Our lives as bubbles

Sunday, August 14, 2016

7 a.m. It has been only a couple of days since we’ve talked but it seems a long time. So let’s proceed from what I just got.

Rereading our conversations from the first of the month on, at some point an image came to me, perhaps hard to describe but emotionally clear. It is of us as a bubble (not a fragile evanescent thing but a stable bubble like the bubble in a level) included in a medium that allows it to move in any direction – right or left, up or down, forward or back, and additional “dimensions” I don’t have a concept for. I got that this better represents our life than previous, more static, images. Would you care to take this and run with it?

Not “more static,” so much as “more bounded.” There is a difference.

Your somewhat involuntary two-day vacation from this was helpful in moving you from an active to a more receptive space, because it is only natural to become tempted to logically extend whatever one is getting. It seems helpful, even perhaps obligatory. But usually it tends to keep one in accustomed channels, or most particularly tends to push one toward reverting to accustomed channels. Nothing wrong with the impulse nor with giving in to it, but we prefer to move beyond the shore. So do you, or you could choke this off without a struggle.

You won’t get far with physical analogies on this one, so settle for the sense of being a bubble, able to float in a given direction according to various factors, the most immediate of which is your conscious intent as focused rom the totality of what you are, funneled through the lens (let’s call it) of your habitual direction.

Other than that sense of yourself as suspended, or existent, in a medium

Already even that much physical analogy gets in the way.

Well, what if we just visualize the bubble in a level, and visualize it – no, I see the problem.

Hold the feeling of existing in a supportive medium – floating, only without the implication of floating above the surface of a meeting of two different dimensions, as the idea of floating on the ocean would suggest, for example. Floating, but floating in one’s own

The potatoes Emerson suggested. He used the analogies of potatoes in a tub, each rising or falling to its own level according to its density.

That will do. The desired image is not floating above anything, nor on anything, but in its surroundings, at its only possible place to be, because it is of the density that it specifically is, at least at any given time.

However, we are not discussing potatoes. The only part of the analogy we wish to hold is the felt image of various “individuals” floating in a supportive medium, effortlessly (unavoidably) reaching their own level. It is not structure we are pursuing, but flow.

Your intuition – your reception, perhaps? – was helpful. The key to the connection of illness and sin and overwhelming background circumstance is intensity, is desire, is intent, is willingness to express. And surely you do not pretend to understand that sentence as given. Not immediately, not completely. Revert to your sense of the world as being projected from a realer version of the world. I realize that isn’t quite an accurate paraphrase of your concept, but let’s say it is a slightly corrected one.

Your present moment – always – is where you are.

Since that is a tautology, I take it you mean more than immediately appears.

Well, how did you get to “where you are”? Drift? Reaction? Intent?

I’m not getting what you’re after.

Life is choosing. But you can’t really understand what that means if you think one being sets up a situation for another being to experience and report on. Yet that is the way you have been thinking about it, on some level, ever since you were given the bridge concept of you in 3D and you in non-3D, only the “you” in 3D being in a sort of temporary exile until it could get back to safety and comfort as a 3D mind translated into a non-3D mind (even though, contradictorily, that 3D mind was a no-3D mind all the time). That concept carried you from you’re your previous concepts into the place described or suggested by The Sphere and the Hologram. The more recent material [meaning, I take it, what Rita began in December, 2014] only refined it, only sanded the edges, retouched the paint. Other redefinitions were more important. But now we much tear down that idea. The reality is unchanged, but “3D and non-3D” may be regarded as an epicycle whose usefulness has come to an end (in terms of further exploration) or is of only limited usefulness (in terms of continuing to function as a bridge).

If Dimension is concept rather than reality, how can 3D or non-3D be any realer than a concept? No, you are not separated in the way 3D logic would seem to necessitate. (And, note, “3D logic.” Just because a concept is not reality, does not mean it is not still a useful concept, only, handle with care.)

You – we – are vastly more than you know (or even we know), by definition, as I believe we mentioned earlier. It is also important to realize, we are not divided beings. Not within ourselves, not between ourselves. No division is more than a relative difference in emphasis.

Therefore questions of equity among various beings do not really arise. Is there a question of equity between a finger and a toe, between a liver and a pancreas? Is there a question of equity between yesterday and next Tuesday? By cutting closer, and applying logic, you could make it seem so, but in reality – even reality as your somewhat unconscious level – no.

We’re still dancing around this, I can tell.

You mean, you think, or perhaps you feel. That’s how you live your lives, thinking, or, more usually, feeling, as circumstances seem to arise around you.

“Here is the gist of what they mean.”

Yeats? [For, I recognized the line from “Under Ben Bulben,” and knew who was speaking.]

Himself. As real as anything else, and as present, and no more.

