My article for Echo World

Friends have said they find it difficult to read the article on the site (

So here it is from my original.

Easier done than said – only, it won’t do itself!

By Frank DeMarco

Accessing guidance isn’t rocket science. Everybody has access, and, in fact, everybody already uses that access, perhaps mostly without knowing it. Yes, everybody, including you!

Teaching people how to access guidance consciously is mostly a matter of clearing away people’s wrong assumptions. Once that’s done, the rest is easy. I have taught people how to do it in as short a time as a three-hour afternoon workshop. Let’s see if we can’t do it in a 2,000-word article.

We don’t start out as experts

Everything I have learned about contacting guidance, I learned through 25 years of making mistakes. I never knew what I was doing. Even when I did something that worked, I didn’t necessarily understand why it worked. I didn’t have a teacher, so I was on my own, swinging in the dark. But when you have an aim, but you don’t know the possibilities or the constrictions, all you can do is follow your hunches, and take whatever opportunities arise, whether those opportunities are books or classes or someone’s example, or dreams, or whatever. That’s listening to guidance!

When we are just starting out on something new, anything we do is likely to be misguided, or badly interpreted, or just flat wrong. We don’t start out as experts. How could we? We’re going to make mistakes, and thank God for it, because mistakes are lessons that leave us sure-footed.

Accessing guidance doesn’t require a special posture, or aptitude, or an absence of distractions. We all have the ability to contact guidance, only in different degrees. It’s as much a matter of practice and concentration as anything else. If it’s important to you, you will get it. It’s just a part of life, and like the rest of life, it happens while other things are happening around it. But we must stop getting in our own way.

Access to guidance is not only possible, it’s unavoidable

And speaking of things that get in our way, the first in line is the illusion that there is distance between us and the sources of guidance. We talk about “our higher self” or “the other side,” or even “the guys upstairs.” That’s just the nature of language. It gives the impression we have somewhere to go, distance to bridge. But there is no distance to overcome.

The 3D world we live in is really both 3D and non-3D. The 3D world we are familiar with day by day: an ever-moving moment of “present time,” separation by time and space; limited but intense focus. The non-3D world we experience more usually in dreams, where we are not stuck in time or separated by space, where we experience wide interconnections but not as brightly lit as daylight consciousness.

We know the three-spatial dimensions from sensory experience. The others we know only dimly, and by way of science (which, however, is not agreed upon just how many there are). But no matter how many dimensions make up the world – six, 12, whatever – clearly everybody is in all of them. We have to be! (How could you be in length and width, say, and not in height?) Therefore it follows that we are partly in 3D, partly in non-3D, know it or not. Thus a part of us lives among the sources of guidance.

Our ideas about communication

One of the first things the guys upstairs told Rita Warren and me, years ago, was that the chief difference between us and them is not the difference between our nature and theirs, but the difference in the terrain we lived in. (3D versus non-3D). We are not lowly 3D worms. They are not exalted all-knowing spirits. Do you see why that’s important? A worm dealing with exalted beings does not have the same kind of relationship that you will if you feel equal and at home with them.

I suggest that you approach the other side in the same way you might approach someone on the internet. Basically friendly and open, trusting your instincts, letting the relationship develop as it wants to. Do as you think best, but keep in mind that your own attitude toward communication is going to flavor what and who you connect to. Depending on who you think you’re talking to, you are going to be different.

How to proceed

Realize, going into the process, you don’t necessarily know what you’re going to receive, or what it will look like. Guidance may come as voices, visuals, words, knowings, inexplicable urgings, hunches, coincidences – even, sometimes, from other people’s words or actions. What you get may be cloudy. It may not seem to make sense, and often it can’t immediately be understood or interpreted.

Forget about stage fright or worrying whether you can do it. You don’t have to be sure, and the input doesn’t have to make sense right away. Guidance comes in different forms. Don’t judge relevance, just receive. You must perceive first, then interpret. You can alternate, even very quickly, but you can’t do both at the same time.

Don’t get caught up in the useless questions (see below). Don’t criticize yourself or your performance or your non-performance. Just, don’t. There’s no advantage to it. Instead, intend to receive a helpful message from guidance, and see what happens. Guidance knows what you’re doing; it’ll help from its end.

