was dealing with, Nancy and I have been working together. Her continuing contribution hasn’t always been obvious, any more than Bob Friedman’s was, in those mornings when I would be transcribing my latest conversation, wondering what he would make of it. That doesn’t make it any less important.

No one crosses alone.