Blog

America’s Long Journey: Westward movement

All through the nineteenth century runs a continual, taken-for-granted background. Behind politics, and economics, and international affairs, and commerce, and the fine and useful arts, and industry and agriculture and everything else, there was this underground river, running quietly from east to west, transforming everything in its path.

The river was a river of internal immigration. People in New England upped stakes and moved to New York state, or Pennsylvania. People in the middle colonies, and people on the Atlantic seaboard of the old South moved across the Appalachians, or around them. The new nation’s boundaries extended to the Mississippi, and after the Louisiana Purchase extended to the distant Rockies, and after John Quincy Adams’ treaty extended to the Pacific Ocean. Could such vast expanses ever be populated by the new civilization?

Yes, it could.

The government of the Articles of Confederation had enacted Jefferson’s ideas in the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, as we shall see. Instead of the original thirteen colonies holding land in common as a perpetual colony, that common land would be subdivided, and organized politically, and formed into states fully equal to the original thirteen. (The fact that it requires an effort for us to realize that things might have been different shows how thoroughly accepted this radical idea became.) Thus there was no political disadvantage to moving to a new territory.

No political disadvantage, and a tremendous economic advantage. America was desperately short of labor. Growing up with a new country, a man could make a good life for himself and his family. As Abraham Lincoln said, from his own experience, the paid laborer of today could become the independent laborer of tomorrow, and the employer of labor after that. Those conditions didn’t last forever, but they certainly lasted a good half-century, up to the onset of the Civil War.

And as people left the older states, their places were filled by continual and increasingly numerous immigration from the Old World, particularly after the War of 1812. What opportunity could hidebound, tightly controlled England and Scotland and Ireland offer a poor individual, compared to America? And what were the barriers? They already spoke the language. They were familiar with the political forms and the cultural background. They fit right in.

And then it wasn’t long before the various unhappy countries of Europe were providing waves of immigrants. They came, they did whatever work they found, they learned the language and absorbed the opportunities, and after a while – a few years, a couple of decades, maybe a generation – these immigrants or their children tended to move west as well, following economic opportunity, and their places in the older states were filled by new arrivals.

It was a vast, impersonal quiet kneading of peoples into one new people. No longer could the country be adequately described as New England, South, Middle Colonies. Yes, people tended to move west in more or less the same lines of latitude they were accustomed to, but the streams acted as streams do when they flow together. First there were eddies, then swirls, then mixture at the edges, and finally a new stream, larger than its constituent elements and no longer divisible. Behind the scenes, not directed by anybody, the republic was reshaping itself.

Better whole than good

Friday, November 9, 2018

5 a.m. Guys? [Personal issue.]

Do not give up hope when the hope is finally about to be fulfilled.

You will forgive me for saying that a statement like that would be all the better for some proof.

We aren’t really in the predictions business, for reasons you know well.

It took a while to get it pounded into my head, but I do know about alternative futures.

You also know about the exterior conforming to the interior.

Indicating a pretty shabby interior!

Does it? Maybe if you see it that way. Don’t fall into the pitfall of thinking that external success indicates internal worth. Rather, external obstacles (overcome or otherwise) indicate internal challenges (met or not), opportunities.

Somehow that seems like a potentially large reorientation, even though I did know that.

You heard it years ago from “the guys,” but perhaps hearing it and knowing it are not the same thing, and perhaps realizing it is a third and different thing.

Meaning, circumstances alter understandings.

Well – they can. They are often intended to, so to speak. But as Thoreau put it, it takes two to communicate – one to speak and one to hear.

And the one able to hear may take a while to show up.

Precisely.

I had an interesting discussion of that point when I spoke to the Guidelines class Wednesday night. Somehow having to explain something from scratch rather than being able to climb onto a previously existing understanding makes it fresh.

This is why Carl Jung said it is, or can be, better to be whole than to be good.

Did I throw in that “or can be,” or did you?

Does it matter?

A better question, yes, is are those three words an important modification of his.

Let’s not fixate on a few words, even though yes, the implication is that the statement is not universally true. Let’s concentrate on those for whom it is true, or let’s say on when it is true, for it may not be true at any given moment for any given individual.

To become whole on a conscious level – for that is what Jung is concerned with, people coming to conscious awareness – it is necessary to swallow many an inconvenient and humiliating or even repulsive realization. Sometimes, it is true, it requires realizing that you are more than you think. But mostly the news that comes in is not welcome news. But, like an external problem, it is, by the fact that it is difficult, a sign that it is an opportunity. Your lives would be easier – that is, easier to live – if you were to realize this.

I thought this was going to be a very private communication, but I see we are moving into the public sphere. I can always well when you start talking about us, plural, rather than me, singular. So you say “your lives” rather than “your life.”

Which sends you back to the evening sharing experience and wisdom with a class of earnest seekers who have their own knowledge and wisdom, and you see how much you would have liked to have been a teacher.

