Blog

 

Friday, October 6, 2017

Here is a long message Henry Reed posted on my blog. I have my own reaction to it, and I gather that you’d just as soon I set that out so you can correct and comment as usual.

[Henry Reed: A professional Intuitive posted this recollection,.

[The other day, after the Vegas attack, comedian Jimmy Kimmel … stated that it seemed like a window onto evil had been opened. This made me think of something my clairvoyant professor had said back in the mid ’70s…. He said that the first bomb testing, and all the bombs that have followed, have actually “blown holes” in Earth’s spiritual layer of protection…. With each ‘hole’ a tremendous amount of evil or dark forces has been able to enter. They have come streaming or flooding in. In his words it was like a “vacuum cleaner” sucking in tremendous amounts of negativity.

[Then the drug revolution went hand-in-hand with this. He explained that loosening one’s consciousness thru drugs allowed many of these dark forces to have access to them. To easily come into (either partly by influencing or more totally inhabiting) bodies. That with this much dark forces on Earth now it is no longer safe to do mind-altering drugs and he even discouraged social drinking. (You see literally the evil that literally comes into some people who drink often). Some people I know do peyote rituals, insisting it is fine and the native Americans did it. But here again, this creates a “loosening” of the finer bodies (etheric, astral and spirit layers etc.).

[With the prevalence and existence of SO much negativity on Earth now along with the heightening of energies our way of living cannot be the same as in the past. He said that Earth’s protective layer is now more like “Swiss cheese” — extremely full of holes, giving free access to negative forces…. Indeed literally many ” windows onto evil” have opened. If only people more in general could understand the many layers of existence. [He also said] that as time went on closer to the millennium and after, good spiritual forces or beings would have to be streaming energy to the planet just to keep us functioning long enough for a major event or change to happen. And that these “speeded up” energies would be something that a segment of society would not be able to handle. Some people would become erratic. We are seeing lot of this happen…. Interesting that Jesus had said something like “except that things be ‘speeded up’ there would be no one left alive.”

[MOST SIGNIFICANTLY, as I see it anyway, weapons of killing SHOULD NOT be easily accessible to the public!! This should NO LONGER be possible! The human climate is changing and has changed so dramatically that this can no longer be possible, as I see it anyway. There is way too much instability now.]

My thinking is that this is all confused. I think it is inaccurate use of metaphor, for one thing, inappropriately concrete. Atomic bombs, being physical, can’t blow holes in something that isn’t. But – I don’t know, I suppose. I could be persuaded to think I am being too rigid.

Always a good attitude, if uncomfortable, being ready to be made to re-think. All right, let’s examine it.

Atomic bombs

“A window on evil.” Doesn’t this metaphor suggest that you are on one side of the wall and evil on the other, and if only the window weren’t open, you’d still be separated?

For many years I have been quoting somebody, can’t remember who, who pointed out that the line between good and evil is not between people but within them.

Correct. But, a careless or ambiguous metaphor does not necessarily discredit an argument, still less an insight or position. So, let’s look farther.

At the most simple and physical layer, atomic bombs do not blow holes in a layer of protection that would by nature be non-3D and would be internal. Clearly at the literal level, this would be inappropriately concrete. But look at it symbolically, and there could be an argument. Certainly the implied devaluation of the sanctity of life that has followed the use and development of such weapons might be expressed that way. However, as a literal material description of reality, no. The thought coupling atomic bombs and current manifestation of evil rests on interrelated incorrect ideas. That::

• Physical events cause rupture in a postulated spiritual protective shield.
• The spiritual shield existed, with one side being protected against evil on the other side.
• “Windows” have opened between the 3D and non-3D worlds. When you remember that there is one world, and that 3D and non-3D are subsets, where is there a place for walls and windows? (Yes, we recognize that the window was metaphor, but within the construct of the metaphor, that is the function, and, as we say, where is the possibility?)
• Great amounts of negativity were allowed into 3D by the disruption of this spiritual shield. Without the shield, without the separation of spiritual and physical, without the segregation of good from evil to begin with, what is left of this idea?
• Without a spiritual protective layer to be breached by a physical event, where is the potential for it to be full of holes?

The analogy resembles the hole in the ozone that was detected decades ago, except that ozone depletion was described as resulting from physical causes affecting a physical substance and system. No one suggested that the ozone interacted with spiritual forces.