What you get may feel too familiar, too mundane, to be anything but you making it up. DON’T JUDGE! Get it down first, criticize later. Don’t compare yourself to others or to how you imagine I would do, or to Jane Roberts or to God. It isn’t a competition and nobody is capable of judging.

The useless questions

Distinguish between the questions that don’t help and the ones that do. Among the unhelpful questions:

“Who or what is the source of the information?” (What is the source of your dreams, hunches, thoughts, ideas?)

“How do I know the source can be trusted?” (You don’t. First you perceive and then you analyze.)

“How do I know that what I got is true?” (Just as in the rest of your life, you feel and provisionally believe.)

“How do I know I’m not just making it up?” (Maybe you are. Why this rather than something else?)

The questions are useless because they can’t be answered, and they get you nowhere.

The only helpful questions that I know are, Does it resonate? and, What can I do with it?

“Does it resonate?” You may not know whether what you receive will prove to be true or even useful, but you can know that for whatever reason, at least at the moment, it does resonate. Follow it. If later it ceases to resonate, or proves false, then you can and should change course. (Bear in mind, even mistakes have a logic to them, and lead somewhere. Something that resonates as true and later ceases to do so may nonetheless have important clues for you. A detour need not necessarily be a loss.)

“What can I do with it?” The whole purpose of getting into better touch with guidance is – to obtain guidance! In other words, to better know how to live, in general and in specifics. Beware high-flying information that is of no particular use.

Bad habits

Here are some habits pretty much guaranteed to hinder you in getting into conscious touch with your sources of guidance.

Ego, either too large or too small. (Everybody is special, including you. It isn’t just a joke.)

Keeping score. (Don’t try to measure yourself against others. We never have the data.)

Discouragement. (What didn’t work today, may, tomorrow. Try, try again.)

Fear of what you might encounter. (Your intention will protect you.)

Fear that you can’t do it. (No harm in trying.)

Excess skepticism. (You may receive valuable input without being sure of the source.)

Censoring. It doesn’t have to make sense right away.

In a nutshell: Don’t judge. (Analysis is the antithesis of perception, which must come first.) Don’t guess. (Guessing pulls in the logical side of the mind, and is a form of analysis.) Don’t use logic. (In this context, logic is a form of guessing.)

Good habits

Once you eliminate these obstacles, you see that the flow of information is already there. Some suggestions on obtaining greater clarity:

First, explore with confidence. Assume it can be done and you can do it. Your non-3D component knows where you are and knows how to reach you. Just express your willingness to cooperate and deepen the awareness. What you get may at first look inadequate or even silly. Just notice what comes. Look for the glass half full. You want to be open to the unknown, not prejudging what is important or how it will come.

Second, don’t try too hard. Don’t try to make it happen; allow it to happen. Set your intent and observe. An active, driving attitude will actually get in the way. Try approaching it like a daydream, drifting, staying in that twilight state between waking and sleep. Playful curiosity, not grim determination. If it feels like you are making it up, allow that, and see what happens.

Third, Give it time! Wait for the answer! Don’t press. Just observe and report. Remember, input may come in many forms. If you get something but can’t make sense of it, remember, it doesn’t have to make sense to you right away, and isn’t likely to seem clear and complete.

Fourth, disregard the useless questions. Be aware of whatever happens, in whatever form it takes, and make note of whatever thoughts resonate.

Fifth, make notes, and don’t confine your notes to the few things you understand. The more puzzled you are, the more important to make notes. Often, things make sense only in retrospect. Particularly note down what seem like pointless thoughts and fantasies.

Sixth, feel free to change your mind. There’s no point in being consistently wrong. And, again, mistakes have a logic to them, and that logic might lead you somewhere.

Seventh, experiment, find what works for you, and then stick to that until you get the feeling it’s time to change. There is no cosmic rulebook, and no cosmic drill sergeant. Suit yourself.

Intuitive Linked Communication (ILC)

Writing in my journal has worked very well for me, but won’t work equally well for everybody. The only way to learn if it will work for you is to try.

Set your intent to connect with guidance and receive relevant information and then, forget about trying. Take access to guidance for granted.