Minus grading, yes. I’d love it more than ever, these days.

Well, there’s your webinar idea; that could do it.

So it could. But you were saying –

Problems are automatically opportunities. This is true not only externally, as you have come to realize, but internally – which, as you know in a different compartment of your mind, is the same thing. There is no “external” in the sense of something unconnected to you.

As you say, I do know that, and perhaps I was not connecting the two things I know.

Well, if an internal conflict arises, what good is it to you?

It allows us to see that we have a choice to make?

Well, maybe. Not always. Sometimes it is a sign of things needing not to be chosen among, but reconciled. It is nonetheless an opportunity.

I see it. You are saying that new opportunities for further integration may require choice (this way or that) or they may require synthesis (this way and that) or they may require transformation (these ways into that).

Minus the word “require,” yes. They offer the opportunity, and yes, if the opportunity is to be profited from, a response is required in that sense. But there is no sense of “you have to do this or else.”

Right. Well, scratch “require.” Let’s say problems offer a new way forward, which may involve choice or compromise or re-conceptualization.

Yes, that is close enough. Well, if it is true internally, by definition it is true externally, and vice-versa. Now, if the obstacle is your thinking yourself better than you are, or let’s say it is your trying to be better than you are, how can you deal with it?

Yes, it is a problem, and one I know first-hand! On the one hand, you don’t want to admit even to yourself that you are (at least partly) that way, whatever the “that way” is. Or, if you do admit it to yourself, you are careful to keep it as secret from the world as possible. On the other hand, how can you move toward becoming a better you, save by repressing those things you are but don’t want to be?

An age-old dilemma, particularly in the West and particularly among Christians. And how do you live with that without falling into hypocrisy and self-hatred?

I’m going to title this “Better whole than good,” if I post it. And your answer is –?

You already know the answer. You recognize that you are what you are and (a) it isn’t your fault, (b) it isn’t an accident, (c) all traits represent aspects of life that deserve recognition, and (d) your life’s purpose is to choose among ways to deal with the problem that the co-existence of these things poses.

And, I gather, that means that far-sighted Dr. Jung saw that this meant not only that the individual fights his or her own battles, but does so in addition for the whole of humanity.

That’s correct. You shouldn’t get inflated (“the whole of human destiny is on my shoulders”) but it is well to remember that you are a part of a whole with a right and duty to be present and participate.

So the question devolves to: How? There may not be any one right way to do things, but there are many ways that are – if not “wrong” – at least doing things the hard way.

The best way, we would say, is to acquire enough humility to say “I’m not perfect” (in the sense of saying, “I don’t live up to my own ideal of being and conduct”) without thereby falling into the alternative mistake of saying, “I am an irredeemable sinner” (in whatever form that statement comes in a post-Christian age). You aren’t a saint and you aren’t a worm.

Starting from that more realistic point, the question of conduct becomes: “Given that I embody traits I approve and traits I disapprove, what is my proper attitude toward the situation?”

For instance, it is not enough to say glibly, “Nothing human is alien to me,” and pretend that anything goes. For you – and by this obviously we mean for any “you” reading this – some values are good and some are not. Some are a matter of taste, but others are bedrock for you. If you are opposed to cruelty and you find a cruel streak within you, what is the proper response? Nurture it? Express it? Pretend it doesn’t exist? Fight against it expressing?

I see the problem. And the answer is –?

The first step in anything is always to become fully aware of the situation, or let’s say as fully aware as possible, for there is always more light to dawn, as Thoreau reminded you.

And then?

Well, surely you see that the “and then” depends upon the individual concerned! Everybody solves the problem of life differently, because (a) everybody’s problem is different, and (b) everybody’s preferences are different. A and B are actually two ways of saying the same thing.

And enough for now.

Well, this took an unexpected turn. And all the while we have been chatting here, on another track in my mind is a new realization, for which I thank you.

Born teachers are going to teach; it’s just a matter of their finding the proper platform and the proper manner of approach.

And maybe this geminating idea is it. Well, thanks as always, and till next time.

 

Access and consequences

Saturday, January 21, 2006

(8:05) All right. So where are we going with this?

The purpose of the description of the way we see things is two-fold. For one, it helps you to get a clearer image of your situation, and for another, it sets the stage for the next step.

You are mixing metaphors pretty severely today, but I’m with you. What next step? And what happened to talking about (beyond demonstrating) guidance?

The next step is to move from description to tracing consequences. And those consequences involve a description of how and why you may develop access to guidance – conscious access we mean. Perhaps we should say, more conscious access, or even ever more conscious access. For it is potentially an unending process, or a process without an endpoint, whichever phrasing and nuance you prefer.