Life is will. Not teeth-gritted intensity, though it may be that, nor palaces of thought spun into physical existence, though it may be that as well, certainly not the working-out of some scheme of logic. Life is existing and being awake to it, and adding your won bit by moving this way or that. The result has little to do with physical result, and little more to do with mental creation. The key to it is magic. Magic not to impose your will upon  creation, though it can do that, but to impose your vision upon the underlying creative chaos that awaits such vision. You impose that vision first by choosing your self, then by using that self to influence the life around you.

And illness, and sin?

What house has never known sorrow? Whose passions have never led a man astray? [I think this means, “who has never been led astray by his passions,” but I didn’t think to ask.] But these are powerful aids. You cannot avoid them and therefore shouldn’t think to. You may minimize either, or both, and yet go astray from your own path by so doing. Why do you think I sang the drunkard along with the sainted monk, the lecher with the virgin, the fool with the scholar? Life is not many things, but all things.

It is odd (as usual) to have long-time puzzlement suddenly clarify in a few sentences. Thank you for this.

If you do not start off with the certain image, you will not arrive at the world only that image can lead you toward. But how to get hold of the right image?

The part of us that is greater than our 3D awareness nudges us, I’d imagine.

You could say spirits whisper in your ear, and what would be the difference? Only a difference in respectability.

So many things I’d like to discuss with you, but not in public.

There is always another time, until there is not.

All right. We’ll keep that between ourselves, assuming I can bring myself back to the proper space.

If you are meant to do so, who could stop you, or would want to do so?

Excellent. So I’ll sign off for now and hope to continue this another time.

John Dorsey Wolf: A Greater Context

Some new insight came to me, but it’s been gestating for almost two years.  It came primarily by re-experiencing previous material using a new “lens” to perceive it.  It may or may not be new to you.  It may or may not resonate with you.

Images came to me during a TMI exercise about a year ago. I feel I am gradually unlocking the messages in stages as my overall understanding of reality evolves.

The short movie in my head is an inverted tornado of consciousness spiraling slowly.  It combines and consolidates as it flows toward its ultimate home, a Source.  Simultaneously, Spirit emanates from the Source with overwhelming creative energy, feeding new expressions and reconfiguring existing ones.  I sense myself in the large part of the funnel seemingly distant from the Source, in a “birthing zone”, perhaps more appropriately a “born again” area, as “old” consciousness reconfigures itself.  I sense my destiny is to spiral ever closer to Source, toward greater and greater concentrations of conscious as it joins together like streams flowing into a river.

A year before that, I was told by my guides (as I now better understand it) that in our current situation we may feel small and insignificant, and unconnected and isolated, but as we are able to broaden our awareness and be able to identify ourselves with greater concentrations (or one might say, “levels”) of consciousness, our capabilities and connections would grow accordingly.  In other words, “John” might have limited reach, but John as John’s greater being would have much greater reach,  and so forth as I am able to identify with my even further extensions.

From Frank’s recent material:

“CGJ: If you can once internalize the fact that you, yourself, are vastly more than you can ever become aware of, many puzzles will begin to resolve themselves. But thinking this is only the first step. What will transform your understanding is getting it into the feeling as well as (not instead of) the thinking.”

TGU: “…And, more important than any of this (and yet, no more important, for you can’t have either in isolation) is the desire for more consciousness, for a sense of greater meaning. Call it a homesickness for a state of being you can’t remember having had.”

And Rita April 6, 2015:  “…no level of consciousness decides its own state of being. Our lives are always guided and shaped by the next higher level of consciousness, which is itself shaped by its next higher level of consciousness, and so on and so forth. No one pulls himself up by his own bootstraps.”

The above is not intended to paint a picture of truth, but a basis to share with you what is becoming for me a greater context to understand my day-to-day life and my purposes for existence.

That we can never know all or be all, does not deter us from our internal drive to expand and be able to identify with that from which we come, and that drive is “above, as it is below”.

More recently from TGU: “Health and Illness are parts of greater consciousness, as is internal discordance, as is habits that prevent functioning with respect to the invisible next higher level or organization…These are not just associated with an individual human unit, but greater consciousness that is at work moving and changing to accept, and resolve and reform itself. “

And some part of me says: “While these are examples of burdens, cannot creative expansion, evolving complexity, awakening awareness, and rediscovering inherent divinity also be valid work for and of greater consciousness?”

I couldn’t help recalling a quote from Rita in response to a question from me:  “John Wolf’s question does not express the relationship between battles and reconciliation in the way that I would like to express it. Put it this way: every new compound being is a new opportunity for the expression of the potential contained within the larger being. (For the moment I am concentrating on creation out of any one larger being, but it is not that simple, or you would be back to creation from God, end of story. But, one thing at a time.) The nature of each compound being is a bag of possibilities which each 3D life sorts and chooses among and brings together into an enduring pattern. Thus, by your work at reconciling opposing or anyway diverging forces, you help create new possibilities for reconciliation on the non-3D side as well. By your expression and choice of one or another set of values, you create an exponent of those values on the other side, in the non-3D, among the enduring archetypes, however you wish to say it.