To sum up the portion on atomic testing, we would say, no, this is bad theory, inappropriately concrete, and if meant only metaphorically, much more misleading than elucidating.

Drugs

In relation to drugs, however, this is on firmer grounds. Notice immediately one difference.

This one attributes a physical mechanism (drugs) to individuals rather than to society as an abstraction.

It is true that drugs affect the individual mind. Do they therefore affect the individual spirit?

That isn’t a question I have thought to ask.

Think in terms of what we have been encouraging you to think of as the structure of the world.

So much easier to take dictation.

So it is. Think.

Well, if 3D and non-3D are two aspects of the same world, and everybody is in both, the differences between mental and spiritual aren’t necessarily even real. I mean, whatever spiritual means, we are it. And it can’t be something walled off within us, this much body, this much spirit, this much mind. If there is a difference among them, we’re closer to raisin bread than separate bins of wheat, raisins, yeast, etc.

Does it affect your spirit when you take aspirin?

Does it affect my spirit when the headache goes away?

Exactly.

Well, “exactly,” only I don’t know quite where that leaves us.

Drugs, even psychotropics on one end of the scale and pain-relievers on the other end, are all physical substances. They affect the physical body by producing chemical changes. Those chemical changes may be mild or profound, and they may have effects on the 3D consciousness ranging from disorienting to imperceptible. Where is the scope of action for the physical substance to affect a postulated spiritual barrier? What they affect is consciousness, and their chief effect there is indeed to lower the barriers, but they are internal barriers, not barriers between the individual and the outside (even if non-physical) world.

I have long said that LSD does not bring chaos or harmony, clarity or confusion, but magnifies what you are. You may be overwhelmed by it, but it is overwhelm by what you already are, unsuspected. At least, I think so.

That is substantially correct. Again, the metaphor implies invasion from without. Absent that, what remains?

However, despite inappropriate metaphor and inadequate examination of premises, this is still a valid perception, that the current moment is one of heightened activity.

Long-repressed content

I get that the point here is that this is a time when what was unconscious is becoming conscious (whether we would prefer it or not) and therefore the negative is coming forth full strength, having been so long repressed.

It isn’t that the negative has been repressed, it is that the awareness of, the acceptance of, the negative has been repressed. And like any long-repressed psychic content, it is now erupting full force.

Yes, I see that. And, because we are good as well as evil, protection flows forth along with destruction.

It is your choice, always.

This is very helpful, and a lot more thoughtful than my reaction would have been.

It’s mostly a matter of slowing down, of sinking in, unafraid of what you may find. You do it by talking to us. You could profitably do it in your day-to-day interactions, as well.

I was about to say, “easier said than done,” but it is just a decision, isn’t it?

That’s what it is, and your lives are built upon a continual stream of decisions.

And as to the commercial for gun control at the end?

Change the consciousness, and the manifestations of the consciousness change automatically. There is much more going on behind the scenes than you can know – we are talking in 3D terms here, not speaking of non-3D manipulation – and the issue is not what it seems to anybody on any side of it. Stick to what you can do, rather than obsessing over what you cannot do.

Don’t go marching off to a pretended siege of Babylon, as Emerson says.

Some psychological situations never change, which is why older wisdom still applies.

Many thanks for all this.

Thursday, October 5, 2017

Again I am hearing time’s winged chariot at my heels, so to speak. A sense of “no time to lose,” even despite the need sometimes to cool our heels till the time comes around (if only to give ourselves time to recharge). I’m getting a sort of visual: force issuing as from a high-pressure firehose, then, as it enters the matrix of channels, being diverted and channeled by the nature of the terrain. Not a very good description. Can you amplify and correct?

What you are getting is that human life is a combination, an interaction, of two forces. One is, as we keep saying, these vast impersonal forces, flowing through you (and around you, and all but engulfing you), each one to his or her own carrying capacity.

And do the forces ever exceed that capacity?

They do, and those vessels break. But let us finish describing your situation.

The other force is what results when your share of these forces run through what you are. Because each of you is different, the appearance of the force flowing through you will be different. It may be classified by various schemes, but those schemes will be reporting averages. Thus Leo energy is different from Scorpio energy, and both are different from Gemini energy. But the commonalities do not amount to identity. One Leo is not interchangeable with another. You are all individuals. That is the point of your existence, after all.