Your conversation yesterday was with a skilled professional psychic who can read cards and tea leaves with skill sufficient to be worthwhile – yet she envies you your access. This skill has been developed in going on 20 years of off-and-on effort. You are farther along than you sometimes think. We say this not for your self-esteem, though that is always a good cause for anyone, but so that you realize more fully that what you have to say will seem elementary to you but not perhaps to your audience, whether they are readers or listeners. When you speak of guidance you are describing what has become obvious to you is an everyday reality. It no longer is a matter of questioning and believing, for you, but of experiencing and probing for ever-deeper levels. Therefore there is some danger of your losing touch with your audience unless you hold in mind the fact that you are not the novice you think yourself.

All right. It is true, this seems very natural to me now.

Then we must lay the groundwork for people to see it that way. Not everyone will be able to do it blind and trusting. Many prefer at least a tentative outline of the territory, an excuse to begin, a theoretical sketch, anyway.

Okay, why do I hear David about to chime in? At least, I think I do? What makes the difference between a subject for “the guys” and one for an individual?

Can you not even feel the difference for the first time, laddie? It is like I am a higher tension wire, isn’t it? As Joseph Smallwood’s elements are heavy, steady, and even thinking of him changes the energy. Now, you see, it’s specialization by being as much as by skill or by experience. Some “rings” as you may now begin to call yourselves are at a higher frequency than others; some are at a lower frequency. Well think, are you in a body always the same, or do you go up and down even in the course of a session, let alone a day, let alone the time it takes to write a book, let alone a lifetime! So – as you change, you are in closer resonance to first one, than another, y’ see?

Now by definition you’ll not find any of your gentlemen upstairs outside your range of frequencies. That doesn’t mean they don’t exist – it means you’ll not find them! If something is outside your range – it’s outside your range, unless and until you extend your range, or change it, through “accident” or illness or the result of some life decision.

You see, who you contact is not so much a matter of when or who or where or what. You in a body are the focus of all things –from your viewpoint. And of course for each of us in our time it is the same. So I, David, can come to you, Frank, only as a disembodied voice, so to speak, and at your behest or – to state it more broadly – with your consent. But it is also true – and this is the reason for changing people’s view of time and space as constraints – that you can come to me in my time only as a disembodied voice at my behest and with my consent. My time in the body did not pass away. Did not, does not, will not, can not. Except – it does from the point of view of the relative marker that moves bodies forward. There is only one “now” and there is only one “here” – from any given point of view. It is the confusing of the relative for an absolute that causes all the conceptual problems.

If you talk to Joseph in Egypt, or Bertram, or Joseph Smallwood, or Katrina or me or the German soldier you have yet to meet, or Evangeline whom you barely know – or any of the others – each of us, as you, averages out to a given frequency. Electrical theory is no more my field than it is yours, so we’ll both hold firmly in mind that this is but an analogy – but if you were to say that each of the millions of threads that comprise you – or that you comprise; you may look at it either way, but the former seems closer to accurate from this side – if you assume that each of those threads vibrates at a given frequency, you might say – quite unscientifically, I have no doubt – that the sum of all of them, divided by the number of them, produces an average number that you might call your particular energetic signature. It should be clear that many people will have averages close to many others – and that average may have come from individual bundles of strands that are actually quite unlike.

That is, take two individuals whose signature is, say, 12. One may have come to 12 by adding 12, 13, 11 and dividing by three – this is a vastly simplified example – and another may have 5, 19, 2, 22 and divide by four. You see? The signatures are the same, and they can communicate easily. But the components of the signatures have little or no similarity to each other.

And you might just as easily have two individuals with very similar component characteristics whose signatures yet are too different for easy communication. And you may have those where neither components nor signatures are close, and those in which both are close.

You see these combinations all the time in your everyday life. Looked at just as an amusement – for I can think of no practical purpose you would put it to – you could keep this scheme in mind as you observe your interactions with your fellows day by day. Birds of a feather – but sometimes seemingly quite different kinds of birds find themselves strongly drawn together by a magnetism both inexplicable and undeniable.

This mix-and-match feature of physical existence allows the diversity and interchange of life to be vastly greater than it would be if we– that is, our component threads – were to interact without being held within the ring of physical-matter existence.

In fact, without physical-matter reality to hold the rings and threads in intricate relationship, there would be no interaction at all. Every thing would sort to its own vibratory level and communicate only in slow-motion, so to speak, with whatever is adjacent. The sparkle, the flash, the fireworks – the unpredictable carom shots – all would not exist, would not be possible if they hadn’t been fashioned into patterns by earth-life – by which I mean life in physical matter.

The net result is that the connections of otherwise incompatible frequencies that occur when a life is put together to be lived in matter turn our nicely stratified, even, predictable non-physical reality into a swirl like marble cake, or like a kaleidoscope continually being shaken – and we love it! For energy is eternal delight, as has been observed.

It is true that on “this side” there is no movement; it is also true that on this side there is ultimate movement. It is only a matter of perspective. Oddly enough (from your perspective) the result is the same. No movement, infinite movement; same thing.

