Blog

Fascinating new Egyptian discovery

There’s always more to learn.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/more-than-800-egyptian-tombs-revealed-in-ancient-burial-ground/ar-BBNcbpe?ocid=ob-fb-enus-580

Reversing desertification?

I don’t know if this particular idea will work, though it seems that it ought to, but this is for sure: If we don’t find ways to stop and then reverse the processes that are turning our world into a desert, we’re going to wind up like Mars. All that talk about exploring other planets. Well and good, but how about preserving this one?

https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2018/09/09/645539064/so-maybe-stopping-the-sahara-from-expanding-isn-t-an-impossible-dream?sc=tw

Singing the universe, continued

Thursday, September 20, 2018

6:15 a.m. We’re still trying to talk about singing the universe into existence.

Well, you see, we aren’t trying to, we’re doing it. What to you is diversion or digression to us is filling in of context.

Yes, I know. I meant, “continuing on the same theme.”

You also meant, “and not getting there very fast.”

As my old friend Dave Wallis used to say, “Guilty, your honor.”

Again, keep your imagination loose. That is, perceive first, judge only afterwards.

Yes. And slow down.

And slow down, though you will find in practice that the two are actually one. It is not your speed of perception that affects your balance between perception and judging, but whenever you move into judgement you will find that you are trying to move faster than conditions allow.

If you say so.

See? That’s impatience right there. So, take a moment, and we’ll begin.

[Pause]

There is always a question among people who concern themselves with question of reality: Does the world (in this sense meaning, not merely the 3D world but everything, at all levels) come into existence, abide, then go out of existence, analogous to 3D life? Or is it always there, wherever and however it came into existence? This latter is cloudy thinking, of course, and should be posed, as an alternative, “or is the universe, is reality, always here, neither coming into existence nor going out of existence?”

Paul Brunton, in The Wisdom of the Overself, seems about to be getting ready to address that question by saying the universe always was, always is, always will be. (I am in Chapter 13, but have been for some days reading other things, able to read him only a page or two at a time, for reasons not disclosed to me.) But if that is the conclusion he is going to come to, it leaves the whole scheme hanging in the air a little, I think. I’m waiting to see if his final three chapters are as convincing as the preceding material has been.

Let us defer that question, then, until you finish the book in your own time. But either way – a universe coming into existence and ceasing existence, or a universe that always abides – the question of singing the universe into existence is the same, for we mean, singing it into existence moment by moment, not once for all nor repeatedly. Continually. There is a difference.

You will remember, we once told you that the mineral kingdom’s role in creation – that is, the scheme of things – was to provide continuity. Rocks think slowly, in effect. Or rather, they re-imagine only slowly. That’s why the Appalachian mountains aren’t here today, gone tomorrow. It is why what you call geologic processes are so slow in the human scale, just as human processes are slow in the insect scale, and insect processes so slow in the microbial scale.

I’m getting a sort of symphony effect, with many different kinds of instruments, each with its own timbre and pitch and nature, playing together and together creating what none of them could create separately.

That’s the idea. Different time-scales among species and kingdoms smooth out the transitions, you see. You aren’t all rushing offstage to change at the same moment. You aren’t all taking breath at the same moment. Fill in the analogy as you please.

So, the mineral kingdom – over and above its own work, invisible to you as its own mental life is – by its slow existence preserves continuity. But, singing its song however slowly, it does contribute – and mightily – to singing the world into existence. We think you have that idea firmly enough that you can extend it to the rest of terrestrial 3D. Let’s push on a bit.

Beyond Earth, which is where we were mostly unconsciously still concentrating.

It’s natural. That’s where you spend your 3D existence, after all. But – what sings into existence interstellar space? What glue or vibration or thought – especially the latter – coordinates the uncountable millions of stars and their planets, or stars in their complex interaction at any scale?

In other words, whose attention holds it all in place? Brunton would say the World-Mind (by which he didn’t refer merely to Earth, of course, but to the 3D in general.)

And what say you?

Brunton says the World-Mind roughly equates to what people call God, only he calls God “it” rather than “he,” which after the initial shock seems right. Shock, because we are accustomed to thinking of an “it” as less than a “he” or a “she.” (But I notice you guys have been doing that for quite a while, here, before I started reading Brunton.) I think he is right: Something has to have unwavering attention, and that something must clearly be as extensive as what it maintains by its attention.

Well, regardless whether this is right in ultimate terms (and we are willing to abide until you read his arguments, have the experiences, and draw your own conclusions), clearly the universe in the largest sense must either be coordinated or not. But what does this mean? Spell out the question, if you would.

If the universe is coordinated, it must be by something, conscious or unconscious. If conscious, it is coextensive with the universe and presumably able to effect it by its own processes of thought, if we can call it “thought.” A rather larger word is indicated, I think. If it is not coordinated, the result comes out about the same, as far as I can tell. Whatever 3D forces exist as laws of nature work automatically and unfailingly, and the effect from our point of view is as if it were coordinated.

That admirably points out the flaws in thinking about it.

Thank you, I guess.