Go into this, not all tensed up, but in that daydreamy hypnogogic state, or as close to it as seems comfortable, then wait to see what comes. Maybe you will get visuals you wish to sketch. Maybe your guidance will come in the form of cartoons. Don’t worry about it. Set your intent and see what happens.

If you have a specific question, great. If not, you might do what I do sometimes, and say, “What would I be asking about if I had enough sense to know what to ask about?” Or you may wish to say, in effect, “I’m open for business. Does anybody want to talk to me?” You can always ask, “What is the most helpful thing you can give me at the moment?”

Maybe you won’t get anything. But, if the idea appeals to you, give it a chance.

In sum

Your non-3D component has a wider view of your life than your 3D component does, and it is always available. It’s there for the asking, so ask!


Frank DeMarco lives in Charlottesville. He is the author of many books on communication with those in the Non-3D world. His website is On Facebook, frank.demarco.10


America’s Long Journey: The Missouri Compromise

Slavery had been prohibited in the Northwest Territory since 1787, the second-most-important decision (after the Declaration of Independence) taken by the Continental Congress in the years between 1774 and the adoption of the Constitution in 1789. For reasons that we will go into at the proper time, this ordinance set important precedents, deciding the manner in which the new government was going to organize territories held in common. But for the moment, we confine ourselves to the results of the decision to ban slavery, which, as stated, actually predated the Constitution. (The act was reaffirmed by the first Congress.)

The Northwest Territory was the great triangle of land between the Ohio River, the Mississippi River, and the Great Lakes. The first territory owned by the general government rather than by an individual state, it was also the first territory in which slavery was prohibited from the outset. We know Jefferson’s response to the sudden surfacing of the slavery issue as a regional rather than as a national problem. It is well to remember that Jefferson had as much to do with the Northwest Ordinance’s prohibition of slavery as any man living. But he hadn’t foreseen how his precedent was going to morph until it threatened civil war.

Until 1820, the nation’s growth was incremental and non-divisive. The original 13 states had been joined by Vermont (1791), Kentucky (1792), Tennessee (1796), Ohio (1803), Louisiana (1812), Indiana (1816), Mississippi (1817), Illinois (1818), and Alabama (1819). Orderly, peaceful and logical. As new territory achieved a certain minimal population, it petitioned for admission, northwestern and southwestern states coming in more or less together. By 1820, the slave-holding and non-slave-holding states numbered eleven each.

But in 1819, the territory of Missouri applied for admission to the Union as a slave state. Missouri, like Louisiana (which had been a state for seven years), lay west of the Mississippi River, and thus was not part of the territory covered by the Northwest Ordinance.

Representative James Tallmadge, Jr., of New York offered two amendments to the Missouri statehood bill, prohibiting further importation of slaves into Missouri and requiring gradual emancipation for slaves already there. The amendments passed (along regional lines) in the House, but failed in the evenly divided Senate. This began a solid year of Congressional debate on the issue. Northerners argued that Congress had the power to prohibit slavery in a new state. Southerners said that new states had the same freedom to choose slavery as the original thirteen had had.

The slave states were already outnumbered in the House and clearly destined to be ever more outnumbered (as few emigrants chose to move to territory where they would have to compete with slave labor). They determined to keep a de facto veto power over federal legislation by maintaining parity in the Senate. The free states, meanwhile, were irritated by the constitutional provision that each male slave be counted as 60% of a man for the purposes of congressional representation, even though they were considered property otherwise. The North considered this constitutionally mandated over-representation of slave states, which it was. The admission of new slave states would make the situation worse.

Finally, the detached part of Massachusetts known as the District of Maine requested statehood. Speaker of the House Henry Clay demanded that Missouri be admitted alongside Maine, which struck his fellow representatives as a way out of their dilemma. The final compromise line was set at 36 degrees, 30 minutes latitude. Any part of the Louisiana Purchase territory below the line was to be open to slavery, and anything above it – with the exception of the state of Missouri – was to be free. The Compromise passed the Senate on March 2, 1820, and the House on February 26, 1821.

Clay’s part in the Missouri Compromise earned him the title of “Great Pacificator.” Following this pairing formula, six more states entered the Union – Arkansas, Michigan, Florida, Texas, Iowa and Wisconsin – entering, like the animals on Noah’s Ark, two by two, until in 1850 California finally overturned the balance.