Our hidden agenda – not very hidden! – is to send you back to books on theology. If you will disregard the rules and attend to the descriptions, much will be seen in a different, far more productive, light. Theology is your guidebook to this presently overgrown path and field. Only – don’t take it as God’s rules for you; rather, as people’s records of their own experiences, put into words as best they can. Every new generation requires translation of the works and words of their predecessors and ancestors – doubly so when we are discussing the birth of a new civilization, which means a new way of relating to what is.

Tired now.

Yes, enough for now. More later.

Beyond individuals

Saturday, January 21, 2006

So perhaps I should work. Disappointing yesterday that I couldn’t really get my head right to start – and I think I knew it ahead of time….

All right. We have spoken of time and space and separation and delayed consequences. All this was to lay the groundwork so that you may see more clearly that there are other ways of seeing yourselves than as individuals.

Remove separation because you remove space-time. Remove delayed consequences because you remove space-time. What do you now have? You have a situation in which it is harder to draw hard and fast – and arbitrary – boundaries between “this” and “that,” between “I” and “other.” You have a situation in which to envision is to do; yet to do is not to do anything any more permanent than had existed before it was changed. This is a very long discussion – this question of consequences without delay, and we set it aside for now, merely marking the place, as it were, so that we may concentrate on what you are like in that aspect of yourselves that is not individual and solitary.

Again – everything we say is a setting-out of at least two potential viewpoints. To see anything only one way is to force it into a strait-jacket, or rather is to force your ideas into a strait-jacket. It is not a sign of mental weakness or slovenliness to see multiple viewpoints. It is a precondition for truer understanding. Given that it is not physically possible to translate existence outside time-space into existence within time-space – that is, given that the greater cannot be comprehended by the lesser – all understanding is merely an approximation. Any view is necessarily a partial view which may be profitably complemented by other partial views from other angles. We do know that we repeat ourselves on this. We also know that merely because we repeat something several times does not mean that we are heard.

So we proceed again to give an alternate partial portrait, leaving you the task of reconciling it with other partial views of the same subject – for if you do not do the comparing and contrasting, you will merely be visiting a view, which will in no way later influence your life. To the degree that you begin to see a thing from multiple, rather than from alternate, viewpoints, your actual world will change and you will to some extent acquire mastery of what you examine.

To us you appear less as individuals made up of something solid and different than you do as hollow containers holding together many disparate threads. These threads are characteristics of all kinds. Every thing that marks you as a physical body, as an animated body, as an animal, as a human, as a member of all the sub-categories of human, as a member of your particular clan and family, and, finally, as the particular expression of the time and place into which you were born – all these things may be seen as characteristic threads that have been gathered up within the container that you regard as “you.” Now, by this analogy – it is an analogy, remember – we mean this.

Imagine a black background, and on it, a huge number of rings. Each ring is threaded through, and each thread connects different rings, seemingly at random. That is, a thread may pass through rings A,B,D,J,Q, and Z while a second may pass through A,J,S,T, and V, and a third may pass through only O and P and a fourth through J,S,P, et cetera. What we mean to suggest is a loose network of rings connected by threads, with each thread passing though innumerable rings but not, by far, all or even most of them. Each thread passes through many rings – but skips many. Similarly, each ring gathers many threads, but far from all or even most.

To us you in bodies are the rings, and characteristics are the threads, and to us the threads are as real and as individual as the rings. Outside time-space – that is, escaping the impression of separation – there is not the same clarity of distinction between “individuals” and there is not the sense of continued flow, that space and time impart. Thus, it isn’t that we do not perceive the rings, but that we also perceive the threads. It is as if we on “our” “side” can perceive as solid and tangible something that you on “your” “side” can perceive only as abstract and theoretical. Thus to us it is permissible to say that left-handedness includes George and Sam, or that drunkenness has Bill and Charlie. This is unfamiliar to you, but after all that’s what you are seeking here, is it not, the unfamiliar way of seeing things?

When you learn to see the threads that are characteristics running between individuals, you begin to see that it is merely arbitrary to consider individuals as – individual. If what seems a “unit” cannot exist without tens of thousands – millions – of components each of which is shared with uncounted other “units” – it is as true to see that “unit” as one node in a network as it is to see it as a separate item. Either way of seeing it is somewhat correct, and either way will allow you to deal with it adequately – but neither description alone is as adequate as both descriptions together.

As your society’s environmental awareness has grown, it has begun to become evident to you, or at least to some of you, that it is as accurate to describe yourselves as sharing the same necessities like air – that is, as being peripheral to the centrality of air – as to describe yourselves as central, with air being merely one of your requirements. If air can get along without you but you cannot get along without air, which has a more independent existence? If water, if food, can get along without you, but not you them, where is the primacy of the human – or rather, where is the independence? For, clearly, human activity is primary, in that it could affect and perhaps even destroy the conditions needed for its own continuation – but primacy does not at all have the same meaning as independent.