You, who you are, what you have made of yourself at any given point, are unique, and so the forces flowing through you are going to be colored by your essence.

Temporarily, you mean. While they are flowing through me.

Well, it requires careful saying. The forces – let’s think of them as white light – are no less white after they have shined through the maze of obstacles, baffles, redirections and contradictory paths that you are. But you shine with the energy of that light, but the color of your own pattern. You see?

Yes, that’s very clear.

Good, but let us stop there, and you do other things, even if of less allure.

 

Thursday, October 5, 2017

Ready if you are. Where were we?

You had just realized why you live on a timeline where everything you don’t like nevertheless exists.

Perhaps you could spell that out again?

Even on any given timeline, decisions have consequences. Even though other timelines follow opposite decisions, and thus assure that every decision is explored – which means the fate of the universe never depends upon anybody making the “correct” decision – in each timeline, the decisions that have been made determine the reality being experienced, and determine which opportunities exist (or, as it appears to you, which opportunities are thereby created).

The sense I’m gradually getting is that our lives are the demonstrating of the consequences of a decision-tree. Each version shows what would happen along a given chain of decisions – ours as individuals, but within a context of uncounted others’, which means within what seems like a firm matrix. It begins to seem that life is the showing of uncounted possible paths, the showing being the main thing, for some reason.

That won’t be as clear to your friends as it is to you at the moment, and won’t be as clear to you later as it is now. So we should press on and provide context.

Perceptions and intuitions

Now remember that at the moment we are looking at your 3D life as an experiencer of the interaction of soul and spirit. That is, soul, the shaped collection of traits, and spirit, the free-ranging animating force. You may find it easiest to begin with negative manifestations. Let us start with hatred.

Which, I presume, begins with fear.

That’s a “yes but no.” But explaining why it is a “yes but no” may take some doing. It isn’t simple. Your ideas about things are based on a combination of things: input and prior ideas, mostly.

Input is skewed by perception, and your sensory perceptions are by themselves limited to a tiny percentage of the physically existent spectrum. Even the electromagnetic spectrum that is recognized by science – which is to say, by sensory data extended by instrumentation and inference – is mostly far beyond your ability to experience directly by sight, sound, smell, taste, touch. That limited input is interpreted by ideas of how things are, ideas formed from prior first-hand and second-hand experience, all of it also subject to those same limitations.

If this were the whole story, your possibilities would be very much more limited than they are, for how could you break out of the self-contained idea-system and experience-system delivered and limited by sensory data? You can get an idea of what your world would be like by looking at the mental constructs of people who believe that sensory data is all there is. Of course, these people themselves do not live in the world they deduce; no one could. But they ignore and deny experience to the contrary, so you can get an idea of that mental reality by overhearing their mental reinforcement of their ideas as they ty to persuade others.

The compensating factor in your lives is, of course, direct feed. Call it intuition, divine guidance, extra-sensory knowing, instinctive wisdom, inexplicable useful connection – however you think of it, it is the other part of your being that makes possible your limited 3D existence. No one and nothing could exist without an unbroken connection to its larger self centered beyond the 3D construct. The birds that build nests may not be able to say “non-3D,” but they rely on it, as all animals and vegetables do, to enable them to make sense of incoming sensory data, particularly in advance. You call it instinct, but it really is connection. And remember, that isn’t connection to a something else; it is connection to another part of yourself.

Aha! And the two forms of perception are sometimes at war with one another.

Not the forms, but the results of having contradictory ideas about the meaning of the data from two different kinds of sources.

Okay. But still, war.

Responses to contradictions

It can be; it certainly doesn’t have to be.

• Some people respond to contradiction by attempting to define one half of the contradiction out of existence, and this can lead to conflict in one or another form.
• But others respond by seeing any contradiction as an implicit invitation to see more clearly, deeper, to resolve it, and only if they are unable to find resolution do they proceed to ignore one half, or go to war on it.
• And still others, fewer, respond to an irreconcilable contradiction by leaving it in suspension, waiting for further developments to clarity things.

But yes, there is the potential within you of warfare, one element against another, and of course it is easier to direct those forces outward – projecting the conflict on to others – than to deal with it within your own psyche.