Thus, the forces of heaven are at war, and Earth is the battleground. Or, the world is a place of creation in which 3D beings created from non-3D elements create in their turn, thus returning, to the non-3D part of the world, the elements of which they were formed, transformed. Or, values precede form as blueprints precede construction, and in the incarnation and interplay of the 3D representation of these values – particularly in that the 3D representatives are inherently mixtures of values, never pure representatives – is the continuous redevelopment and re-creation of logical development of tendencies.”

From TGU August 11, 2016: “But what is it to achieve wholeness? Physical and moral and intellectual perfection while in the body? Or – effort, longing, progress, leading to a corrected condition after physical life and before the next stage of life?”

Here’s what I gather from this.

We are a work in progress, and on an eternal climb with a few rest stops thrown in.  It is a self-paced development system with a lot of support from above, and all around us.

Our consciousness broadens when it is ready, and we are able to be more of what we are, more whole.  What limits us from being more, is us (and this applies to every stage of growth), and we work to overcome those limitations.

The “limitations” are not here in our physical world to tempt us or impose upon us, as often appears to be the case in experiencing our external world.  We bring them here as a part of us.

(New insight for and from John:)

We come here not only as apparent individuals, but as many aspects of greater consciousness, not limited to that of a “single” greater being.  Our “limitations” come with us, imbedded in us, via our own strand community and in concert with many other strand communities.

For example if we want to deal with OUR materialistic nature, what could be better than a stage of 21st century America? We put in the actors, play out the consequences (all of them remember), so that we can decide (as a whole being) how we want to be.

What better way to deal with OUR narcissism and pride, that to put it in our face?  Or What better way to deal with OUR disrespect for Nature than to experience Nature’s consequences?

WE bring ignorance and a thirst for knowledge about consciousness, and we are given opportunities to learn.

WE bring incompatible habits and we are given opportunities to shed them.

WE bring temperaments that are out of balance, are we are given opportunities to even ourselves.

WE bring fear, and are given opportunities to love.

And WE carry pain, illnesses, and sufferings, and given opportunities to deal with them.  The emphasis here is not just on the individuals carrying the pain and suffering (and bless them that accept those roles), but a larger society who reacts—remembering we are all part of one.

And likewise, we are given opportunities to create ourselves, to open new avenues for consciousness to express itself, to experience fully all aspects of our life, to bring to life a 3D version of OUR (meaning all of us) part of this physical world’s reality.

Our destiny is not to stay or be only human, or for that matter a greater being experiencing being human.  Our destiny is to awaken as fully as possible to OUR divinity.

It’s one way to look at it.


Sin, illness, and wholeness

Thursday August 11, 2016

5 a.m. All right, I’m ready to resume. I was getting a hint as to where you’re going with this, yesterday, but it is gone now. So, I’m interested to see what you have in mind.

Remember, for the moment we are looking at the world (that is, everything, not just physical matter) as flow rather than as structure. So movement, fluctuation, currents, now assume greater importance than relative positions.

Yes, I got that.

You think you do. We’ll see. It is one thing to have an idea as an idea, another to commit to it, even pro tem. It makes a difference, because the commitment leads to your seeing connections and analogies rather than having the idea sit as an undigested lump.

All right. We mentioned sin and illness in the same breath. Rather than contrast the two, let us for the moment compare them. What they chiefly have in common is that they produce, or measure (depending on how you think about it) the on-going state of one’s psychic health.

I put in “health” but it doesn’t seem right.

No, and “position” which you considered wouldn’t be right either. Let’s back up, then, and approach it from another angle. We really didn’t expect this to be an obstacle.

I get that you are saying illness or sin is a measure of the difference between where we are and – something.

That’s not right either. We may have to consider them separately and then try again to show what they have in common, because the two are too different to be lightly compared.

So let’s begin with sin, as having fewer “external” constraints than illness. What one chooses is more a function of a certain level of 3D consciousness than what seems to happen to one’s circumstances, as illness often presents itself.

Shall I argue with you as we go along, or would you prefer to make a statement before I register objections?

Either way. You rarely interrupt when we are going well.

No, I struggle to keep up. Well, is sin really always a choice?

By definition.

I know, but in fact we seem predisposed to certain kinds of sins, the way an alcoholic is predisposed to drink. It’s still free will, maybe, but it isn’t very free.

The point is valid. And of course, anyone is more inclined toward certain sins than others.

It seems so. If I am covetous, I am not aware of it – but I am prone to envy. That’s one example. To avoid covetousness is not only no problem; the temptation doesn’t seem to arise. But it can be a real struggle not to envy another’s success, or whatever.

Not a bad example. Let’s pursue it. You are not prone to covet things, because ownership of things is not important to you. But “not prone” is not “immune.” Should you someday come across something you’d die to have, only somebody else has it and you never will, the feeling could arise.

Ah, I get it. That’s what they meant by “an occasion of sin” – the set-up, the precondition.