A human might be described – strictly in 3D terms – as an appendage to the environmental systems that sustain life, and animal life, and finally human life. No air, no water, no relatively stringent temperature range, no chemical preconditions – no humans. That equation cannot be reversed. It is not true to say that removing humans would make impossible the conditions that allow human life.

Now, this is not a lesson in environmentalism or ecology or social science or hard science, so we ask you to return your attention to the point being made. What seem to you in time-space to be individuals – including yourselves! – do not look so separate when seen outside time-space. What seem to you in time-space merely abstractions seem a bit more solid and tangible (so to speak) outside time-space. One might say that where you see individual rings and mostly do not see threads except as abstractions, we see threads as easily and as solidly as rings.

If you will hold this image of rings and threads, it will bear fruit – if you will pardon the severely mixed metaphor.

Time for a break, we think.

Perhaps so. It’s 7:30 now. Yesterday I didn’t begin till 7 and didn’t get very far.

Faithfulness is all. What you cannot do or do not do one day you may do another.

I’m struggling, a little.

Yes you are, but look at it from another angle. You are struggling. That is, you are struggling on.

Yes. Thank you.

Remembering Kennedy’s inauguration day

Friday January 20, 2006

I was thinking, this is the 20th. It nearly had to snow on January 20th, 1961, didn’t it? Else I wouldn’t have seen the inauguration on television and been enchanted.

The snowstorm blanketed the northeast. You weren’t the only one enchanted that morning.

Yes, I see. It was a part of the necessary package.

He moved the country far by what he was and by the manner of his sudden shocking public murder – just like Mr. Lincoln. The parallels are many and they are not inconsequential. Many a man in public life quietly tried to live his life in accordance with Mr. Lincoln’s ideals, you know.

I hadn’t thought of it, but of course it makes sense – so he continued to influence people and public life for more than a century after he died.

His work and his influence aren’t finished yet. No reason why they should be. Even after the change, you know, at another level people will continue to be living “normal” lives. People will be born, will be children, will be educated one way or another, will establish households and will support themselves, and have children of their own – you know. You must not under-rate the importance of what is called normal life. As we have told you more than once, even connection with the gods – so to speak – may be overdone.

I could write books about the America I used to love?

The America you do love – the ideal, and the inspiration. To do so you need to clear out a lot of other shrubbery.

America’s Long Journey: Jackson and Florida

There’s no point in studying history if all you want to do is confirm the prejudices you bring to it. Not everything is black or white. Not all Indians were noble, nor were they all savage. Not every action of white settlers was right, nor were they all wrong. Not all underdogs were morally in the right, nor automatically wrong. It’s better to see the confusions and cross-currents than to pretend that all is clear. Nearly everything Andrew Jackson did in his lifetime polarized feelings, and polarizes them still. But if we are to understand his actions, and their causes and consequences, we will need to be aware of nuances and ambiguities that never would have troubled him.

The Florida situation in a nutshell:

In 1817, President James Monroe ordered the hero of the Creek War and the Battle of New Orleans to take volunteers from Tennessee to fight the Creek and Seminole Indians in Georgia, and prevent runaway slaves from finding refuge in neighboring Florida, which was then in the hands of the Spanish again, after a 20-year hiatus (1763 to 1783) under the British.

Seminoles attacked Jackson’s men; Jackson in turn captured their village, burned their houses, and in the process found letters indicating that the Indians were receiving secret assistance from the Spanish and the British in Florida. He invaded West Florida, captured Pensacola without a battle, deposed the governor, and then captured, tried and executed two British subjects who had been supplying and advising the Indians.

This caused an uproar for three reasons: First, he had invaded territory belonging to Spain, a country with which the United States was not at war. Second, he had executed British subjects captured outside American territory. And third, many worried, or for political reasons pretended to worry, that Jackson was an American Napoleon, who would turn the United States into a military dictatorship if he got a chance. Critics demanded that he be censured for exceeding orders.

Was this a land grab on the part of the United States? Well, maybe, maybe not. It depends on how you want to look at it.

On the one hand, the two Florida territories controlled the mouths of every river between the Appalachian mountains and the Mississippi, draining parts or all of Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi and Tennessee. And they constituted a potential jumping-off point for hostile forces seeking to invade or harass American territory. During the revolution, for example, the British were in control of Florida, and they recruited Seminoles to raid frontier settlements in Georgia. During the War of 1812, a British force on the Apalachicola River distributed arms to the Indian warriors and fugitive slaves, and began building a fort near Pensacola. Colonel Andrew Jackson drove them back to the Apalachicola River in 1814, and didn’t forget. Spain maintained only three small garrisons in Florida, and did not control the border.

Secretary of State John Quincy Adams defended Jackson’s actions, and, when an Adams defended the morality of an action, it was wise to listen. When the Spanish minister wrote asking that Jackson be punished, Adams answered the Spanish protest with a letter, and 72 supporting documents, blaming the war on the British, Spanish, and Indians. He said that Florida’s status as a province only nominally possessed by Spain was unsustainable. Spain must decide either to adequately garrison Florida or cede it to the United States. Spain got the point, and ceded Florida by the Adams-Onis Treaty earlier referred to. Jackson was named governor for a few months and went on to other things.

