Blog

Friday, December 2, 2017

Did you ever wonder how a topic and a moment of time come together?

That’s an odd way to put it.

The way of putting it stems from the way the subjects look to us.  Let’s talk about the process of communication. You may think you’ve exhausted the subject already, but not so.

We want to talk about that twist that takes place between the source and the receiver. You have become accustomed to thinking of difficulties in communication as problems of focus, but it is more complicated than that.

Let us define terms.

• You in 3D are a subset of you as you exist in full. You in All-D, your full self, is experienced by you as a 3D self and a non-3D self.
• Your full self, in turn, is a subset of a Sam, its creator, its parent. There is no interruption between a Sam and its creatures. However, bear in mind that a Sam and its creatures are not identical. By definition, a Sam is itself and whatever number of subsets it has created. Any one of those subsets is not the same as the creator and all the other subsets. So – difficult in words and logic, but the reality may be intuited – you and your Sam both are and are not

A case for four-value logic, in which a thing may be “both A and B” or “neither A nor B” as well as either “A = B” or “A not = B.”

That’s correct.

• So, you function as an autonomous individual (within the now-understood limits of the word “individual”), responsible for your own 3D existence.
• Additionally, you sometimes or continuously experience conscious communication with your non-3D component. The degree and continuity of communication defines the conditions of your mental and psychic life while in 3D.
• Additionally, you may experience something of the nature of your Sam. They may come as blinding insights, or as unshakable certainties, or as inexplicable but undoubtable realities. We won’t speak more of this, at least not at the moment, but only note that the experience does occur.

Our non-3D acting as the intermediary, I take it?

More like your non-3D portion having an expanded awareness on the one hand and a clear channel to you on the other hand. And although we don’t intend to talk about it, lest we get distracted from the main point at the moment, let us remind you that not everything the 3D consciousness happens to perceive directly concerns it. Sometimes, you overhear.

Our inexplicable dreams?

Among other manifestations.

And, like children, just because we perceive does not mean we properly understand.

Of course. So, the point here is that you in 3D do not exist in isolation, but you can’t be said to exist in firm communication, either. Sometimes there is static; sometimes there is interruption (at least, as perceived on your end). And even when the channel is clearest, without static, without interruption, you yourselves, by what you are, innocently and silently twist what you hear into your familiar patterns, like native Gaels speaking English.

Our point here is that what you may see as a regrettable deficit may equally fairly be seen as a fact of life to be accepted. Is the Irish or Jewish variant of the English language as spoken necessarily a detriment? May it not be seen as the spice of life? Similarly with each of you. Your being, your essence, which means among other things your accumulated store of assimilated experience, goes into the creation of the window into 3D that you are. So naturally the non-3D as it flows in will have an accent, so to speak. That is not a defect but a fact of life, and a spice, and even a set of clues.

And our varying views of life may be clues for each other?

They may if you are of a mind to use them that way. But that mindset – like any mindset – is in itself part of your “twist,” part of the filter through which you experience and express your life. Can you see the relevance of this to the subject of good and evil in 3D life?

Huh! I have a sense of it, but not enough that I would be able to express it clearly.

Each of you speak “3D” with an accent. The things you have been through in your existence since creation out of your Sam, plus the level of openness to input from your orienting non-3D component (that level being, itself, a product of past experience and resolutions, or, say, experience and consequent decisions), make each of you an individual unit, a different window, into 3D for the Sam and what is behind the Sam. You are a window, and a voice, and an accent.

But what it is that you experience, and express? Is it not everything that is manifest and unmanifest, within the limits of your capacity?

We, by what we are, express only what we can experience. Some experiences are closed to us, some cannot be properly interpreted, some are ambiguous, and only some are straightforward, or anyway seemingly so. And we are transceivers. We receive, but we also broadcast, and what we broadcast is as much a part of our nature as what we can receive.

And hence to an interaction with good and evil; also with virtue, vice, sins and assistance.

Think what you may, evil exists, for you. You may talk around it and say it is merely the absence of good or whatever, but the fact remains, some things will be evil in relation to your system of values. That being so, why go out of your way to prove yourself “too enlightened” to believe in evil? In practice, evil exists for each of you. You don’t all have the same lineup of suspects, you don’t have the same list of evils, but you all have a list. This isn’t error and isn’t accident. It is inevitable. That’s 3D – limitation and choice.

The same values that lead you to see certain things as evil lead you to see other things as good. (These need not be opposites; they may be quite unrelated to one another. An evil – cruelty, say – may coexist with a good that is not its opposite — nurturance, perhaps.)

From these values spring rules or guidelines to maximize your goods and minimize your evils. Habits and choices may help you, and you call them virtues, or they may obstruct, and you call them vices.

And as we have said many times, the seven deadly sins are not so much prohibitions as warning signs: “These are some ways of missing the mark. They lead in the wrong direction.”

That’s right. Like any generalized statement, different parts will apply to different individuals. What is an endless struggle for one will not even disturb another – but that other will have demons of his or her own to contend with.

 

Tuesday, December 19, 2017

I wonder, sometimes: Do these topics arise because of the things that have been happening in my life, or are there things triggered so that the subjects may arise.

This could be an interesting topic, if we can find the right analogy. The short, but too cryptic, answer is that what looks like an either/or is actually a restatement from a different point of view. But – how to explain the fact?