Now, you could argue that in the case of self-division turned outward, the hatred is the unacknowledged result of fear (fear of one’s own contradictions, illogical, inexplicable, and perhaps therefore terrifying), and that isn’t wrong. But it isn’t the whole story either. This particular genesis of hatred is the most common by far. But it is not the only one.

Does that imply that if we could overcome the resistance of the 3D personality to realizing that it extends beyond the 3D, the world would be a more peaceful place?

It should scarcely need stating. Instinctive societies anywhere are inherently peaceful; it is the separation from one’s roots beyond the 3D world that leads to a society’s madness. We are not quite saying, indigenous societies are sane and the technological post-Christian Western world is crazed. But we would say that if you will look around you, you will see some societies that take instinct and folk-wisdom for granted – Italy, say; Poland; country-folk pretty nearly anywhere before they are disillusioned and mentally overthrown by the assumption of superiority by city culture. These are not societies roiling in hatred, and they aren’t very easily roused to hatred based on abstract ideas and plans to reshape the world.

Unlike technological, materialistic America. Our rulers, I mean, not necessarily those who happen to live here.

Well –

I know, don’t give ourselves a pass as if we were living here by coincidence. We must bear some responsibility for what is done in our name.

That isn’t quite the nature of our reservation. It is more to the nature of your attitude than to the substance of the comment.

Okay, I get it. You don’t like me making blanket condemnations.

Condemnations

It isn’t so much what we don’t like, as what is good for you. To issue a blanket condemnation is to show that you don’t understand, or are suspending your understanding. To understand everything, someone said, would be to forgive everything. In your life you mostly know this. And, in fact, a teaching opportunity: Consider your reactions as opposed to what you would prefer your reaction to be, what your reaction often is. Where does the difference come from?

I think you’re going to say it is the difference between a reaction from my 3D-only personality and my larger personality which presumably knows better.

Well, “knows better,” but also isn’t hurting in the same way. First-tier experience hurts, we said. Well, anger often proceeds from injury. And this is one reason for bringing to political and social questions the knowings you have developed in your “higher” moments – that is, your moments of meditation, or of communion with your larger self. The closer your connection with your self beyond 3D limitations, the more accurate and effective your reactions within 3D, you see. It is in effect a fountain of wisdom that cannot be matched by any amount of 3D experience.

 

Monday, May 22, 2023

Dirk sent me three YouTube videos explaining the functioning of life at levels below the chromosome, and it is like looking through Jim Meissner’s dark microscope, I can’t emotionally comprehend that all this is going on, all the time, at a tiny scale. I can’t get an image of the intelligence at work there. The videos show the mechanisms, but of course they cannot show the intangible behind it, any more than they could show the intangible thing behind our consciousness at this level.

I said I might ask the guys, though I have the wrong kind of training for it.

You said we would ask you why a mind that thought in terms of the significance of Daniel Boone (as an example) would be a good medium to explain scientific understandings.

And even as I write that out, I get a hint where you’re going to go with it.

Your function is as translator, and encourager, and if there is one thing your transforming civilization needs above all else, it is people to translate one level to another, to erase boundaries between specialists, and encouraging others to do the same. Not so that you yourselves may become specialists, nor, certainly, that you may create new specialties, but that you may make the walls between cells more transparent, and see farther, encourage others to see farther. The alternative is a specialization that understands less and less, because always within an unchanging and increasingly arbitrary context that comes to seem more and more inevitable and obvious.

And if non-specialists

[They interrupted me here, which they rarely do.]

You are all non-specialists in everything except whatever you do specialize in. Just because you ignore whole worlds of thought because they do not interest you, or are beyond your ability to master, doesn’t mean that they cease to exist or cease to influence you or cease to matter to your own specialized circle of knowledge, whether you do or do not realize it.

Thoreau said “We are all provincials in the universe.”

Precisely. So do not feel that there is any area of thought or of life that does not affect you. Any time you feel impelled to look at something new, be assured that (a) there’s a reason particular to you, and (b) your very interest in overstepping bounds is of interest to the universe. Again, the world does not revolve around you as an individual, and does.

Bear in mind, non-specialists do not trump specialists in their own field. Rather, they complement them. They provide what the specialist, from long mental habit, may no longer be able to provide: a fresh look at thing, informed enough to be thought-provoking, but inevitably wrong and even wrong-headed in many details and perhaps even in large areas of interpretation.