In any case, the United States took possession in 1821, and now had no southern border east of Texas. Early the next year, Capt. John R. Bell, provisional secretary of the Florida territory and temporary agent to the Seminoles, estimated the population at about 22,000 Indians, who held 5,000 slaves.

So what does this episode tell us?

Were the Indians in Florida the injured parties? Undoubtedly they were defending themselves, but (as usual) it wasn’t that simple. That wasn’t all they were doing. The Indians’ cross-border attacks, including killing settlers and stealing livestock, naturally made them targets for retaliation. Nor were they native to Florida. By 1710, Spanish slave raids, and disease, had virtually depopulated the entire peninsula, and when Spain ceded Florida to Great Britain in 1763, it took the few survivors to Cuba and New Spain. The Indians Jackson encountered had drifted into Florida in the years afterward.

Were the Spanish the injured party? Who depopulated the native Indians? Who encouraged slaves to escape from the United States by offering freedom and land? Spain, which had brought slavery to the New World, continued to practice it in Cuba, and would until 1886.

Were the British the injured party? The British government, on hearing the evidence on the two men Jackson hanged, agreed that their own actions had placed themselves beyond the protection of English law.

Was Jackson acting on his own, over-reaching in his high-handed fashion? Maybe not. Before setting off to fight the Creeks, Jackson had written the president, “Let it be signified to me through any channel … that the possession of the Floridas would be desirable to the United States, and in sixty days it will be accomplished.” The orders he received in return were ambiguous, either to allow for what a later age would call plausible deniability or to leave him flexibility to meet unforeseeable circumstances.

The rights and wrongs of frontier warfare were always intermixed, with few willing to see more than one side of any issue. American squatters and outlaws raided the Seminoles, killing villagers and stealing their cattle. The Seminoles retaliated, including a raid that killed a woman in Georgia and her two young children. This kind of thing when on for decades. Who was innocent? Who was guilty?

Time, space, and the non-3D

[Thursday, January 19, 2006]

7:95 a.m. Starting again, not without apprehension. Can today’s transmission possibly measure up to yesterday’s? Can it continue and flow into a seamless and meaningful whole? Stay tuned.

You are doing fine. Faithfulness is all. It isn’t up to you to provide the content. If it falls down, it falls down – but yesterday didn’t turn out so bad, did it?

Yesterday was wonderful. I’m ready if you are.

We proceed. Again, much of what we have to say, you and Rita will already have heard and absorbed. So much the better – it will aid in the process of transmission from us to you.

Separation in space produces the illusion – or perhaps it would be better to say the condition – of separation, of individuality, of non-belonging, of difference, in a way that would not be possible otherwise. There is separation in a way non-physically but it is not as it is in the physical world. As a rough analogy you might think how your world would be if you – and everyone – were continuously and unpredictably teleporting though time and space both. Nothing would seem as solid as definite or as sequential to you as everything does now. It is only an analogy but not so bad a one.

Well, if space produces the illusion of separation, time produces the effect of delayed consequences. Time in the way you experience it sorts out everything just as space does. Last Tuesday is so definitely a different space from a given date three years ago that you could (and do) stack different people and things in the same space and different time and not have them collide.

We’re going to repeat that, so that you know that we meant to say it that way, and why. In space-time, you can be in one place at one time. Two people cannot be in the same place at the same time: They can be in the same place but not at the same time; they can be in the same time but not the same place. Same time and same place is not possible. This ought to tell you that space and time are indeed (as science is currently telling you) functions of each other. They are the same thing seen slightly differently. Now notice – when we say it one way it is almost obvious; when we say the same thing another way, it is so strange as to be scarcely comprehensible.

Time is not different from space, in that each separates, sorts out, the world around you. But time is experienced radically differently than space, of course: Nobody is frog-marching you in space, inch by inch by inch in one direction your whole life.

People who say we have “no time” on “this side” mean by that (though they often do not know what they mean, mostly parroting others who have said that on this side we have no time) – they mean that we are not subject to that unvarying tyranny, moving us along. That is true, sort of, in the same way that it is true, sort of, that we have no space. Neither statement is true except in reference to your experience. We have time, we have space – how else could we structure experience? But they are not what they seem to you to be. They are neither prisons nor constrictions – but they are real limitations. Try to envision a life without limitations and you will end up with fog. But there is all the difference in the world (so to speak) between our world and yours.

No, that isn’t how to put it. It is the same world. Canada – the physical Canada – exists “here” as it does “there,” because we are not someplace else! The non-physical components of the physical world are – right here! Why would you think they are elsewhere? It isn’t even true that you cannot perceive it; it is true only that you cannot perceive it in the same way or using the same faculties that you do the physical world – we might almost say the rest of the physical world.