A book falls off a shelf in front of Bruce Moen and leads him onto a lifelong quest: Was that lifelong quest dependent upon that specific incident and his receptivity to it?

I would assume not. Life finds a way. If one incident didn’t do it, another would.

Can you see that what you just said could be paraphrased as, “The result pulls the causes, until the causes come into manifestation”?

Phrasing that, I could feel the pull from [the word] “existence” to “manifestation.”

Oh yes. Very different nuances. The one would imply that the causes only came into existence when they manifested in 3D reality; the other implies that the causes always existed as potential, needing only a chance to manifest.

I get that “potential” wasn’t quite the right word.

No, because it has the nuance, still, of “not existing until.” A better word wouldn’t have that silent nuance.

Always “existed within the template,” maybe?

Except that to some this will seem like mere playing with words, it will do.

The two ways of stating things amount to the same thing. They only look different if you assume that you are either pulling yourself off the ground by pulling on your shoestrings, or that you are responding to events as best you can and are thus sort of shaping your life, sort of being shaped by it. In either case you are leaving out of the equation the draw from the vastly larger parts of yourselves.

“You are not alone” means more than “you are not an orphan”; it also means, you are not an independent agent at your level of being, any more than one of your blood cells, or tissues, or organs, or appendages like the hand that is writing this is independent. They function as if independent within the sphere of their responsibilities – but that is the only way their independence has any reality or makes any sense.

To say, “My hand is writing this” is a useful misstatement of a clumsier way of seeing it which would be something like, “The fingers and thumb in cooperation with the rest of the body,” etc. Too involved to be saying, every time to discuss your writing words on a page, but true even when your attention is on the words or even the process. In the same way, your lives as “independent” 3D individuals, even when you remember that the individuals are actually communities.

All right, clear enough. And as you say, we know it but we don’t always remember it.

Not only that: You haven’t yet extended that knowing to larger spheres. In trying to understand “afterlife” concepts, you still tend to center those concepts on the individuals you perceive yourselves to be, even when you conceive of yourselves as more than one lifetime. The idea that you, your viewpoint, will be dominant in your larger being is true only in the sense that you are there from one point of view.

I am getting that you are meaning to say, the larger being is like a diamond with many facets. Looking into the heart of the diamond through any one facet would be like experiencing one life through one lifetime; it would be like seeing one particular connection as the important one when in fact it is the one that is accessible to us – which is a very different statement.

Bearing in mind, as always, the limitations of analogy, yes, that will do. You in 3D have one entry to your larger beings. After you leave 3D you will remain as other people’s possible entry to communication with your larger being, in the way you, Frank, communicated with Hemingway and got not Hemingway as he existed in all his facets (no one could do that for anyone) but Hemingway as he existed in the facets accessible to you and as he extended into his larger self. Someone communicating with someone else is always facet to facet, and is always higher self to higher self via those facets.

So, don’t expect to be in charge of our own destiny.

Would you want to be? Is it reasonable for a finger to have a destiny independent of the hand of which it is a necessary and valuable part as an instrument cooperating with others to express a higher will? And likewise, the hand is not independent, nor the arm. So why expect that you as a functioning individual can or should operate in a vacuum, as if your being was the center of the universe? In a sense, yes: You are the center for yourself, and should be because in 3D awareness you must be. But as above, so below. Your life makes no sense in isolation because there is no “isolation” of 3D from other levels of being.

I thought we were going to go farther into the question of good and evil, partly because of the video on J.R.R. Tolkien and C.S. Lewis I saw last night, but we didn’t.

Didn’t, and did. No part of your life may be well understood while other parts are firmly mis-understood. “To understand A,” etc. You would never get to understand good and evil, life and death, purpose and drift, love and hatred, while holding firmly incorrect views about other aspects of your life. So, like the flickering universe you are a part of, your life consists of perpetually changing colors (so to speak) as you continually readjust your ideas and experiences of yourselves. You aren’t and weren’t and never will be a finished product. In a continually changing, interacting, self-referential universe, how could you be?

 

Tuesday, December 12, 2017

Looking back to our session of Dec. 7, I see your summary of what needs to be explained, to explain why we are on any given timeline, regardless whether we think we would have chosen it.

• What is a decision, and who makes it.
• How a decision actually affects timelines.
• Why decisions are possible, why and how they are made.
• How all this is affected by, and affects, other layers of consciousness.

So – ?

That was an analysis of what had to be explained, not a syllabus. The factors don’t need to be spelled out one by one. The trick is for you to make the connections, which can only be done individually, and not by rote. Rote is for memorizing tools you can use. A leap into comprehension is the way those tools produce results.

Just looking at the list now, I feel more ready to understand than I did before.

Much of the mental construction has been done not by your 3D mind but by the part of your extensive mind you are not conscious of. (It isn’t unconscious of you; you are unconscious of it.)

And some of that construction work requires time? Which is why we don’t get it right away?

You think: Why should it require time? Another throwback to your old assumption, “on the other side, there is no time.” That statement is true in a way, but to understand “in a way,” so much more reorienting is required that perhaps we should say, it isn’t true for you at this time, from this place.

Like our discussion of reincarnation. Either a yes or a no would be equally misleading because some of our assumptions about it are wrong.