In hindsight, perhaps it was a mistake to draw a line in the sand, as Jefferson saw right away. But it is the nature of politics to seek the quick fix, the easy way out, and let the future take care of itself. And perhaps the 36-30 line seemed a logical extension of the border formed by the Ohio. The Compromise did result in Congress excluding slavery from national territory, for the first time since the Northwest Ordinance. And Lincoln himself, as shrewd and thoughtful a political observer as ever lived, said that the Missouri Compromise line preserved the peace for 30 years and would have continued to do so had not Kansas-Nebraska destroyed it. Perhaps the best that can be said of the compromise is that it was the work of fallible but patriotic men, and it bought time.

Choosing among non-3D influences

Saturday, October 20, 2018

3:45 a.m. Another question.

[Jim Austin: The sentence “Many are driven to suicide, if the concept of suicide be extended to include throwing one’s life away, giving up, giving in.” is very interesting. The ubiquity and importance of this problem (“it is not an issue of marginal or peripheral concern: It is of vital importance.”) could make one wonder what ‘non-3D’ is up to. It seems TGU and my guidance, and the guidance of many here want the best for each of us … and lo, in writing this I see the distinction: as usual, which ‘you/us’ do I mean? Each of us compound 3Ders have those “hair-shirt”/harpy stands, in varying numbers and strengths as part of a ‘larger’ you. The guidance I know works to make me aware of ways to deal with those parts of me; this post is a perfect example. But one could speculate on the equal availability of ‘guidance’ that would say “Listen to them, they are right!” Seems like that would be another of those ‘virtuous or vicious cycles’ TGU recently alluded to; the path forward would depend on which you listen to.

[Would TGU care to comment on the ‘existence’ of (from the 3D perspective) such ‘bad guidance?’]

[TGU:] Perhaps it would be worthwhile to extend the concept of “which you?” into the non-3D. That is, when you consider your guys upstairs – when you consult us either explicitly as in this way, or implicitly as in following hunches, inclinations, proclivities – remember that we are no more uniform among ourselves than you are. Why should we be expected to be? How should we be able to? As above, so below.

We return to prior themes. The truths religions are based in are true even if they have been privatized, even if they have been perverted for the benefit of certain individuals, or groups, even if they have been understood only according to narrow or bigoted senses.

Not senses.

No. Narrow or bigoted outlets, say, or guidelines. The sense of it is, the truth of it is distorted by preconception. Religions take aspects of the truth and express them. But even a partial view is better than a bland blindness to the problems involved, is it not?

Rhetorical question, I take it. You know I agree with that – only, at some point the distortion inherent in a partial view overwhelms the benefit.

Always true, and always part of the human situation, for none of you – we should extend that to say, none of us, that is, no one involved in compound beings – can escape the benefits and limitations of partial views.

So in your various scriptures, it would be as well for someone to go along compiling not commandments, not historical or mythical situations and commentary, but – advice. “Test the spirits,” for one. From advice given, a world-view can be deduced. More importantly, many a practical pitfall may be illumined and avoided.

So, Jim’s question. I get the sense of what you have to say about it. There are spirits on all sides of all questions, and it would be well for all of us in 3D to bear that fact in mind.

You have said it concisely.

Thank you. but don’t you care to expand it?

Really, there should be no need. You are composed of many strands, which may be harmonious or may be discordant or may be sometimes the one and sometimes the other. Realize your situation and you realize the appropriate strategy by which to live and guide your lives. If you do not realize it, you may be blown about by any stray gust of wind, or may confuse certainty with truth, and in either case be unlikely to make much progress in integrating what may be a very diverse and even contradictory bundle.

In effect, your lives are stretched between extremes, and you are enabled and also compelled to choose who and what you will be, according to how you choose among possible values. Your span may be relatively large or relatively small, but within that span of possibilities, it is for you to decide. That is what all that conflict is about: your right and need to choose.

Good and bad angels.

Certainly it can be looked at that way, only it would be better if even while one chooses, one remembers that what is good for you is not necessarily an absolute, and what is bad to you is equally not necessarily an absolute.