That’s interesting in itself. I know of historical examples of vital reframings coming from non-specialists. Jenner. Lister, Pasteur. No doubt I could think of others in other fields if it were important. But let’s look specifically at what those YouTubes aroused in me. I can’t state it very precisely.

Make the effort, first recalibrating and slowing down as much as possible. The effort to bring the concern into focus always polarizes you toward the attitude needed to hear the answers. (At least, that’s one way to look at the process.)

Very well. I see life at microscopic and sub-microscopic levels – life-processes enlarged as much as one million times – and what I see is so active, so intricate, so multitudinous and almost demonically energetic, that it is impossible to reconcile what I am seeing with the stable, macro-level body I am somewhat familiar with. Trillions of cells always dying, always being generated; all that helix-stripping, recombination, etc.

Yes, but look at your – emotional vertigo, I suppose we could call it – in trying to absorb the reality of it.

I see all those madly functioning machines, and it all goes on without our participation – at least, at any level  we can identify with – and it looks like an ant colony.

Go deeper, please.

I guess I’m seeing it as life at a different level, presumably directed by some intelligence, presumably proceeding at a different level of intelligence, a different kind of intelligence, pretty alien to us even though we depend on it every moment.

You’re getting closer. Keep on.

I have gotten used to the idea that cells and organs and what I call sub-assemblies of the body each have their own intelligence, their own kind of intelligence that, as you have said many times, does not read newspapers but knows how to process sugars. But this takes that to another level.

Yes. It ties things in more, if you stop to realize it. It isn’t like there are only two or three types of directed intelligence making up the 3D world. There are actually millions.

Millions? I would have settled for “uncounted,” but I got that you were insisting on millions.

Yes. You can radically expand your understanding of things if you make the effort. Remember, now, everything is made of mind-stuff. Can it be castles in the air, created at whim, altered at whim, maintained – as you say – “horseback”? Just as minerals provide stability in the 3D world, so does every kind of intelligence in every manifestation, and it all interlocks, with – as we keep reminding you – no spare parts and nothing missing or accidental.

So, insects, mammals, birds not only have different receptors, and therefore to some extend perceive different worlds; each is in the world representing a different niche in creation.

Well, if it is true at the levels you can perceive with the senses, why would anyone think it wouldn’t be true at levels too small or too large to be grasped by physical analogy? As above, so below. We remind you, the structure of physical reality is fractal. Not only patterns but, let’s call it, purposes, repeat.

Stars and interstellar debris have their own level of consciousness; they play their part in the whole scheme of things. Like you, they are born, live, die – which means, their non-3D essence appears in 3D and eventually winks out again, leaving them changed by their experience and in another way unaffected and invulnerable.

What is true of the universe you see around you is true of the universe you do not see, within you.

But here is the point you felt but didn’t quite express: Everything at every level has as its purpose to be what it is and to do what is appropriate for it to do. But you will never see the purpose (though you may intuit it, or deduce it); you will never see the animating intelligence that produces, organizes, directs that purpose as it manifests. But can any rational creature imagine that the universe if winging it, day by day? Can anyone imagine that the sun “just happens” to rise in the east and set in the west, day by day, varying slightly according to age-old patterns?

The closer you look into mechanism, the less sense it makes, emotionally, intuitively, until you remember that the animating and directing intelligence is invisible in it as it is invisible in you.

Enough for the moment.

Well, this was very interesting, and should strike sparks. Thanks as always.

 

Tuesday, October 3, 2017

Seems to me you have a good opportunity for teaching us how “all is well” coexists with all not being well, in the latest terrorist incident, in Nevada.

Yes, it will serve.

Once I know that something like that happened, I avoid anything more than the bare fact itself. I don’t immerse myself in the detail and the analysis that is sure to follow. I suppose that is somewhat ostrich-like, but it seems to work best for me.

Not your reaction to the JFK murder, however. Could your subsequent reaction to tragedies have been molded in reaction to your reaction to that event?

Interesting thought. For years, I didn’t want to know anything about various theories as to who really killed him. I accepted the official story, and my mourning was too deep to allow me to touch the questions, for decades, literally. It was years before I emerged from that shell-shocked condition.