Some of your unconscious assumptions, yes. That is always what makes these teachings so difficult. But, as we make the unconscious conscious, things clarify.

In writing that sentence, I see the confusion in the way we use “unconscious” for two different meanings.

As we said, you really need a different word to represent the parts of your mind that are, themselves, very conscious, only inaccessible to the bright narrow spotlight you experience as 3D consciousness.

Jung’s “shadow.”

Minus so many things people have hung onto the concept, it would almost serve.

What if we began to speak of conscious and shadow-conscious, instead of conscious and unconscious?

We had to stop and consider that – as you experienced. It has its pros and cons. Like anything you seek to capture in words, what you gain in one direction, you are likely to lose in another. One aspect will become more precisely seen, and others will blur. At the risk of over-emphasizing the distance between two ends of an unbroken continuity, let’s think about using these terms:

• 3D-mind non-3D mind, to distinguish between you as you experience yourselves and us – TGU, Rita, Nathaniel, your past lives, etc.
• 3D-awareness non-3D-awareness to distinguish between your conscious mind and your so-called unconscious mind.

So, when new connections are offered, either by study or by “external” input, the work of doing that associating is done by your non-3D-aware minds.

That isn’t going to work, is it? Sounds like you’re saying not-aware-of-3D  mind, which is the opposite of what you mean.

Perhaps not shadow but shadowed.

­Our 3D-minds v. shadowed-minds?

Or even shadow-minds. It might work better. In fact, it has another advantage in that it shades off into the group mind of which individual minds are a part.

Which would leave you saying, new connections are made not by our 3D minds but by our shadow-minds. I don’t know. another possibility just flitted in, and flitted right out. Let me see if I can retrieve it. [Pause.] Well, I can’t, at least at the moment. And we’ve burned 40 minutes so far and haven’t really gotten anywhere.

Analysis, re-arrangement, pondering, is all work, all worthwhile.

Leaves me less to type, anyway. So, from here, where do we go today?

We might as well continue on the subject we strayed onto. (Yes, strayed. It wasn’t planned, and it wasn’t accident either. Every crossroads leads to different places, and every point along the way is, in effect, a crossroads.) You focus on a given thought or subject. That’s your conscious mind working.

Our flashlight. (I remembered what zipped by earlier.)

Your conscious 3D-mind – your flashlight – connects seamlessly to your non-3D mind, what we once called like starglow, an immense, omni-connected background presence in your life.

And! I just got it! It isn’t actually that your consciousness is dim, so much as that our vision in 3D is blinded by the intensity of our flashlight consciousness.

Now tie this in to the thoughts that came in recent sessions.

The physical horizons and the time-bounded horizons, and us always at the middle, but the time horizon continually moving us along.

Your flashlight beam illumines intensely within its range; beyond that is the effective horizon.

And you – and our non-3D awareness – are how we “see” beyond our horizons.

Not so much a new thought as a new phrasing of a familiar thought, that will bring in its wake different associations.

So, to return to our starting-point: As information passes from starglow to flashlight-area, it is essential that you be able to receive it, that you not be blinded by the glare of 3D-awareness.

So, slow down, meditate, experience, turn off the association-machine, etc. Just as religious and philosophical and self-development systems have always advised.

In studying any system, you will be obliged to separate practice from theory, perception from rules. If you look at any explanations – including these – as external indicators of a not-necessarily-experienced internal reality, you will not stray so far or so often into error.

Trusting your gut-instinct. Following your intuition. Listening to the small still voice. Hushing the monkey-mind. All ways of advising a practice, despite their different tacked-on explanation or ideology.

 

Horizons, veils, and direct feed (from December, 2017)

[For this one stretch of time, I was dealing not with a more or less unidentified group what I call “the guys,” but with an individual I named Nathaniel.]

Sunday, December 10, 2017

My little meditation yesterday produced four things I jotted down, and would like to pursue at least a bit.

I’ve been thinking that the world isn’t split moment-by-moment by each person’s decisions, but pre-exists with all possible paths existing.

Maybe there aren’t really many physical worlds at the same time,  a la the many-worlds theory of quantum physicists, or as I have thought the guys were saying. Maybe all versions exist in potential, but only one at a time, and the endless caroming of decisions continually changes it – not just going forward, but changing the past, as Seth said. Things continually go out of existence, and continually come into existence. If the world is a light-show continually being altered by millions of decisions, the lights are continually changing. No two moments of the show can ever be the same, since so many decisions are involved. Damn it, the idea is clear in my mind, but I can’t get it into unambiguous description.

[Nathaniel:] Which is exactly our situation, even with the most skillful 3D assistance.

The second insight was that the ever-changing present moment that we live in is the center of a horizon, and it doesn’t matter what moment of our life we are in, we are bounded by that time horizon in the way that we are bounded by distance horizons spatially.

[N:] You may choose to look at that inescapable bubble as a prison without walls, or as life-support allowing you to live in an environment that otherwise would be too alien for you to survive.

The third thought was that what John Tettemer was doing in the Swiss Alps in 1915 or 1916 and that I was doing yesterday is perhaps the same thing. Rather than trying to think about a theme, he was allowing himself to hold the theme in mind and observe what surfaced, not judging it, but paying attention, feeling his way toward it. This was a big leap for a trained intellectual. It went against all his training. As he more or less said, he had spent his whole life accepting other people’s logic and premises, until then. Now he was receiving direct feed and instead of manipulating it to match his pre-existing ideas, he was honoring it, following where it led. Big step for an intellectual, requiring not only the courage but the ability to set aside his acquired intellectual prejudices against the process and the result.