We know that this is a radically different thought for many, so we will try to say it carefully. The non-physical world is right “there” with you, and right “then” with you. How far do you think it is from Baltimore to the non-physical equivalent of Baltimore? And why do you think it doesn’t have its non-physical equivalent? What do you think you build on earth, anyway? But because you misunderstand time, you think that things “pass away” on earth and do so presumably in the non-physical earth. Not true in either case – but it never was the way you assume it to be.

Where is ancient Rome, say March 1, 250 b.c.? That world on that day is where it always was and always will be. We on this side can “go” there at will; you on your side cannot (normally). This is the chief difference between our experience of the world and yours – and will help you perhaps to see why on this side you do not get bored yet on that side you get to play with greater consequences.

We are moving you quickly here, we know, but we will stop periodically to pick up stragglers. And, with words on a page, you have a time capsule that helps you to retrieve information when you have been moved beyond it in time. (That is a side-trail. So many entertaining side-trails we never have time enough – that is, you never have time enough! – for us to follow.)

It is a simple concept, but foreign to your usual ways of understanding. We are trying to express it in simple terms devoid of jargon. Frank is good at that – should be; he was shaped for this work!

When a moment of time “passes” – that moment does not cease to exist: You cease to exist in it. You have been carried smoothly to the next moment of time. If you are standing still for five such moments, it looks to you that you moved in time and not in space. But it could equally truly be said that you moved in time-space. That is, moment one exists next to moment two, and you moved from one to two. Then you moved to moment three, then four – and your movement is continuous, predictable and not under your control, so when you get to moment five you assume that the “previous” – which really means previously experienced – moments have somehow ceased to exist.

Your experience tells you that you hop like little Eva from ice-floe to ice-floe across the river, and that each previous ice-floe ceases to exist as soon as you jump from it, and – even more startling, more hazardous – the next ice floe doesn’t even come into existence until you land on it! Plus, you never can pause, nor can you do a thing about the situation except to jump in one direction rather than another. If you wanted to rest at any given floe you couldn’t, not only because you don’t know how to do it, but because what will you do when the floe presumably ceases to exist in the next moment?

What a situation! If it were a true description, you’d be in a pretty bad fix – and, we know, this is how many of you do experience your lives. But there’s a better way to see it, that will relieve the insecurity and remove the below-surface panic. There is no need for terror, any more than on any other pleasure cruise.

What if we told you that the ice-floes do not cease to exist just because you jump from them (or, more closely, are smoothly catapulted off them)? And what if we told you that the icebergs “to come” are not uncreated but actually exist, as common sense would tell you, were we in a strictly physical-geography metaphor? And what if we told you that we on “our side” – which is to say you on our side — visit the terrain however we please, rather than being tied to a conveyor belt? Disregard for the moment the fact that you can’t see how that could be; hold the theoretical possibility. All you are doing – all you need do – is creating a space in your mind for a new way of seeing things.

Now we are doing quite a bit of hopping ourselves! We are touching on this, touching on that, and not tying up anything. But it is necessary to present several ideas before we can create a model. Continued patience, please.

It is the nature of the physical world – and by “world” we mean not one planet but all of physical creation – to lead its inhabitants in experience. You experience one time, one space, then movement certainly to another time, perhaps to another place. You may move spatially in any way you can figure out how to do: forward, back, right, left, up, down. To Cleveland, to Greenland, to Mars, wherever. The restrictions on movement are in the nature of obstacles. Overcome the obstacle – whether it be sheer distance, or the nature of the terrain, or whatever – and you may move there. Temporally, however you may move and must move in only one direction – “forward” – and you seemingly cannot vary the speed or direction in which you are carried. In fact, because you are carried, it seems to you that you have no control whatever over your movement in time.

Now, that is a fair representation is it not, of your plight on earth? Freedom in three dimensions, no freedom – not even freedom to stop! – in the fourth. Not an incorrect model, but not a very helpful one either. Let us see if we can improve upon it.

We have said that “Canada exists” over here. By that we do not mean that we have a sort of Disneyland version of Canada for people to play pretend in. We mean – Canada here and Canada there are extensions of the same thing, just as you extend “over here” and we “over there.”

It is a continuing distortion that you are just going to have to factor in to these discussions, that spatial and temporal analogies continually sneak in between the lines. Given that language reflects your concept of reality, how can it be otherwise? If you had a language that did not reflect that reality – other than mathematics – you would use it, but if you were using it, it would mean that you were already living in that reality and hence would not need our attempted translations!

By the way, the note on mathematics was inserted for those who can properly appreciate it. The answers to many dilemmas about mathematics are included in that aside. This is the reason why only mathematics has forced scientists to see the world closer to how it truly is, rather than through the time-space distortions and illusions. They don’t necessarily like what they are forced to conclude, and many of them can continue to do so only because they divorce it from their daily lives keeping theory rigidly separated from application, but the logic of the mathematics leads them and they follow. This is because mathematics treats time and space differently than any other language does, or (at present) can.