God looked upon what he had created and found it good.

It was only after the humans chose to see things through the tree of the perception of things as good or evil – according to the myth encapsulated in Genesis – that they decided that part of God’s creation was good and part bad.

I am reminded of the commentary someone quoted. I think it was a Chinese or Japanese man, commenting on the Western world view. He said: “Man against nature, nature against man. Man against God, God against man. God against nature, nature against God. Very funny religion!” That isn’t exact, but that’s the sense of it. It may be from Joseph Campbell.

That is an outside view of Western man’s blindness, and all the more valuable for being outside it.

So, in a nutshell, “bad” guidance is – unhelpful guidance? Malicious guidance?

It is unnecessary to label it in that way. Merely say this: Guidance that comes via non-3D sources is no more to be accepted unconditionally and automatically than if it came from a 3D source. But neither is it to be automatically disregarded, in the same way. Rather, it is for you to use your discernment; to choose. That’s all that is involved. As with Andy’s question, the nub is this: It is your life, for you to decide. You choose. Cast your net widely, but that doesn’t mean you are to unthinkingly accept anything and everything you dredge up.


Well, that is enough on the subject. No need to stretch this out merely to make up your hour.

Okay. Thanks as always.


Cover boy

The Echo World is a free-distribution monthly tabloid that circulates throughout the central Virginia area, roughly centering on Charlottesville, extending from Richmond west to Staunton, and from Lynchburg north to Harrisonburg.

The October issue, currently on the stands, features a 2,000-word article by my on how anyone can develop and experience access to guidance: in short, what I taught in a three-hour workshop at the Quest in Charlottesville a few years ago, and the key to the weekend workshop I taught with Bob Holbrook at The Monroe Institute.

And if substance isn’t enough for you, there’s that smiling face on the cover! And a book review of one of Paul Brunton’s books. And it’s free besides. What else could you ask?


Merriman, da Vinci and the Wright brothers

Re-reading Dark Fire again (yeah, I know, but I like the story!) and I find one of the shortest yet one of my favorite sections of a chapter. C.T. Merriman is thinking, talking to himself:


They say Leonardo da Vinci invented the submarine but then suppressed the idea because, he said, men were so wicked that they would practice assassination at the bottom of the sea.

Can’t say he was wrong.

Orville Wright lived until 1948, long enough to see them use airplanes to destroy whole cities by fire-bombing and by atomic bombs. Remembering his happy years working with his brother, he said, “What a dream it was, and what a nightmare it has become.”

Can’t argue with that either.

Am I any smarter than Leonardo da Vinci? Do I have any more control over what people do with my work than Orville Wright had?



Managing internal conflicts

Friday, October 19, 2018

5 a.m. We have a question here that applies to more people than one. Comment?

[From Andy W: Here’s a question I have for the guys. I have a “hair shirt” strand, or strands, who are reacting intensely to all the changes I’m making – and they find my focused switch to positivity and business activity “unpleasant” and “nonspiritual”, especially since it involves making money, and not giving in to panic and fear. So, do I say “thank-you for sharing” – ignore the input, and keep focusing on guidance from those parts of me who are OK with business and support my existence and “all is well” attitude? I explain to my “hair shirt” strands my motivations for the work I do is to be of service and help others. Yet those strands tell me that I don’t deserve ANYTHING, (and that I can’t really help others) and that the solution is to check out. Like some of them did/do in their strand. It almost feels like my “longtime” project is merely to stay alive, active and connected to my “all is well” identity/strands in face of the current challenges that are being discussed. It feels like I’m changing my spots.]

[TGU:] Indeed it does [apply to more than one person]. And not only does it apply to more people than one, it is not an issue of marginal or peripheral concern: It is of vital importance. And, just as it causes real damage when unchecked, it has the potential to do great good – to lead to great liberation – when once understood, and dealt with. In religious people, the same problem manifests as a hyper-active conscience, what is called “scrupulous” behavior [not meaning ethical; meaning nit-picking concern for every little thing, blowing things out of proportion], and its corresponding trait of continual carping criticism of the conduct and character of others, as spillover from the continual onslaught of criticism of oneself.

Yes, put into that context, the connection is very clear.