And note, the bias that he had to overcome was primarily not creedal, scriptural, theological, but intellectual. It wasn’t his Catholicism that had to be overcome, but his Aristotelian training. Only when he experienced that life is greater and deeper than philosophy did he enter into a wider world.

The fourth thought that I recorded was merely that the word I am looking for may be “obsessed” in a special sense of the word. In this sense, it is that a way of s—

Well, that’s interesting.

[Nathaniel:] And only clear in connection with the thought about the veil, you see.

Yes. A certain way of seeing the world is in effect a veil through which we see. The world is seen only through that veil, and unless we are able to remove it, we cannot really change our views. Of course, the fact that we remove one veil doesn’t mean there are no others. I doubt we ever see the world pure, because we never see it purely. But direct feed is probably the only way to see beyond the veil.

You still don’t have the word you want, but note that feeling for it, intending toward it, is one way of focusing on the underlying idea that is actually the thing you are looking for.

Perhaps you can spell that out for us?

There is a way of enchanting someone that is not benevolent. Fairy tales are full of stories about enchantment. Why do you suppose that is?

A form of hypnotism like Richard Bach’s story I edited, Hypnotizing Maria?

Yes. But we need to say this carefully, lest you or your readers go off half-cocked. This isn’t a conspiracy theory, nor a reason for panic or despondency.

Your view of the real world is always affected by the present moment you are living in. If you don’t think so, keep a journal and look back a few years.

You don’t need to tell me.

Actually, we do, in a way. You are used to thinking that you change over time. That’s certainly true. But what does it mean? You can’t say it’s continual growth. You certainly can’t say it is logical growth. You can’t say it is meaningless change, either, unless you can believe in chance and disconnection. You don’t grow or change according to some system or some cumulative process. We know it looks that way, but that isn’t it. You grow – even “grow” is misleading; let’s say different versions of you emerge – in response to, in interaction with, the world around you. but, what does that mean? The external unconnected-to-you world that common sense posits? Hardly.

We’re at another point where I feel that there’s a whole log-jam of information waiting for the right peavey.

That’s showing off.

Yeah, it is, a little, but why else do crossword puzzles, if not to pick up useless information? It’s a pretty accurate metaphor, though. I can’t help you by putting it into my own words, because I don’t have the sense of where you’re going with it.

You’re going to have to associate several factors.

• The quality of the present moment always surrounds you like a bubble.
• Everything changes, continually.
• Everything persists; nothing is lost except from the perspective of a limited present-moment, ever-changing-and-passing-away.
• You are not in the bubble alone and isolated and disconnected; you continue to exist in the dimensions beyond 3D; you are always a part of your larger being; you always share strands with your fellow beings.

Add these facts together, and see what you get.

I will think about it – muse on it, like yesterday – later. What I get right away is that the only way to see beyond the distorting veils is direct feed from other parts of ourselves, and I suppose from non-3D helpers who may not be directly a part of us (or may), but are anyway in resonance with us.

Rather, you are in resonance, temporary or permanent, with them. But, yes.

 

Monday, December 4, 2017

Still pursuing the question, why are we on this timeline. I don’t really have it in my head. I trust you have something to tell us today.

The key is to stop considering the subject as if the key to it were 3D-you. It isn’t. The key is connectivity. Once you alter your viewpoint to consider yourself and your own awareness as only a small part of the picture, things straighten out. Thinking of yourselves as autonomous units causes the disorientation.

We continue to come back to one key: “As above, so below.” You are beginning to see how many things this rule of thumb illustrates, but we encourage you to apply it continually, creatively, in exploring, because the universe is coherent, structured, predictable, once you have the approach. In this case, the fact is that the being under discussion may always be considered both as part of a higher community and as the higher self of a community of beings at a lower level of organization.

Once you adopt this point of view, you realize that considering any individual as if it were a totally free agent, able to do whatever it wished, unconstrained by circumstances beyond its own will, is a misunderstanding. Nothing exists in a state of disconnection, either of lostness or of absolute freedom. It can’t possibly be the case that, in a universe without absolute divisions, there could be any absolute separation of anything, no matter how large, no matter how small – and in saying “large” and “small” we refer not so much to physical dimensions as to any and all ways of looking at things. Surely this is obvious, once stated?

Well, if this is so – and we assure you, it is – it should also be clear that nothing can be understood without understanding the context within which it exists. That context is an indivisible part of the thing being considered.

If set out to analyze anything, you are going to have to examine it in isolation. But the better you understand its context, the better you understand it. Looking at a ball bearing in itself will tell you nothing of a particular use for the ball bearing in a machine, for instance.

So if that much is clear, extrapolate. You can’t tell much about a blood cell if you examine only the blood cell (in however much detail) without having in mind its function in a circulatory system. A red blood cell is a unit, and like everything in the universe has consciousness particular to itself, but it is unlikely to comprehend itself as a tiny transient part of a vastly larger function that is comprehensible only on a larger scale. The blood cell’s nature, function, purpose, is only discernible in the context of the higher being whose purpose it serves.