Well, that’s one thing they may have meant. In any case, given that the seven sins express a human range of possibilities, you cannot expect to be immune to temptation by any of them; it may depend partly upon circumstances as well as upon your internal makeup.

Now, look at the subject not as you expect it to be, but with new eyes. We’ve already said sin is not a matter of black marks in the book for which you will be punished. For a certain kind of psychological makeup, that is the only way the concept makes sense, as a sort of ledger-book accumulating debts. That is not a useful concept here. People of that psychology are unlikely to read this. (It is true that people of a different makeup may have been raised with those concepts, but they will have rejected them or will reject them, as soon as the limitation occurs to them.)

Sin is a useful concept if held to a measure of your proneness to given kinds of obstacles. In this, we are merely reverting to an earlier theological view (of which you are unaware) that sees sin as not a crime but a weakness. You aren’t responsible for the weaknesses of your character any more than you are responsible for birth defects. What you are responsible for is, what you do with them. If you encourage and indulge weakness, what do you suppose will happen? If you struggle against it, you will bring yourself closer to what you should be – that is, closer to your optimal functioning.

The situation is complicated as usual by the confounding of sin as tendency with sin as defiance of external prohibition. Again, we are not discussing sin in its aspect as “offense deserving punishment.” That ought to be able to go without saying, but in fact, it doesn’t. It is too widely assumed, too deeply ingrained.

So you might look at sin this way: Everyone’s psychological makeup has weaknesses. Those weaknesses may be regarded as the result of Original Sin, if you wish – that is, a human heritage that cannot be escaped in the world of perceived duality. But your weaknesses can tell you things about yourselves that you would otherwise have no way of knowing. That is, they can be made useful to you. or, they can be indulged and allowed to acquire more autonomy, diminishing your area of choice. It’s really up to you, continually.

Looked at this way, perhaps you can see that sin is less important than what you make of it. Your reaction to what you are prone to, more than the question of what those weaknesses are or how they manifest, is the significance and the opportunity.

And it is in this point (only) that we would draw the analogy to illness. What you do with your situation – how you allow it to affect you, what choices you make – determines not only the “why” of the illness but the value of it.

I think that means, after we react to the illness we can look back and say, “aha, that’s why I got that, or why I brought it in,” or whatever.

That attribution of meaning isn’t really the point, that’s just something you are prone to do, to make sense of your lives retrospectively (and nothing wrong with doing that). The value of a thing and the value you assign to it emotionally or intellectually may not have anything to do with each other. What you think or feel is one thing; the actual effect is something different even if the two happen to coincide.

There is value in suffering.

Not exactly. There is value in one’s reaction to suffering, as there is value in one’s struggles against weaknesses.

Somebody said he didn’t know whether pain improves you, but he knows that it does deepen you.

Life is struggle. Nothing grim about that fact; that’s what 3D was invented to facilitate, change through reaction to pressure. That’s one way it might be seen, anyway.

So what is the commonality between sin and illness that you were seeking to make clear?

Humans naturally strive for wholeness, for health. They have an innate drive to be what they are, as best they can actualize their potential. This may not be obvious, if only because there are so many different patterns of potential, but I assure you, nobody enters into life, nor lives, determined to fail.

But what is it to achieve wholeness? Physical and moral and intellectual perfection while in the body? Or – effort, longing, progress, leading to a corrected condition after physical life and before the next stage of life?

That sounds like Bernard Shaw saying Englishmen consider the world as a moral gymnasium.

You can feel a swarm of objections rising, not yet formulated. Next time.

Very well. Thanks as always.

More than we conceive ourselves to be

 Wednesday August 10, 2016

2:40 a.m. Guys, my friend Mary Ann is tempted to think that her non-3D component chose for her to suffer the physical illness that blighted her life, and is thinking this was an infringement of her 3D free will, as she would never have chosen this herself. My friend Jim denies that there is free will at all. What’s your take on all this? I ask, being in the middle of my own puzzling illness of a couple days’ duration which is more inconvenience than anything else but is a clear reminder that not only do we in 3D not choose to be ill or to be well, but illness or wellness seem to come upon us like outside influences.

The situation may be made clearer if you include mental illnesses in the discussion.


Because the more manifestations of a relationship you include in your examination, the less eccentric and more generalized are the conclusions you draw. Take two different but related aspects of a subject and compare and contrast, and you can get a more rounded view.

Now in the first place, realize the continuing temptation to be misled by words. Just because a written description emphasizes differences, that doesn’t mean that is the only way to see it. It may tempt you to regard different aspects of a thing as different things entirely. Thus, comparing your 3D and non-3D components may lead you to identify with one and feel victimized by the other. We have come a long way with 3D v. non-3D – that’s why we intend to dispense with that explanation for a while, lest it become so deep-seated as to appear absolute. It is a helpful way of seeing things, just as dimensions are a helpful way of seeing things, but it can be carried so far as to move into becoming an obstacle to deeper understanding.