But we should spell it out, because it won’t yet be clear to all.

It amazes me, sometimes, this process. By all means, proceed.

It may become clearer if we transpose the situation. Suppose we look at it this way. Andy (and the unnumbered multitude who suffer by this kind of carping criticism) is in the midst of a community. How would it look if the community we refer to were 3D individuals, rather than non-3D individuals? Would he allow the same presumption of competence to judge and condemn him?

I have lived among an unsympathetic community – people among whom I could not express my true feelings, could not expect sympathetic hearing for what I knew. Sheep, intolerant of any animal that was even slightly different from the accepted norm. It is very crippling.

It is, although overcoming such opposition may build strength of character. Now, in 3D circumstances, you can physically relocate. Get another job to be rid of a bad work environment; change cities or states to live among more congenial people; find a different circle of friends, etc. You have the option of changing your surroundings. But what of living in a similar situation when the intolerant, opinionated, emotionally hostile, presumptuous know-it-alls are not 3D individuals but non-3D aspects of oneself? How does one escape them?

I suppose some people may be driven to suicide, if it is bad enough.

Many are driven to suicide, if the concept of suicide be extended to include throwing one’s life away, giving up, giving in.

That is bleak.

It is. That’s why it is valuable to bring it to people’s attention, so that they may free themselves from it.

Of course. The first step in anything involves becoming conscious of it, as Jung pointed out and as I keep finding myself quoting in many contexts. If you aren’t conscious of the various aspects of a situation, it controls you, even though by rights you should control it. But by analogy, you can’t control a dream until you become lucid.

And “Life is but a dream.” True, and relevant. So let us say more, even though we have already said all Andy and others should need, because this is one case where it is better to say too much (to be sure the point is made) than to settle for having said it.

Yes, and I see why. The same internal confusion – even opposition – that causes the problem may tend to obscure the message by interfering with one’s ability to hear it.


We say it as clearly as we can: You are the mind living in 3D, you have the right to determine who and what you shall be. This you do by your choices. Your choices. If you choose to be a musician and you hear a chorus of inner voices screaming at you that no, you have no talent, you are deluding yourself, you are stupid to do anything except X – whatever “X” may be – should you listen?

Well, transpose the situation. If it were your family or co-workers or neighbors or strangers acting that way, “should” you listen? Or do you have the right and even the obligation to make your own choices?

Conflicts come disguised. Situations internal, no less than external, may have their own confusion. It isn’t always easy to know what you want, what is practical, what is essential to you if you are not to wither and die. When is advice wisdom and when is it merely opinion, possibly malicious or jealous opinion? When may your guys be implicitly trusted, and when must they be resisted, even defied? These are important questions, that do not answer themselves as soon as posed.

Joseph Campbell famously said, “Follow your bliss.”

And that is very good advice, properly followed, or we should say properly understood. You wouldn’t want to tear up your life every time you felt another whim, but whims are not bliss. They may be temptations, they may be leading indicators of something important, but whims per se are not what Campbell meant. He meant, since feelings are the language of the soul, your soul – your deepest self, your essence of you – will tell you (defining “you” as the 3D consciousness trying to discern its true path in the world) what is most congenial to your nature by providing deep satisfaction when you are doing what you ought to be doing to fulfill your nature.

Yes, like me doing this.

Exactly. “Your bliss” doesn’t mean you are on cloud nine when you are engaged in it. It means, this is what is important to you, this is what gives you meaning, this is when you feel yourself expressing your true meaning as a 3D individual that is also something deeper and wiser and stronger and – well, connected.

The “bliss” you follow may make no sense externally. It may solve none of your problems; indeed, may pose more, is quite likely to, at least in the beginning. But you will know that it fits the real you. you will never follow it grudgingly or perforce. You will no more have to endure doing it than a river has to flow grudgingly and against its will.

To answer Andy explicitly, your right and we would almost say your responsibility is to say to non-3D people what you would say (hopefully) to 3D people: “Thanks for your advice, but you may not know as much as you think you do about what is good for me. Even if I am wrong, I have the right and duty to choose what I want to become, and no one can relieve me of the responsibility or take away from me that right.”

Or, more succinctly, “Shut up.”