Now, does this mean the cell is being “used” in the sense of being manipulated? Obviously not. You cannot argue that a subsystem is abused or cheated by functioning as it is designed to function. If your blood cell were to achieve “freedom” and isolation from the body it served, what good would that do the cell? It would be of no use; its existence would be literally meaningless and in fact absurd.

You’d wind up with a bunch of little Sartres, exclaiming, “Blood cells are a useless passion.”

Of course you would. And at the other extreme, blood cells who imagined that they would be judged by the higher being that they intuited serving would be likely to set up rules for their behavior – as if those rules were not innate and unalterable in the nature of things.

Using blood cells as example does make our own position clear by analogy.

It always will. Do you want to understand something in your life? Find the appropriate analogy at a lower level or higher level, and extrapolate. Not that this won’t steer you wrong sometimes, but that is a function of fallibility, not of an inadequate guide.

Do we need to consider the “freewill” aspect of the blood cell’s situation? I think the context shows us pretty clearly the determining limits of its existence.

The “free will or no free will” debate at your level is meaningless because it assumes an impossible isolation. Tell of your experience with the microscope.

My friend Jim Meissner had a dark-field microscope, which allowed us to examine living blood cells, not only dead cells. A drop of blood on the slide was a fascinating array of mutually interacting creatures, red and white cells. You could see the occasional white cell devour things, for instance.

The white cells appeared to choose, to be attracted in certain directions and then choose how to react. Free will? External direction? The white cell cannot choose to be in a different drop of blood; to a degree it cannot choose whether to react or how to react to the sensed presence of its natural prey. And yet, within these limits, it can, does, and in fact must choose its exact movements, even its larger strategies, so to speak.

Taking a jump here, because this popped into my mind as I was writing that – disobedience?

Continue the analogy. A white cell has its own nature. It lives in an environment it could never escape (and why would it? What would it do, outside the blood stream it was fashioned to play a key role in?) It follows instinct (or, call it the higher self’s purpose) and is fulfilled. But if the white cell turns upon its fellows and begins to rend the cells around it, it ceases to follow its nature and ceases to function as part of a balanced system. There isn’t much point in accusing the cell of moral failing, but in effect it becomes a rogue element.

The same thing happens at your level, and you may if you wish amuse yourselves trying to determine if criminal elements are so because they were born that way or society mis-shaped them or they deliberately said, “Evil, be thou my good.” The fact remains that elements of any system that begin to function as if they themselves were all that mattered become an obstacle to the system and a problem to themselves. However, this doesn’t mean they are an inexplicable error in the system’s design. Any manifestation that is so persistent and that analogously appears in other systems must be considered a part of the system.

Trickster, again.

That’s right. And we will resume from here. Bear it in mind: connectivity.

 

Thursday, December 7, 2017

A major stumbling-block is that you tend to think of the system – any system you analyze – as if it were more static than it is. View it in motion, and things change. Relationships and consequences clarify. So, if you look at 3D life, or “the afterlife,” or “past life reviews,” or past lives themselves – or anything – they look one way if considered as a one-time event, another way if seen as continuing process.

Isolation in space, isolation in time, always distorts the reality you examine. It may be necessary to examine a thing in isolation, but it distorts. So, once you’ve looked at it closely, look at it again in broader context – in time (that is, in repeated sequence), no less than in space (that is, extension).

That is easier to assent to in principle than to comprehend in practice.

Still, it is worth bearing in mind. It will help you understand anything better.

So, in this question of particular timelines. We need to sketch out several things needing to be sketched out in turn.

• What is a decision, and who makes it, for one.
• What a decision actually does; that is, how it affects timelines.
• Why decisions are possible, why they are made, for another.
• How they are made.
• And, not least, how all this is affected by, and affects, other layers of consciousness.

That’s a lot to accomplish, but it seemed better to set out the problem so you would have some idea where we’re headed. How long it takes us to survey the field is of much less concern.

I get that orienting us somehow makes the task easier on your end.

If only in that it reduces anxiety, certainly. Perhaps anxiety isn’t the correct word, but something akin to it, anyway.

I’m not insulted. I get it. It’s easier to trust that you know how to get where you want to go if there is a road map, and it’s easier to believe in the road map’s existence if you cite some landmarks.

So, what is a decision, and who makes it? Probably it won’t astonish you to hear that it makes a difference where you view the situation from. Look at it first from a 3D individual’s point of view, then from the All-D self, then from the larger being of which the 3D being is a part, and watch things change appearance.

• you in 3D are living your life. There comes a moment of choice, large or small. Depending on the magnitude of the apparent immediate importance of the choice, you pay no attention or little attention or really focused attention. Then that decision leads to the next, continually. This process may be paraphrased by saying the choices are made in varying degrees of a mixture of predisposition and deliberate conscious weighing of options.  In the nature of things, most choices, even quite important ones, are made more or less by pre-existing disposition; that is, by habit, by accustomed inclination.

In other words, mostly we don’t do much deciding at all.

Considering yourselves as conscious, aware, individuals, that’s right. Mostly you run along the rails your life has set down for you. And this is not only not a problem, it’s how things have to be (considered as a system), if you think of it. To consciously decide every little detail of your life would be exhausting, like having to concentrate to tie your shoes or write your name or sip your coffee. That’s what habit is, after all, Colin Wilson’s robot that helps you live your life.