Enough about mathematics. And – 80 minutes having gone by – enough for the moment. Take a break. A light breakfast, again, and some more water and coffee.

Okay. This has been a bit more strain as I don’t have much idea where you’re going – so I’m taking it on faith.

We know. You’re pretty good at that.

(8:30) Not a very long break – just time enough for a toad in the hole – but hopefully enough refueling that I can continue. I don’t particularly want to wait.

No, go look out the window and quietly have some coffee for a few minutes. Come back at 9, say. These things have their own rhythm and you need to learn to discern and respect it or you will do your body damage as Cayce did.

All right.

(9:10 a.m.) Having obeyed the command to shave and shower, as well – as much to kill a little more time, I think, as for reasons of efficiency – here I am again. When sitting in the living room I could really see, looking at TGU’s painting of us, where I think they’re going. And I had a better sense of kinship with Cayce and Roberts.

What we attempt to convey is so simple! So simple that when we do get the sense of it across, it is as though we haven’t said anything. People’s response tends to be, “well sure and so what?” In a way that is a perfect response. In a way it is a misunderstanding – a lack of comprehension – of what we are about.

There isn’t any “there.” There isn’t any “there as opposed to your “here.” It is all here (and it is all “now,” but we’ll get to that).

Just because you’ve heard it before doesn’t mean you understood it! Just because it is a familiar sounding idea doesn’t mean you are getting what is being sent.

There isn’t any “there,” anywhere! It is all here, and this despite the fact that within a sentence, probably, if not sooner, the spatial analogies will creep back in, due to the stringencies and deficiencies of language. We are right here with you. You are right here with us. Monroe came as close as any when he defined the difference as a difference in wave-length, allowing two “things” to be in what seems to be the same space at one time without interfering with each other or even perhaps being aware of each other.

That is a metaphor, wave-lengths, but it is close enough, and we have nothing better, so will go with it. Within that metaphor, we ask you to visualize your condition. You are here at a certain wave-length suitable to life in time-space (slowed down, it is usually said). We are here at a certain wave-length suitable to life outside of time-space – speeded up, so to speak, It is only an analogy, but a useful one. You can “speed up”; we can “slow down” and – communication occurs. We aren’t sending to you from far away because we aren’t far away. We are here! Just as you are here! There is no need for you to assume that non-physical reality is somewhere “far away” despite jokes about intelligence in New Jersey, for instance. We are here; you are here. We are separated by the vibrational difference ( though – it is an analogy!) between space-time and non-space-time. It is simple. We can’t say it any simpler than that. But – can you hear it?

You see, if you live in Alberta, say, or Peru, or Hawaii – we live there. It doesn’t seem so to you because we have the ability to move else-where and else-when at will, and thus one might ask what that does to the concept of residing anywhere – the answer is, we live where you live.

 

Now, a definition or two. What you call The Guys Upstairs do not comprise merely all of “your” “other” lives. Your guides and helpers are of many wavelengths and it cannot be sorted out here and now (so to speak). So for the purpose of this discussion we are not going to attempt to show you the nature of such guides that are not distinctly bound to you. In fact, what we have said to this point in this paragraph is probably more misleading than not. Let us leave it at this: We wish to show you that the situation is more complicated than simply “we” are part of “you” — but cannot at this time pursue the theme. It is an important trial but, for the moment, a side-trail.

You are here (by definition) always, and where you are, we are. That you cannot always experience us does not make us cease to exist. Therefore, in a very real way, we live where you live. If you build paradise, we inhabit it with you. If you build hell, or by neglect build a wasteland, we are there with you. It cannot be otherwise, nor would we wish it to be.

Closer to the nub of things – you, in the physical, living here-and-now regardless where you think you live – that is, regardless whether you live with your attention elsewhere – you can act. You shape the physical world, and we live in the extension of the world that is beyond the physical. You injure yourselves or each other and we live with the result – in fact, we experience it in more-than-3D-realism!

Does this begin to give you an idea of why 3D Theater is important to us?

It doesn’t matter what else you have read! While you are with us, stay with us. You can always re-think and counter-think later.

The physical is the place where one can act in a way that one cannot, outside the physical. This does not mean that the physical is the only place that is “real”; it means it is the place of delayed consequences, which has its advantages and disadvantages.

We have said that your health is a ratio between your mental states and your physical states[1], and that mental states can be moved instantly but do not easily persist, while physical states tend to persist and cannot be moved easily. You could make the analogy between the non-physical and the physical. It is only in 3D Theater that we see the phenomenon and results of delayed consequences. But his does not mean that 3D is the only game in town, just that it is a particular and peculiar venue.

Enough for now. Proceed to your day and perhaps we will see you tomorrow.

Yes, I had tired. Tomorrow, I hope.