Well – we smile and sort of agree, except that a confrontational attitude doesn’t always smooth the way.

I love that line from Stephen Leacock: “’Shut up,’ he explained.”

Well, it can be emotionally satisfying, and sometimes that’s what a situation requires. But a smoother long-term attitude is probably more like, “I know you think you’re helping, but you aren’t. This is my life, my decision, and if it is a mistake, it is my mistake. Why not sit back and see what happens?”

You don’t really think a chorus of harpies is going to be silenced or even muted by that approach?

You think blunt confrontation day by day is going to get better results? Think of your daughter with her children.

Now that is a very interesting analogy. I have been impressed, watching my daughter deal with her very young children having temper tantrums. She would hold them reassuringly, saying, “I know,” sympathetically, while not giving in on whatever was causing them distress. It was wonderful to watch, as she maintained control without impairing affection.

You have any reason to think that wouldn’t work with your own non-3D strands, some of which may act like infants sometimes?

I never thought about it.

Well, now you can [think about it]. To sum up: Discordant strands within one’s makeup have their own right to exist and be heard; that is not the same thing as saying that any or any combination of them have the right to override or second-guess what you decide to do or become. But they won’t be any the worse for being reassured that their concerns have been heard and even perhaps that their interests are not being disregarded.

Hard to realize just how that last would manifest.

Never mind. Those to whom it applies will recognize it as it manifests.

So, probably enough on this subject, but if people raise further questions, or objections, or if somehow it is not yet clear, we’re always here to consult.

I suspect that many people, not just I, thank you for this. Till next time.


Living the knowledge

[Monday, January 16, 2006]

(5:40 a.m.)

It is more than a matter of writing a book, or of writing many books. More important by far is the need to live the knowledge. To some extent one serves as a model to others in anything one does, and that serving as a model can occur – must occur – in every aspect of life. If various aspects contradict each other, each aspect – and the contradictions among aspects – serves a different model. This is not to say that one is primarily a model for others. Is one’s life primarily lived for the sake of one arm, or one ear? Yet the arm and the ear are as integral as any other past of the whole

So – this is a time to be transformed. Clever phrasing, eh? It may be and should be read two ways. The times are to be transformed; you are to be transformed in these times.

It is more than a matter of writing books. But you always knew that.

All right, friends, it is 6 a.m. and I am tempted to go make some coffee as my starter to the day. Yet I know it is a little early to be starting with coffee. I could but I don’t need to. So – where am I and why am I finding it harder to work?

The phase of any project after the initial enthusiasm is often discouragement – at the least it is, well, a reaction from enthusiasm. You still see the value, but you cannot help seeing the amount of work to be done versus your ability to do it, and you have not yet done enough of it to see clearly that you can do it, and are doing it, successfully. It is just a transitory thing. We do warn you, however, against diverting your efforts into several channels – that is, thinking to write the Iona book at the same time you write the healing and guidance book. Given that the nature of the work is the same, this will leave you merely with so much more unfinished work – so much larger a pile of notes, so much larger a list of things to be done. If you want to day-dream a novel as you proceed on the non-fiction, that is fine and will provide amusement. But not two non-fictions at once. You did sense that, but tried anyway. We as usual let you try – it is your life. But now that you have seen the result, there is no use in trying to persist (though in actual fact you would do little) when it is a dead-end process.

Well, putting aside the note-taking for Iona is a relief, actually.

Robert Johnson says that when something is ready to move into consciousness, it needs an intermediary, generally a person or thing, and will be projected onto it. This is as I was discussing the other day. He tells of following Krishnamurti and what a wretched teacher he was – and of his dream that sent him to Fritz Kunkel and ultimately to Jung. I really have been guided by an automatic pilot. Maybe we all are if we listen. I knew Jung was the important man the first time I read anything by him.

Johnson says (p. 76): “Our projections of the hero onto others always represent where we are headed.” He says, “I feel that the ego is properly used as the organ of awareness, not the organ of decision.” I like that very much. “The ego serves as the eyes and ears of God. It gathers the facts, but it does not make the ultimate decisions. The decisions come from the Self…. (p. 100)

And he quotes British philosopher Owen Barfeld as saying “Literalism is idolatry.”