Rather than continuing to think of yourselves only as 3D and non-3D components cooperating, or as 3D being placed into a situation by the non-3D and then living out whatever resulted, now think of yourselves also as one, unbounded, eternal, mysterious being. Or, let us say (as a sort of halfway-house concept), as part of that being.

That is, you, however you experience yourselves, whether as 3D only or as 3D in close connection with non-3D or as an atom in the vast universe – you are more than you experience, more than you conceive yourselves to be, and more than you can conceive yourselves to be – as long as you think of yourselves as units rather than as also pieces, or organs.

I take it that you just said, we may be considered as part of the body, or as a corpuscle in its own right, and either way of seeing it is somewhat right but not the whole thing.

That may not seem helpful, but hold to it while we go on to other things, and its explanatory function will become apparent.

To view yourselves as if you were the distinct, separate, individual units you commonly experience yourselves to be leads to descriptions of life and “afterlife” that take that view for granted. The result is that you must mistake relative distinctions for absolutes, just as you mistake dimensions for reality. The view isn’t exactly wrong in itself, but uncorrected by the complementary view of your being not individual but part of something larger, it is so misleading as to be quite an obstacle. It projects imaginary boundaries and mistakes them for real; it divides reality and says, “thus far and not farther.”

Now, to return to the subject more closely, consider mental and physical illness and wellness as part of who you are. If you are well, if you are ill, you may feel different, you may perceive the world and yourself differently, but obviously you, the center of the phenomena, remain you. It isn’t like one version of you slips out when the going gets rough and leaves another version to tough it out. Well or ill, you remain you. so what is the continuity amid the change? Or, put it another way, what function does wellness or illness serve, and – a question that may not have occurred to you – whom does it serve?

I admit, that latter question is not one that had occurred to me.

Do you think (in other contexts) that phenomena occur without reason, or that life proceeds more or less at random to maintain itself?

I get that you’re saying that illness may have some usefulness, though you haven’t yet said how. But you seem to be saying, as well, that some may profit from the suffering of others.

No, we are encouraging you to get free of that “some and others” mindset. But it is true nonetheless that your suffering in 3D may have its usefulness and its necessity, in fact, for reasons that are beyond your 3D vision.

Well, so far that doesn’t make a lot of sense.

Think of systems, not components. Think of organisms, not cells. Think of higher levels of organization, not lower ones. You are part of higher levels of organization, just as your liver is a liver and is at the same time an organization of cells, a unit in itself, and a part of a larger body of organization.

Life does not begin and end at the level you experience when you concentrate your attention on 3D as it appears, no matter how expansive your view of it. Life is eternal and non-divided and purposive. All these attributes should lead you to realize that you are part of something greater than your own level of awareness.

Holding that in mind, consider mental or physical illness as if they were the equivalent of an infection in a body that has to be localized and countered, lest it spread and multiply and perhaps bring down the entire organism. Can you see that from such a point of view, unmerited and seemingly uncaused suffering may be a service to the whole?

Hmm. Well, it’s true, we don’t usually think of “all is one” as including infection and response.

Remember “as above, so below,” and it will continue to guide you.

So are you really saying that we in 3D are cells in a larger body, and what we deal with here has larger implications?

Turn the idea around and look at it that way. The converse would be to say that you in 3D are individuals whose lives and struggles had no consequence at any other level of being. Does that feel right to you? Does it resonate, as you say?

No, it doesn’t. I get the individual aspect of existence – I don’t see how anybody couldn’t. But I also get that we are somehow something larger than we know, part of something greater, more complete.

So now let us shift focus very slightly and return to “the drunk who dies in the gutter” – who, you will remember, you were told may have made a significant contribution merely by holding together discordant elements [within himself]. Now expand your view to see the analogies or similarities between illness and life-circumstances.

You are more than your physical body – and you are also more than your self-identified individuality.

Now let us turn the knob again, very slightly, and focus on sin and people’s efforts at self-improvement. Sin – we are not talking here of someone not following somebody’s rules, but of real “missing of the mark” – sin may be regarded as a gauge of your efforts to date. You will notice that the seven deadly sins you were taught as a boy all involve putting the ego-self in the wrong position vis a vis one’s fellows and vis a vis one’s creator (or, for our purposes, vis a vis one’s next higher level of organization). List them.

Lust, envy, gluttony, covetousness, anger, pride, sloth (or ennui). My old acronym LEG CAPS, or LEG CAPE.

If you will look at them not as offenses to be scored against future punishment but as indicators of where you are going wrong by misplaced emphasis, they will again begin to be useful.

So now let’s pull it together once again. Physical or mental illness (with the implication of fluctuation); intractable problems such as internal discordance that may more or less cripple a person’s ability to live a meaningful life; habits that will distract or make a person less able to function in relation to the invisible next higher level of organization. Three examples of intimate relationship between levels, even if unsuspected.

That doesn’t seem to round off, yet I get the sense that that’s it for now.