Well, really, it does. What are the laws of nature but, essentially, “the reasons why things are the way they are”? Those laws can be derived, they can be deduced by looking at their effects, but of course laws are abstractions, nothing more. Though they may tell what, and how, they can never address the question of why.

I see that.

But if you remove “the laws of nature” as regulators of reality, what do you have but the same old choice: conscious coordination or chance? And do you believe in chance?

Not as the constructor or maintainer of systems, no. There may be chance within systems, a trickster shaking up predictability, but clearly chance forces don’t construct a go-kart, let alone a car, let alone a world, let alone a 3D universe, let alone 3D/non-3D as an entirety.

Let’s put it this way: Chance always becomes a system. Examine chaos theory for illumination on the subject, but that is what it amounts to. Chaos on no matter how large a scale always is part of a system on a larger scale, as hurricanes are part of weather, or earthquakes part of geology as a whole.

So you return to the same question, you see. What maintains the world, maintains 3D/non-3D reality, maintains the larger reality beneath 3D/non-3D?

I don’t see what it can be but mind, mind at the ultimate largest extent, dreaming or thinking or imagining this reality moment by moment.

And doing so through the creatures that comprise that reality! Minerals, vegetables, animals, humans, angels. Sub-atomic forces, super-celestial forces. It is all one continuing symphony and can’t be anything else, only you can’t get even a glimpse of it if you stay on only one scale. By that token, you could say that mountains and humans and rainbows are equally myopic, each interpreting reality as if its own scale were absolute, and consequently missing most of the show.

And that is enough for you to chew on at the moment.

Thanks as always, and see you next time.

 

A permanent and unnecessary loss

Plenty of blame to go around, and you may be sure there will be lots of finger-pointing, not all of it unearned. Besides the easy lessons to be learned here, there are also a few that aren’t quite so easy, not quite so obvious. Among them:

  • Collection is not necessarily preservation. It doesn’t do anybody any good to collect ancient Egyptian artifacts only to have them go up in flames.
  • Libertarians and Ronald Reagan to the contrary, there are some things that should not rely upon private efforts, and that cannot be done well without support for public institutions.
  • Beyond the need for digital archiving to reduce the risk of total destruction, there is the question of how our human history can be seen whole when the bits of evidence are scattered all over the place and collated nowhere.

In any case, a tragedy.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-brazil-fire-museum/rios-200-year-old-national-museum-hit-by-massive-fire-idUSKCN1LJ00L

https://www.wired.com/story/brazil-museum-fire-digital-archives/?CNDID=41291302&mbid=nl_090918_backchannel_list3_p2

Change your viewpoint, change your world

Courtesy of a comment from Martha MacBurnie, this very interesting piece.

http://www.dailygood.org/story/2079/change-the-worldview-change-the-world-drew-dellinger/

Dark Fire, available as an e-book

Just tonight I learn that Crossroad Press has put out my third Chiari novel, Dark Fire. I have been working on variants of this novel literally since first completing Messenger, which I wrote in 1979. Can’t tell you how many times I gave up on it. Finally it came together.  

George Chiari’s story was told in Messenger. His brother Angelo’s turn came in Babe in the Woods, (now retitled The Phenomenal Background and also available as an e-book from Crossroad Press). In Dark Fire, they work together, to try to save the C.T. Merriman Institute.

If you buy it and like it, please put up a review. Thanks.

This is the description that appears on Amazon.

 

On crystals and viewpoints

Wednesday, September 19, 2018

6:10 a.m. I get the feeling that “singing the universe into existence” went in a direction a little different than what you had intended. Care to revisit?

What we said was necessary, but of course there is always more to be said on any subject. That’s why sometimes it matters, where a discussion goes, and sometimes it doesn’t. Now, recalibrate, and slow way down, and we shall see if you can loosen the reins of your imagination sufficiently to bring in something outside your comfort zone.

Well – I guess we’ll see.

[Pause]

You are creator gods, because everything in reality is made of the same stuff. No, woodchucks don’t help create the world, only – yes, they do.

We have told you, the very rocks that compose your 3D geology are conscious, and, indeed, are the same thing as you, only living at different speed, for different reasons, filling a different role. When you come to see this, you will have penetrated a veil of illusion that is very powerful: that is, that matter is something different from spirit, or, in other words, that the 3D world is “real” in an exterior sense (i.e. absolutely, differently “out there” rather than being the same as you).

It’s slippery. I get it and lose it, even now.

That is because partly it is a matter of which you?” You as 3D creature are clearly different from rocks and woodchucks. You as a constituent of reality conforming to material pretensions are not different from the other elements of life that are conforming to material pretensions.

I think that means, we within our 3D roles are limited in ways that make us human, as woodchucks – why are we talking about woodchucks, particularly? – are limited in ways that make them animals, and rocks in ways that make them minerals.

You will find that this idea is now clearer to you (having gotten it from us by direct intuition) than to many of your readers who can only guess at the meaning.

Why? It’s clear enough, isn’t it?

No. We just said it isn’t clear enough. Restate it even if it seems repetitious to you.