And you weren’t about to allow yourself to be equally traumatized again.

No. I walled it off. I remember that. I felt Bobby Kennedy’s murder deeply, but I stayed away from reading about it after the first week.

Now consider the situation. In the 3D world, there was your suffering and there was the resultant habit to deal with the possibility of similar shocks. What about in the All-D, where your 3D reactions were only a part of the reality?

I don’t know, you tell me.

Outside of time and space – which in context means in the world beyond the constrictions of 3D-ever-moving-present-moment life – what was real? Your day to day movements of your body? Your moment-by-moment words, thoughts, emotions, reactions? It probably seems like it, but no. Outside of the present moment, what is real is –

Well, we’re going to have to backfill for a moment. It is true that in one way every moment of your lives is real and enduring and vividly alive. That is what the Akashic Record is, really, each moment held like a fly in amber, except alive. But it is equally true that this could be considered your soul’s record, while your spirit’s record is in what you sometimes call the completed self.

I think you mean, the spirit’s record could be thought of as the end-of-the-story record, rather than the moment-by-moment record. It is how the spirit was changed by the events and by my reactions to the events, from the point of view of “that life is over and done with; here’s the net result.”

Yes, that is the sense of it.

Which as usual begs the question of how there can be a net effect when every possible path in my life is taken, including any paths in which JFK wasn’t killed in Dallas. As usual, the question is, why wouldn’t they all cancel out.

And as usual the answer is, they don’t cancel, they add. The result is not a result of attrition but of addition. The very plethora of results is the answer.

I keep forgetting that. My tendency is to think that a life will produce a result that will be built upon, and I keep getting reminded that a life produces a huge range of results, all of which considered together, and only all of them considered together, is the result.

It makes a difference. Many a conundrum in logic disappears when you realize that common sense is misleading you by over-simplifying the situation.

What is real in your life, as seen from the non-obstructed All-D perspective, is the result within you of going through such experiences either directly or vicariously. Yes, your moment-by-moment reaction is as real as the 3D world, but, in a way, it isn’t any realer, even though it continues to exist in a way the moving-present 3D world does not.

To put it in a hierarchy of reality:

• The 3D experience itself, including bodily impact, anything sensory.
• The psychic portion of the 3D experience; what enters the Akashic Record.
• The net effect on this version of your life of having gone through the experience.

The first tier hurts; the second tier has meaning; the third tier contains the potential from that life forward.

Well, what about the time I healed Joseph Smallwood’s injured back?[i] Didn’t one life move to at least the Akashic Record version of another life and alter it, thus opening a new path for the entire life, at least that version of his life?

And perhaps you might have been able to – still could – cause him to move his body during the battle to avoid the crippling blow. That would be at the first-tier level of reality. Wouldn’t that be a good thing?

I’m sensing a trap. I don’t know if I would still be me if he didn’t have his altered-state experience of an angel healing him. If that is a true risk, I don’t suppose I would change things even to spare him. But, is it a true risk?

Remember, you are considering one given time-line. It isn’t like it would remove all other possibilities or even one of them.

Ah, but in effect I would be creating a new possible time line, and I would be somehow tied to it.

Haven’t you spent years wondering why you couldn’t live in a timeline in which Kennedy did not get killed?

For the first time, I’m beginning to understand. Not all timelines lead to the same place, of course. From your third tier of reality, where we come out is more important than what we go through to get there. Can’t avoid the speed bumps if we want to traverse the road.

That’s a little too simple, but close enough.

 

[i] As described in Chasing Smallwood. I, working in an altered state from 1994, changed what had happened in 1863, with momentous consequences. Impossible, according to conventional views of reality. Less unusual than we might think, according to the scheme sketched out by our non-3D friends.

Monday, October 2, 2017

Physical train wrecks and psychological debris and vast impersonal forces flowing through us.

You all know how these forces sweep through your lives; you see it first hand, you see it in dramas and histories and twice-told talks. Passion and conflict is at the heart of story, after all. No conflict, no story. But is conflict as simple a thing as self-interest colliding with self-interest? You could make a reasonable argument that that is all it is, but we would say that argument would amount to “nothing buttery,” and would clarify nothing.

Lust manifests!

Anger, envy, swollen pride manifest!