Yes. Continue recruiting your health as you have been doing, and don’t spend energy recklessly.

Till next time, then.

An extraordinary moment

An extraordinary moment

Monday, June 29, 2020

5 a.m. A dream.

A very interesting experience. The specifics fade rapidly, but the sense of it remains. A few of us were at this college, meeting with various college officials, in a big hall – a mess hall, I want to call it, only there was no element of Army about it. Ed Carter was leading the questioning, I think. [Ed Carter became a friend in 1990 as I edited his novel Living Is Forever.] We would discuss a question and at some point a new question would arise from it, and Ed would ask for numbers and they would provide them and we would look into what that meant. I don’t think the process was planned in advance, it sort of grew. But it became a seminar, looking more and more deeply into practical questions. At some point I said, to someone we were with, that I was hungry, time for lunch.

But as I woke up, I knew that this wasn’t merely an “entertainment” dream, nor something made up of things suggested by recent reading. It felt like the dreaming itself had a purpose. The purpose wasn’t so much within the dream, as exemplified by the dream.

Guys? Any enlightenment for us?

Remember the ongoing seminar in the conference room in the upper world tree. [A place I sometimes go during a shamanic journey.] This is similar.

The process has present-world application?

Of course, and your Zoom meetings with your ILC group is an example of how collegiality may lead to greater depth of understanding. No one is in it for the sake of profit, because there is no profit in it; nor for prestige, nor one-up-man-ship nor any other externally oriented reason.; you are together for the thing itself, even if the thing itself is not yet clear.

Ed? Should I be addressing you directly?

Remember, everything you do from here becomes increasingly free-form. There isn’t so much “should” about things.

You say remember, but I don’t know that anybody has made that point before. If they have, I didn’t pick it up, anyway.

Well, either way, it is true. In a time of the breaking of old forms, it is to be expected that your personal freedom of action is greatly expanded for a time. The time doesn’t last forever, even judged against a human lifespan, so make the best of it.

Do you have any hints for us?

If you have only a limited time of greater freedom, greater possibilities, you should use it for the most important things. Don’t squander it; don’t fritter it away on inessentials.

Each of us making our own decision on what is inessential or not.

As always.

So if our ILC group, for instance, regards the acquisition of greater access as a priority, we shouldn’t be wasting our time on politics or economics or sports, say.

No, that is too broad, and also too one-pointed. Each individual knows or can know what is most important to the community he or she is. No two priority lists are likely to agree completely, and some will differ widely. But when people come together around some common interest, they don’t need for the rest of their lists to agree. All they need to agree on is whatever called them together. Think of it as a quilting bee. Do all the quilters have to have the same politics, prefer the same cars, watch the same TV shows? How would a herd mentality aid any of them, let along all of them?

All right.

The point here is that your group in the dream had a practical purpose beneath its superficial activity. You can’t even remember why you had all assembled there, but you saw how we began investigating the practical question of how much a full college education cost, then what made up those costs, then how could the costs be reduced, then the question of whether college should have one aim (and, you may not quite remember, we wound up dividing the result into three streams).

Because we had a practical set of questions, practicality led us to better and better answers, by means of better questions that elicited answers revealing more of the underlying reality of the situation. Everybody in the process – not least, those who had to find the data to answer the questions – learned.

I see the analogy about inquiry. I think I’ m still missing most of what you want to tell me.

Don’t hurry, it tenses you up and slows communication.

Okay. Recalibrating.

The first critical point to absorb is that you are right now in a long moment of extraordinary freedom from established form. That means, not so much social mores or even personal opinion, but something harder to describe.

Yes, I get the sense of it. We are accustomed to living within our own perceived limits, whatever we think they are, but right now we are in a moment where we may transcend those limits.

Where those limits cease to exist, because they were never more substantial than your ideas about things. But this moment will not last forever. If you want to take advantage of it, do so now.

And we do so how?

Encourage each other with true extraordinary stories, for one thing. Dirk is good at that, although his are so extraordinary (that is, his ordinary is so far removed from most people’s) that first must come the process of people learning to trust his accounts in the same way they trust him emotionally. Your own stories, pretty freely shared, are less extraordinary and therefore are more suited for some, and less useful for others. And this range will hold true for everyone. Everyone has a trove of extraordinary experiences and even extraordinary things taken for granted that they tell only to those they trust, and often not even to them. This is the time to go public. The result will be mutually invigorating and heartening.

This is the same process that occurs between the lines at Monroe, for instance.

Most of what happens at Monroe is that people experience a safe space to share extraordinary things, and when censorious or self-righteous participants attack that space, results plummet. In the absence of such constriction, though, extraordinary expansion occurs, in a very short time, not because the tapes produce it but because the tape, the undeclared mental environment, the trainers, the fellow-feeling of the participants, all act to create a magical moment.