• But now look at it a little more deeply. Consider how your day-to-day drifting looks to your All-D self. Its view of your life is wider, longer, in greater depth, in fuller potential extent. Whereas you in 3D mostly do not see your life in perspective (being overshadowed by the perpetually moving present moment), the All-D self always sees it in perspective, even though the perspective is perpetually in motion.

Your All-D self does pay attention to all the little things you can’t be bothered with consciously. It, your wrongly named “unconscious” self, pays attention. It sees future consequences; it keeps in mind past pre-existing conditions. It knows when a step to the right or to the left will make a difference in your life, and it also knows which way you tend to move when it makes no particular difference. You might say that your larger-than-only-3D awareness is always making your decisions for you according to past demonstrated predilections unless you overrule (or confirm) its judgment by 3D-oriented willpower.

• Now look at it from your Sam’s field of view. Sam continually balances input from all its lives. Therefore in effect it has preferences, moment to moment, that your All-D self picks up.

Why “therefore”?

“As above, so below.” Envision your daily life, balancing input. Sam reacts, as you do in your sphere, with preferences for greater or less change, in this or that direction, of this or that level of intensity. It isn’t just one-way feed. Sam is not sitting at the City Desk reading reports and doing nothing. Like a City Desk editor, he reacts to what he reads; he makes decisions, and issues instructions and queries. Don’t carry the illustration too far, but it may help correct the unconscious idea you have (people have) that Sam just sits there reading reports, and doesn’t interfere.

Seems to me that is how Sam’s function has been portrayed to us.

No, it is that only part of the relationship has been sketched, till now. Sequential exposition is a painfully long process.

Now there you have three different levels entering into any potential decision.

• You in 3D mostly don’t decide consciously.
• You as part of your All-D self decide continuously, but mostly by default – “steady on course, straight ahead.”
• And Sam intervenes only at important moments, like you in 3D in a sense, only the moments are likely to be different, and the factors entering into the decision are likely to be very different, and Sam’s preferences have to be expressed via your All-D self, which has to get your 3D attention or acquiescence for at least non-interference.

And that’s enough for the moment.

 

Monday, November 27, 2017

One reader asks a question I have often asked myself.

[Anastasia: “Since all paths and all consequences of our choices/decisions exist at all times, what determines which path/set of consequences our conscious awareness will experience? Why is our every day awareness rooted in one path/timeline and not another, since all of them exist equally, and what determines which path that is?”]

It is important to stop thinking that “the other side” is all-knowing and instantly all-knowing, at that. Yes, all information obviously exists. But your thinking is the equivalent of our saying, from the non-3D, that since the 3D includes all its geography, you should be able to be in Kansas or Siam or Alpha Centauri on command, and right away. Or, since you have the internet, all human knowledge ought to be available to you at one click, whereas, as you well know, there are practical limits to available knowledge that in a sense overrule theoretically wider limits.

You are saying, sometimes a particular bit of information is far enough from the individual or group we connect with to require a bucket-brigade to fetch it, which can take time, even though, as we all know, “on the other side there is no time.”

It is a practical limitation experienced by anybody who has ever communicated with guidance, or non-3D friends or acquaintances, or others in 3D even. It is a limitation that has caused you great anxiety.

Oh yes. At first, when I couldn’t get an answer instantly, I would worry that it was all my imagination, that there was nobody on the other end of the line, etc. But then I thought, if it is my imagination, that still wouldn’t explain why sometimes there would be a delay. Finally I came to accept it as a fact of life, and it made things easier.

But, you see, difficulty in obtaining information or conceptualizations or even ideas says nothing about whether the process is “you” or is “us.” That is why it is a meaningless distinction. As so often, you cannot quite rein in the assumptions of separation that 3D life inculcates.

I see that. By the way: “Siam”? You’ve never heard of Thailand?

Remember, we move in time as you do in space. You might look at our examples as present, past, future, as well.

Well, that’s interesting. So what is your answer to Anastasia’s, and my, question?

The answer to what seems a straight-forward question is difficult to formulate because several background conditions need to be clarified. Unconscious assumptions are perhaps the most tenacious obstacles to new understandings.

Let’s look at the subject from the other end of the microscope/telescope. How does a Sam experience its creatures’ lives? Because, remember, it isn’t really a matter of the Sam waiting for a life to terminate and return to report. It is convenient to talk about the process that way, but it is only a convenience. In truth, consciousness is as undivided by time as it is by space. You may think of yourselves as reporting home every second, just as you think of receiving guidance and feedback every second.

But undivided doesn’t mean instant.

One prime function of 3D life is specifically to slow things down. Perceived separation in time and space allows for analysis, choice and re-choice, alternations.

So, how does your Sam experience your life? Remember, a Sam experiences all its lives moment by moment, continually. It isn’t waiting for reports. It is living those lives, just as you are living them. We know that presents difficulty. “As above, so below” will offer an intuitive analogy. Your blood cells, etc., experience their own lives at their level of consciousness, at the same time that you experience the same life at your level of consciousness. Well, your Sam experiences your life in the way that you experience your constituent cells’ lives, in a combination of awareness and inattention, much as you do. And just as your attention is not limited to your blood cells, neither is a Sam’s attention limited to any one life.