You see them on all sides. Conversely, anybody could tell first- or second-hand stories of noble actions, of self-sacrifice, of quiet unnoticed heroism. Scratch any story and you will find people acting out of motivations. Scratch the motivations and you will find desirable or undesirable passions, maybe quiet, even placid, but passions. An old woman may be invisibly passionate over her flower garden, or her pets, or – anything, really. The key here is “invisibly.” Although passion is at the heart of all drama, not all passion expresses itself in a dramatic fashion.

These forces make up your life. The man who sacrifices his life day by day at a meaningless job, that his children may live and hopefully may live better than he, is acting from conviction, and what is conviction rooted in, if not some passion?

We will not continue to pile up examples. Look at other aspects of your life, the events around you and those you only hear of. Wars, cooperation, disasters and disaster relief, millions of private enterprises commercial and otherwise, and millions of pointlessly destructive activities like vandalism. Music, art, poetry, technology, finance, scholarship – all the forms of human activity you can think of. At some place they connect to passion.

So where does it come from? In trying to answer that, realize that plugging in a word like “instinct” is not an answer, because not a process, not a linking-together of things, but a word implying “nothing but”; it is a decision not to inquire. So – inquire. Where does this force come into your life from?

You may think, “I was born with it,” and that is certainly true, but it doesn’t answer anything. It says that you have never lived without it. (Nor could you.) But we knew this: Soul without Spirit is not living in the 3D world; it is closer to being a ghost of itself.

All right, but that sort of answers the question, doesn’t it? These forces are the forces of Spirit.

Fine. And what are the forces of Spirit?

I take it the answer is not as simple as “The electricity that runs through the wires,” or “The light that shines through the fiber optics.”

That would be merely to restate in other words what was said. Resist the temptation to consider the Soul as in 3D and the Spirit as coming from the non-3D somehow. Try to see both inhabiting the All-D, so that, although they coexist in the same space, Spirit is mostly not comprehended by Soul. You could say, pretty accurately, that

• Soul is bound to its 3D limitations in which it was founded
• Spirit inhabits all of reality, not only the 3D portion of it.

Hence Spirit is invisible to greater or lesser extent depending upon how conscious the Soul is. Spirit is always here, always functioning, but is it not always perceived, and rarely is perceived in the same way at different times by different Souls.

The next step is to realize that since Spirit interpenetrates your being, its vagaries are going to affect you, often directly.

I didn’t realize that Spirit has vagaries. I think of Spirit as – well, as a vast impersonal force, the way you have been describing it.

You are thinking of Soul and Spirit as two different kinds of things that happen to intersect in human enterprises. But Spirit created Soul. It animates Soul. It shares its essence with Soul.

I thought we were saying that a Sam creates a soul of its own essence.

Do you think a Sam’s essence (in so far as it is personal) is somehow different from Spirit? That we have Spirit on the one hand and Sam on the other?

I guess I don’t know what I thought. I never thought about that as a problem at all.

Well, let us give the kaleidoscope a shake and see if anything emerges more clearly. Look at it this way. Sam = Spirit creating and incorporating and developing and fostering Souls. In being so engaged, it loses some of its freedom of action, somewhat as a parent does to a dependent child, and becomes part of a compound being. So the difference between what we call Sam for convenience and what we continue to call Spirit is whether one is or is not part of a compound being.

So I take it that Spirit too can be subdivided into more or less individuals, some of whom make one choice, others other choices?

“As above, so below.” What is individual seen one way is community seen another way.

Huh! Well this is a startling development.

Think about it and we’ll come back to it.

 

Monday, October 2, 2017

To continue, then: How can all be well when all is not well, at the same time?

And you heard the answer even as you wrote.

Well, I heard the analogy: How can we be individuals and communities at the same time?

Mostly it is a question of focus. “What You See Is What You Get” is an expression you use sometimes. Perhaps this is true in a sense not intended by those who invented it.

In computer terms, WYSIWYG means transparency: Literally, whatever you are looking at is the result. It means there won’t be translation errors, you might say. But you are using it to mean, depending on how we choose to see things, that’s how they are.

Well – not quite.

Smiling. I get that a lot.

Better than “Dead wrong,” probably, or “Don’t be ridiculous.”