Now that magical moment is at hand for anyone willing to claim it. It will shape your limits behind your back if you do not use it consciously. Some will “learn” that the world is dangerous and that they are surrounded by enemies, as they take their fears to be validated. But some will remember that they are magical beings surrounded by love and magical others (who are not as much “other” as you think). It’s a matter of time and attention and above all of daring to believe you are what you want to be.

This doesn’t have to have anything to do with externals. Many a rose blooms unseen. But it has everything to do with intent.

And, I get, with an intent to help and rejoice in each other.

Of course. Only, recognize that for those unable to sign on to that “of course,” it is an “of course not.” It’s all in your intent. You came to 3D to shape who and what you are. Take advantage of this more elastic time to do your shaping more effectively.

Thanks, Ed. Big day for me when Eleanor Friede sent us your manuscript! Be well.

I could and do say the same to you, and to Rich and to Joyce, who joins me in that wish. [Rich, Joyce, Ed and I bonded in Lifeline in 1995.]

Many thanks.


Illness as a reflection of fluctuation in life

Tuesday August 9, 2016

6:50 a.m. Last night I noted in my journal, “It isn’t just emotions, moods, thoughts, values. It is also pain, illness, suffering, accidents, altercations.” I have noticed over the years that people trying to explain life generally see life, and then exceptions to life. Life in health as the default, and then illness as an exception. None of this quite says it, so I’m hoping you guys can run with it.

“Fluctuations” is the word you want. Life is fluctuation, yet schemes attempting to describe or analyze life generally treat it as a static or regular event rather than a continuously fluctuating range of possibilities.

Remember yesterday we set out to itemize the many conditions of life that must be accounted for. That was to show how truly complicated the working-out of a life must be. What looks simple, even inevitable, is still the culmination of many a convergence of factors.

Now if you are going to change analogies from bounded structures (dimensions) to non-bounded ranges of action, you are going to have to account for the same phenomena your previous scheme accounted for. For a new scheme to be worthwhile it must give you something useful, else what’s the point? So it is well to bear in mind the phenomena to be taken into account.

In studying life with the emphasis placed not on structure but on flow, fluctuation becomes the important fact of life, and instead of it being an obstacle to clarity – blurring the picture of a given structure – it becomes the microscope’s adjusting knob, selecting focus.

Illness, suffering, is one such measure of fluctuation, or, let’s say, not “measure” but “reflection.” Illness, and the other things that came to you in the evening – pain, accidents, altercations. Anything that disrupts what the individual would prefer to be, rather than what is, is important.

Look for our clues in anything we don’t want?

Not quite. But the things in your lives that come to you against your conscious will are demonstrations that you at your level are not in charge of your life’s circumstances. That is, your reactions are your responsibility (and your opportunity) but the conditions themselves are not under your conscious control, no matter what a half-thought-out metaphysics or religion may say. It is true that there are no accidents, but it is also true that you on a 3D level are not in charge of the scenery or the other actors or the plot of the play. You on your 3D level are placed in your circumstances and you must do what you can do.

This should not be any big problem. In your day to day life, you know this. When you get a cold, when you live with asthma, when you live in a society whose values are not yours, when you repeatedly are confronted with facts you would prefer not to be facts – doesn’t all this tell you that you are not in charge of the play? Common sense would say the same, but it is true that common sense often misinterprets.

I have wondered, so many times over the years, what am I doing in a world where John F. Kennedy was killed? If there are other versions where that didn’t happen, why am I not in those? Or, if I am, why am I also here and why is “here” the only one I am aware of?

Yes, because unlike asthma, you could not by any assumption have “chosen” it. So let us look at things beginning with stage and players.

Consider that common sense is not always wrong, is not always superficial. Your bias is to suspect anything that is commonly accepted. It might be better for you to replace “suspect” with “inspect,” and you will be less prone to dismiss things that, rightly understood, may prove to be of value. “Inspect” is not “accept,” and certainly is not automatically accept. A common-sense understanding will always have value as a sounding-board. It will shed light on things even if it does not reflect but distorts what really is.

So, common sense says you as individuals do not create the world you exist in, any more than the goldfish creates the fishbowl. Take that view and contrast it to “you create your own reality” and do the work of considering them in relation to each other without dismissing either. Or, take the view that “accidents happen” or “illness happens” and view it in connection with the view that says that every thing in life is meaningful and of a piece.

The mental effort involved in weighing the two views against each other – not allowing yourselves the easy out of merely dismissing one or the other as wrong – will help you move toward the way of perceiving and judging that will be able to see life in its unbounded rather than its structured aspect.

I don’t have a good sense of this.

It is only preliminary. (Some people need different preliminary material than others do. That is an essay in itself! But we will not stay for it.) You live in different worlds according to your moods and internal circumstances. Is that more helpful?

Well, it gives me something to chew on. I presume you mean us, and not only me.

Of course. You move up and down a scale of consciousness, one might say, or perhaps you range along your being, identifying now with one level, now with another. Depending upon where you are, you are to that extent a different person than when you are at a different place.