I’m struck by that “combination of awareness and inattention,” as I’m sure you intended I would be.

It merely points out that any given level of consciousness concentrates on one kind of data and absorbs other kinds automatically. Nobody concentrates on everything all the time. That would amount to concentrating on nothing, ever.

So as you – and uncounted other lives Sam has created from its own essence – live your lives, it all flows through channels, you might say. The All-D world is organized. It isn’t just jello, as you were told long ago. The very nature of creation in 3D assures a chain of connection, rather than chaotic omni-connection directly to the Sam, so to speak.

That makes sense if you mean that life is like a tree diagram, with every extension leading backward to its source and forward to its own extension.

That’s the idea, yes. Not jello, not a bureaucracy. Things connect not by rule but by their nature.

But we’re only beginning the answer. This was only the first piece of information. As your hour is up, and there is much more to say, let’s resume this when you are fresh. Come back to the material before you drift out of reach of it, or we shall need to start all over again.

Thursday, November 30, 2017

The question under consideration is why, of all the possible paths in existence for each of us, are we on this one?

We said, remember, that Sam experiences all its creatures’ lives minute by minute, not in summary form afterwards. We made the analogy to your own awareness of your own subsystems with their different level and quality of consciousness. We described reality as being analogous to a decision-tree structure, wherein all relationships are automatic rather than forced; that is, things relate by the nature of what they are, rather than having to conform to some external pressure.

You now have to correct your views – painfully acquired at a different stage of inquiry – of choices, and alternate time-lines, and personal growth. This may have something of the flavor of hauling yourself up by your own bootstraps, as they say, because while believing one thing you need to entertain another thing that will at first seem to contradict it. As always in such situations, the key is to hold your beliefs loosely and see what happens. What you get at any one moment – including this one – need not be your touchstone forever.

When a world, a universe, a reality – call it what you will – is created, all the uncounted either/or decisions anybody could be faced with spring into existence as possibilities. All the possibilities of the situation are implicit at the moment of creation. That doesn’t mean anybody could foresee them all, or would even care to try to do so; it means only that they exist.

I know that you are trying to say something very simple and are concerned that it not be misunderstood. The possibilities that exist are inherent in the structure of the universe. That doesn’t mean they all manifest, merely that they are all potential paths. All possible paths exist in a computer game’s programming, but only one path is manifest at any one time, and it manifests as a direct result of the player’s on-going series of choices.

You have been told that at every decision-point, one version of you takes the “heads” path and another the “tails.” This is true and yet not true, and if we can clear this up, many things will become clearer. The difficulty concerns versions. You have been thinking that every choice is taken both ways at every time, hence resulting in a probability-cloud that balances out (since for every heads taken, there will have been a tails taken). That is true over time – and here is where the difficulty is. That is why we are looking at it from the Sam’s point of view, not the creature’s.

The Sam receives continual feed from all its creatures. This one aspect of its life (that is, the aspect that amounts to its parental role) is not the only aspect there is, but we will confine ourselves to the aspect in the hope of making a clear statement. Only – remember: Your Sam lives through you, yes; but you are not its whole life. It has more things to do than monitor the health of its blood cells, so to speak.

The information the Sam receives changes every moment. Remember that. Nothing is static. All its components – its “children” – potentially interact, which in effect means that nothing is ever settled. When one piece changes, it thereby potentially causes any or all other pieces to change, in direct or indirect reaction to it. And this is considering only pieces of the one Sam, interacting! It doesn’t begin to consider interaction among Sams, nor will we at this time.

Because A over here changes, a different version of B lights up, which may interact not only with A but with undetermined others. The version of Frank’s life that lights up depends partly – maybe largely – on what happens elsewhere.

So far, so good. But we need to go a little bit slowly. You say “version” but actually what lights up may be a decision-point, and that decision-point, considered broadly, may affect many, many versions.

And from our point of view, such a decision point may be a moment of particular consciousness for us?

May cause greater consciousness for that moment, yes. You will in essence “wake up” a bit. You will be more alert, less sleepwalking your way through the action.

I get, though I don’t get the logic of it, that those lit-up choice-points – choices already having been made, and maybe more than once – represent a testing and an opportunity.

It may be easier to grasp if you consider the effects on your present life of “past-life” experiences. By experiences, we don’t mean external events, we mean how that life changed in response to decisions precipitated by those events. Given that those other lives connect with yours, and that you influence each other in this eternal present moment, anything that happens and changes any of you has the potential to change others of you. This much is clear?

I had to realize that all lives share the living present moment. Once I did, my understanding of “past lives” transformed. So, this is clear to me, at least.

Well, can you see now that your previous understanding was a little too static, too fixed? The continuing interaction and continually recurring decisions mean you are, yourself, the probability-cloud that you understood to be the sum of all either/or decisions. That way of looking at it was correct in a limited sense, but it looks different when you concentrate on the interactive nature of things.

Seems to me our ideas on the probability-cloud and all were fed to us via these conversations.

In which your consciousness was an integral factor, and in which scaffolding was constructed that, you were told, was going to be removed at some point.

To make way for more scaffolding.

We don’t know of any other way it can be.

I’m not sure that explains why any of us are on this rather than other possible timelines.