Still smiling. So –

Depending on how you choose to see things, that’s the aspect of them that seems to you to be real. That often seems like the only aspect that is real. In this case, closer to “choose your own reality” than “create your own reality.” It isn’t that you are shaping reality by how you choose to see it, but that you are shaping you, shaping your reality, which after all is the only reality you can know. Your, and our, perception of reality is always going to be less than whatever reality really is in essence.

So, accepting that, how does it tie in to the vast impersonal forces you keep mentioning?

First, are you clear that life is how it appears to you, more than how it really is?

We never see the entire picture, only our subset which we often take to be the entire picture. I am clear on that, yes. Even the fact that each of us has uncounted versions living different timelines tells me that reality has to be bigger than anything anyone or any one timeline can apprehend. By definition, really.

All right. So then it shouldn’t surprise you – though we suspect that it will – to hear that the shape the world is in is no more fixed than anything else, except in any given timeline.

That makes perfect sense, and you’re right, it never occurred to me. Not sure why. I suppose it has been obvious all along, but in a different context that I didn’t happen to associate with this one.

Most of learning is less the acquisition of new facts than the associating of what you already know in different contexts.

And I’m starting to get your drift.

It really shouldn’t surprise anybody that the world they see around them is integrally connected to the version of themselves that is walking that particular timeline. How else could it be? You and your world can’t be connected only arbitrarily. External events are only seemingly external and unconnected. Rita was at some pains to point out that the newly dead soul realized that its 3D life had all been internal after all. It is in the confusing of external and internal that so many people’s anguish takes place. And perhaps you can spell that our in our place.

You seem to be saying, if we didn’t take “external” events to be more real than the internal life we know first-hand, we wouldn’t be so upset at how badly things go. Can that be what you really mean? I know, “not quite.”

This requires some careful spelling-out.

If you take external events to be self-evidently real, if only because they seem to be perceived and accepted by everybody around you, they will seem realer to you than the thoughts, feelings, emotions that make up your life. It is crazy but natural: What is remote from your experience will seem more real than what is immediately at hand.

And don’t think this means only events you may see on the news. The things that happen to you – the innumerable things that make up the external interface with the world also may seem more real, because more undeniable and more unmalleable, then the internal events. So, tying your shoe, eating your breakfast, driving your car, reading your mail, talking on the telephone – that kind of thing – is all going to seem realer to you than your own thoughts! It’s crazy, seen from our viewpoint, except that we do understand the underlying dynamics.

So do I, now: We are used to crediting our senses more than our intuitions. Sensory data seems objective, intuition or call it non-sensory data seems at least debatable.

Does this seems like a stretch, then? To say that 3D life is a life that systemically inverts the order of importance of things?

I can see it. But seeing it doesn’t overrule the reality I experience. My lungs still function correctly or they don’t, and my part in that seems secondary to environmental forces.

Well, we aren’t trying to say that people ought to be able to overcome 3D conditions; just the contrary. 3D life was not designed to be superseded or outmaneuvered. Our point here is that this systematic distortion in how you understand the world, rooted in how you experience the world, helps explain how “all is well” and “all is not well” can coexist, both being true depending upon viewing point.

It still comes perilously close to saying, “It’s all a show; those mangled bodies don’t mean anything.”

No, that is not the idea. What we are really getting to is that the reality is the energy flowing through those lives, not the external incidents that result from energy flows, and redirect energy flows.

I’m starting to get what you’re driving at. They are real forces, real consequences. But the reality is in the real part of us, and not in the merely physical part of us.

You’ve gotten it by a spark leaping mind to mind, but your readers may not get it from the words they’ve read so far. Some may, some may not.

Well, how to put it any clearer? Our emotions, and that includes all the emotions of anybody in any news event, are real, and they are the point of the experience. They (and the changes they result in, within ourselves) are what we will take with us in the realer All-D world. Nobody carries a burned building or an exploded bomb or a deadly virus from 3D into All-D. They are all, you might say, local phenomena. In that sense, it hardly matters what happens externally in 3D. What matters is what happens internally to each of us, because that is what is real and that is what will persist. In that sense, all is well no matter the train wreck. Although, this does leave the fairly large question of what about the psychological debris caused by the physical train wrecks.

That has everything to do with those same forces we keep promising to discuss. And of course, your time being up –

Next time. Okay, thanks.