Now, this is a simple statement: Don’t complicate it or try to make it more, or less, than it is. Take any scale you please – moods, emotions, wellness, conceptions  of your place in things) and you will fluctuate along it according to many factors.

Take moods. If you are depressed, you may be said to be toward the lower end of the scale. If you are in quiet faith that all is well, you are toward the higher end. But in any case, you are placed somewhere on that scale, and no matter if it seems to be you moving yourself or “eternal events” moving you, still it is movement. This is not news to any of you, surely. In your regular day to day lives, obviously you experience this fluctuation. Only, don’t forget it when you come to think about how the world is, how reality is, how you interact with the world.

Take illness, either temporary or chronic. For the duration of the illness, you live in a somewhat different world than you would in the absence of the illness. This will have positives and negatives, and it is up to you to find them, but, in any case your life will be different. You will not have caused it, not at a 3D level. (Even a physical miscue causing an accident will not have been “random.”) No, but you will be left with the living-out of it. In this, illness or accident is not different from the rest of life. Life might be defined as the living-out of the situation you find yourselves in, as that situation repeatedly modifies itself “on its own” and in reaction to your own choices.

Remember, we are at the very beginning of this alternative explanation. Please don’t jump to premature conclusions, or, if you do, hold them lightly. Just because a given statement reminds you of something, or suggests something, does not mean that was its intent. Take note of your reaction, but don’t cling to it or take it for granted. Hold it lightly.

Looking for helpful images

Monday August 8, 2016

[1:30 p.m. As I was at the Villa, I tried to puzzle out our lives, specifically how to include the old opinionated loudmouth at another table. I’ve heard a million of him, and I can tell you without knowing one thing about him that he will vote for Trump with great conviction and probably anger.]

4 p.m. Ready?

Yes. Several discrepancies in previous descriptions were allowed to slip in unremarked, because as usual it was a choice between flow and interruption. Luckily for the process of communication, there is plenty of room for slippage. What if everything had to be accurate? It would be equivalent to writing a first draft that was also a final draft: no room for corrections, no margin for error, no room for improvement. But those discrepancies can serve as guidepost.

So if we discard 3D v. non-3D, what will it leave? If we cease to think in terms of your mind while in body v. your mind when it “comes over to non-3D” at death, what do we have? If we remember that everything takes place in one place, how do we reconcile that to the thought that of course place changes with 3D time? And there are plenty more, some of which may occur to us at unpredictable times.

The bridges you have already crossed brought you a long way, gave you a place to stand that was more congruent with your experiences and intuitions. This may be as far as some people can go, or want to go, and there is nothing wrong with that. Everybody’s timing is different. But for those who want to (or need to) keep on, it becomes time for some rearranging of scenery.

Now, realize this will be in some ways the most difficult visualization or conceptualization yet, because it has little to do with commonly perceived 3D reality. It is harder to come up with everyday similes, and similes if not overdone provide symbolic counters for the mind to play with. Thus, if we say something is like a canoe being swept over the falls, that is a vivid image and an emotionally memorable one. However, it is important not to let the simile take on a life of its own, leading to arguments about canoes versus kayaks, or haring off into concerns for water safety! You understand. Every tool has its proper use and its limits.

Consider the difficulty in producing a helpful image. Can we even begin to list them?

  • You in body, but also part of something that predates you, extends farther in all directions, and has a life and purpose of its own, not always identical to what we may call 3D-you.
  • But also, 3D-you in all your past moments in this lifetime, not a sequence of superseded stages but a collection of equally existent beings, so to speak.
  • 3D-you extending into other lifetimes whose threads you share (though we may need to revisit this concept, too).
  • You as a community of somewhat independent intelligences with different values, experiences and, often enough, agendas.
  • You as both the coordinating maestro of this orchestra and, sometimes merely one of the players. (Think “moods” for one clue.)
  • You, as practitioner of the cardinal virtues and the deadly sins, with an angel on one shoulder and a devil on the other, so to speak.
  • You as an absolutely independent being, enmeshed in a society which primarily sees you in your various personas – the sex, age, race, and nationality you wear; the social graces you do or do not have; the particular talents and disabilities that characterize you. you are not those masks, yet you cannot escape being confounded with them by others.
  • You as a loyalist for whatever ideals you hold, whatever impressions you have of what is fitting and right. It is those you love whom you have not met, and the causes that enlist you even if you never lift a finger on their behalf.
  • You as a living breathing representative of so many things, some chosen, some inherited, some thrust upon you.

You are accustomed to  thinking about such things (if at all) in isolation from each other. That won’t do. We haven’t even touched upon your chosen beliefs, your chosen values, as opposed to those you more or less took over in taking life. And, there is the desire for more consciousness, for a sense of greater meaning. Call it a homesickness for a state of being you can’t remember having had.

And all of these things may be investigated singly without a lot of trouble. It is the light that they shed upon each other that we’re after here.

And this will have to do for today. You will have to find other ways to occupy your time. You can’t do this all day long, even with pauses.