If you say so. What I got was that we are all the same thing in the realm superior to the 3D/non-3D split, and it is only within 3D (and its non-3D extension) that differences between animal, vegetable, mineral, human manifest. That is, we aren’t essentially human-only. Rocks aren’t essentially mineral only. Fish, amoebae, virii, seawater, whatever, are not their physical 3D manifestations only. We are all part of the same thing. Differences are at a more superficial level.

That still won’t be clear, you’ll find.

That’s because people will slap “nothing but” labels on it. It’s “nothing but” pantheism or panentheism, or whatever.

And in applying labels they will thereby prevent themselves from really feeling the distinction. Perhaps. If so, that is not your affair. People can only hear what they have ears to hear – and if there is a cosmic hearing aid, we don’t know who is manufacturing it.

Very funny. But, I know the feeling. First hand. When I look back at my life, I see many truths that were presented to me that I could not see. I could not give them fair consideration. There was not enough common ground between the assumptions behind them and the assumptions I incorporated in my view of the world.

Talk a little about your experience of crystals.

That’s a good example of the process of opening up to a new understanding, as a matter of fact.

Yes, that’s why we suggested it. And, as usual, you phrasing things wile in this ILC state will have certain advantages over our doing it. It will be more fluent, will require less to overcome, though the difference in effort may be imperceptible to you.

I do admire how you continually mingle content and process in these talks.

Okay, crystals. My entry into the New Age world was sort of sideways. I didn’t grow up in Southern California, so to speak. Although I had certain inclinations toward the mystical life, I was raised Catholic, and did not lay down that viewpoint when I left the church, so much as accepted it and rebelled against it.

No, that is too careless.

Okay, let me slow down again.

Yes, I see that I rebelled against certain things – hell, God the policeman, the Church’s rules – and never even thought about the fact that I accepted and continued to accept the underlying truth of the fact that the spiritual world existed and was fundamental.

No, you are forgetting.

So I was.

[Because the rest is mostly me and not them, I am going to print it in Roman rather than italic, as that is easier to read in large doses.]

[Me:] In the aftermath of consciously leaving the church – a process that occurred between the ages of 17 and 19 – the mental world I lived in was very different from what I was remembering, wasn’t it. It accepted the world of matter as obviously real and – I don’t know that I ever thought of this – I searched for evidence that this obviously-real material world was not as meaningless as it appeared. Thus, I was more than open to reading of Edgar Cayce, and I probably would have been open to Seth if I had been aware of the Jane Roberts books. (Only, it was too early for Roberts as it was also for Bob Monroe, as we are talking here of the last half of the 1960s, before either of them had published.)

So, I read Thomas Sugrue’s There is a River, though, come to think of it, I read Jess Stearn’s Edgar Cayce, the Sleeping Prophet first. Anyway, they kept a hope alive that this so self-evidently real 3D world wasn’t the closed-off thing it appeared to be. But I was still thinking of it as primarily real, I was only looking for an extra-sensory escape hatch, or periscope, or something. I think lots of people went through this in those days. Lots of people escaped or tried to escape their Christian or Jewish background by going to the relatively neutral refuge of Hinduism or, more commonly, Buddhism. We knew that materialism couldn’t be true; we knew it wasn’t enough. But we didn’t know what was true, and didn’t have any idea how to find it.

As I said, I came to the New Age movement sideways. I didn’t read Seth; I didn’t follow a guru; I didn’t jump onto the love and light bandwagon. I made a living and read history and waited for my glorious future or unroll itself, and in no way subscribed to the idea of pie in the sky. Such anomalous experiences as I had, I set aside in my mind or held for future explanation. Then came the Shirley MacLaine workshop, and teaming up with Bob Friedman a couple of year later, and Kelly Neff (Quattrin, then), and the Monroe Institute’s Gateway program, and I was living in a different world, but though it had points of congruence with what Monroe called the psychic underground, it had important differences too. I didn’t entirely fit in.

God, this is taking a long time. Anyway, when I discovered crystals, I did so from a mindset that centered on life as it appears, so on the one hand I experienced their energy (“or am I just making this up?”) and on the other, I had to try to fit it in with the idea that rocks were, quite obviously, dead inert matter, as opposed to the lords of creation, namely us (as exemplified, say, in Congress!).

So experiencing the energy of crystals had to be pigeon-holed into the idea that they were somehow batteries, or – much later – were programmable. The physical world’s classification system still first, you see.

Okay, now I see it differently, only we’ve burned up so much time – do we have enough for you to continue?

Finish with crystals.

Well, I guess the point is this. As long as we think that the “obvious” divisions of the world are real and fundamental, it is going to be difficult or impossible for us to really see behind the curtain. If we see crystals as matter that happens to have certain properties that can be used to enhance or anyway interact with human psyches, we will see things one way. When we come to see that everything, no matter how “dead” or inert, is made of the same conscious living presence that we are, then the divisions are still real but they are no longer fundamental. They no longer present an obstacle to be overcome, merely an appearance to be understood.

And I better appreciate your difficulties in making clear statements that will not be misunderstood.

It can’t be done. But you do the best you can.

Okay. Till next time, then.