The short answer is, because you are not autistic. Your life is shaped by outside forces as well as by your choice. Once you absorb that you are parts of a much greater whole, some of the limitations and possibilities of your existence will appear in a different light.

 

Sunday, September 23, 2018

Gentlemen? Have we said what you want to say on the subject of creatures and creation?

Not quite. Of course there will always be more to be said about any subject, but even this immediate piece of the larger subject needs capping-off.

Remember, we began with the idea of all the elements of creation singing it into existence.  What we meant by that could not be well understood, though it could be intuited, without explanations. The “little bit at a time” nature of our interaction means we are frequently recapitulating what was said, which is not a bad way of proceeding, but a little slow. If you have read our discussions with attention rather than with half your mind, scanning it for things you might recognize, you will be in a somewhat different place now because of the connections that will have been made or reinforced in your mind.

It is almost too simple and fundamental to say.

• All of creation, is.
• It didn’t exactly come into being (though in a sense it did) but just is. It exists, as you exist. It is no less immortal than you, and no less changeable.
• Creation and creator are different words for different aspects of the same thing. By that, we mean, it is all in how you look at it, whether you are looking at creator or creation.

I’m getting a sense of what you mean, but if there is a clear unambiguous way to say it, I haven’t found it.

Try, anyway. Sometimes rephrasing is all that is needed. Remember, communication is a spark jumping a gap, not a laborious piling up of logic upon logic.

Well, my sense of it is that we think creation and creator are two different things. It appears to be a subject (the creator) working on an object (the creation). You don’t think of a goldfish creating its own bowl, for instance. And yet we do express the essence of this metaphorically, when we say, for instance, that a painter “threw himself into” his painting (“painting” being used here both as noun and verb). We recognize that we as creations are ourselves creative by nature. The trouble is, putting it into words makes it seem like we are only playing with words.

It can be difficult to grasp a new concept. In that intermediate place (belief/doubt) between not-knowing and knowing, sometimes the best you can do is to find a more or less acceptable way to think the unthinkable. (That is, to think something you can’t find a logical excuse for thinking.) Poetic license, or extravagant metaphor, may be a way to do this. But, try again.

All of creation – the underlying realer world, not just this 3D/non-3D world we are familiar with through our senses – exists and always did and presumably always will exist, in whatever form.

No, bringing in the idea of time is a mistake. The ultimate reality of things is deeper than time, so, you can’t accurately say “did exist,” “will exist.” That implies it is subject to a mental condition (time) which is only a relative fact, from the ultimate point of view.

All right, well, disregarding what reality was or will be, it is. Because reality exists, all the parts of reality exist. No, it’s impossible to say it.

Not easy, anyway. Let us try again.

The point we are trying to get across is that the same mind that holds it all is the mind that

• experiences, and
• sets up the experience, and
• observes the experiencing.

So, although it is perhaps necessary for you to think of creator and creation as opposite ends of a polarity, try to understand that they are two words for the same thing. If you can once intuitively grasp what may appear to be a contradiction, you will be living a different life from then on. Everything will change. Or rather, you will change, and everything will appear before you in a different light.

It’s a very hard concept to express in such a way as not to be misinterpreted, twisted by people’s expectations of what they think you’re going to say.

Neither you nor we are the first to experience the difficulty.

And presumably if it could be overcome by clarity of expression, it would have been, repeatedly.

Why so negative? It has been overcome, repeatedly. But no conquest is permanent, and no way of looking at things is the last word to be said. You don’t need to do better than Seth, or better than Jesus or the Buddha or than thousands – millions – of others known and unknown. All that can be asked of anyone is to know as much as you are capable of knowing, and that means living it, not putting it on a stainless-steel laboratory shelf while you continue to lead a contingent half-awake life. The fact that no one statement or conversation or compilation of statements or library can provide a foolproof convincing answer to people’s perplexities is no description of futility. It means only that there is always work to be done, always a new game to be explored.

I’m getting that you have an agenda here that isn’t just clarity of exposition.

Look, clarity of exposition is one of the gifts you bring to the process. But clarity of exposition is part of communication; it is not sufficient in itself. Everything needful has been said many times, in many languages, and in many ways not dependent upon language. But it always needs re-stating, because each new moment is peopled with different minds which have different needs, different means of perception. If you merely get the point across – whatever the point may be at any given time – the rest is not up to you.

Let’s try restating the point one time more.

• You are all creators; you are all created.
• Everything around you is in the same condition, necessarily, regardless of appearances.
• The mountain that exists helps hold the world together in ways that have nothing to do with geography or geology.
• The electrons that fly around inside your computers are no less conscious than you, but it is a consciousness conditioned by its circumstances – which of course may also be said of you.
• Instead of thinking of consciousness in increments (this cat, that person, etc.), think of it as the universal field continually informing the world, and you will find it easier, perhaps, to think of a mountain expressing a certain kind of consciousness.
• All that consciousness sings together. And it doesn’t matter if you think part of the choir is singing flat, it sings.
• It sings the world into continued existence in the eternal changing now.
• So what is the point of divorcing God – or the World-Mind, or whatever name you choose to apply – from the rest of itself, by focusing on the creator aspect and correspondingly downplaying the created aspect?
• Reality is, and it’s all one thing, and guess what, that includes you.

Not to mention the people who give us fits.

Them too. And that’s enough for now.