Blog

Tuesday, April 17, 2018

I made a note to myself last night to suggest that we begin with “present moment everywhere,” unless you have some other path you’d care to tread.

Nothing wrong with starting there. By those words – which now seem pretty cryptic, do they not? – you meant to suggest that we expand a little upon our suggestion (made many times over the years, but not really followed up to any extent) that every passing present moment is alive and interactive.

Not my idea entirely, to begin with “present moment everywhere,” I take it.

Not quite. It may be difficult to put into words, so be prepared with objections, questions, qualifiers.

Anyone reading this, no matter when, and no matter how often at different times you may read it again, are here, now, as Ram Das tried hard to get you to realize. It is always “here,” it is always “now.” Not so hard to understand, right? But then, add to it – not substitute, but add – the fact that that ever-moving present moment does not cease to exist.

Do you want me to hold off until you say a little more before trying for clarifications?

As we go along is fine. State what you got that is implicit in what we just said.

You are meaning, I think, that each given moment exists forever. As you first told us years ago, the past does not cease to exist – when seen from outside 3D space-time – merely because the moving present moment has moved on. So Jan. 10, 1850 is as alive as today, and always will be. We got that, but I’m hearing now that the “moving present moment-ness” also remains there, remains everywhere. And this I had not gotten, and will be interested to see you reconcile.

We may have to do a little surgery on your epicycles as we go. Very well, take the time you intervened in Joseph Smallwood’s life (and disregard the fact that you are increasingly sure that that wasn’t his name. That isn’t important in this context).You, Frank, in the 1990s – on July 4, 1994, intervened in the life of a man in 1863, the same day. You, in what was your present-moment (for when else could you have acted) intervened in his present-moment (for when else could he have reacted).

How can that be?

Similarly, Bob Monroe and various Monroe Lifeline participants intervene from their present-moments to assist people who were in their own present moments, although not confined to 3D.

They needed retrieval because they weren’t aware that they were no longer constrained by 3D.

That’s right. Well, look at those conditions carefully. Can you see that your accepted explanations are a little too much founded in everyday assumptions rather than in your deeper knowings?

I hadn’t, but I’m getting there pretty quickly now. Our own present moment isn’t any more real and distinctive than theirs, it is?

That’s just a little too fast, but you’re on the right track. What happens if we jettison the concept of a moving present-moment, and replace it with a better understanding?

Okay with me, though I can’t quite see what you’re going to replace it with.

If you could see it, why wouldn’t you have done it yourself?

Point. So?

You have been proceeding upon the idea that the present moment is the point of application, the point of power to act. But implicit in this concept (which is correct as far as it goes) is another assumption which is not correct – that all other moments of time are somehow frozen in place, perhaps more like monuments than like living moments. You modified this idea to say that such other moments could be brought to life, so to speak, when in contact with the living present moment – that is, whenever an actor chose in his or her present-moment to interact with that previously-frozen moment. We don’t say you ever quite consciously thought this, but it is implied in what you did think, combined with what you unconsciously assumed.

It looks a lot less reasonable as you restate it.

That concept was your epicycle, that enabled you to move from the conventionally accepted idea of the past and future not existing, and the fleeting present existing for a split-second before also ceasing to exist and being replaced by another transient present. Your epicycle enabled you to move from an unreasonable counter-factual idea to a less unreasonable idea. That’s the nature of epicycles. A politer word is scaffolding, intended to be discarded after they have assisted you to do the job.

So now we say, look at life this way.

• Not, nonexistent past or future with a fleeting moment in the middle, such as your dominant culture still clings to.
• But not, either, a living ever-moving present moment and all possible past and future moments equally in perpetual existence but without the ability to choose that is the outstanding characteristic of moments in the living present.
• Instead, every moment is alive with potential. It isn’t the moment sliding by, but you sliding by, so that wherever you are is what seems to be the uniquely alive present moment.

I’m getting that what I got so many years ago was true; it wasn’t just me making it up.

It was you picking it up. Something you read threw a spark and it ignited something. But spell it out.

The sense I got was that all time exists laid out in space, and that where we are in space – where the planet has carried us – determines where the present moment is.

No, you didn’t think in those terms then. No need to tell what you did think. Tell what you think now. Absorb it and then express it, letting go your previous ideas.

Here’s what I think I see. Let’s imagine outer space as a sheet of paper, and the sun proceeding across the page, dragging the planets with it. As we follow along, our long curving path drags us along the paper, and each place we are dragged to is experienced as the unique moment in time we call the present moment. But we never go back to where we have been; thus we never go back in time. We never proceed in a straight line; thus (I suspect) our lives have patterns associated with cycles rather than with straight lines. Astrology has the idea, only it seems to be concerned primarily with angles formed by various planets, rather than earth’s progression across the paper.

Now, mentally.

Well, as I said, we can’t go back in time, physically. Mentally, we can and do, but we do so while remaining coupled to the body, so we can’t experience any other moment in the same whole-hearted way we do naturally wherever we are dragged to.

And it’s a good thing the hour is up, because I can sense that we’re going to get dragged into deeper waters, here, and I wouldn’t have the energy for the additional hour or more that it will take.

Nevertheless, a good start. A couple of reminders. Your scaffolding served you well. Others may have different scaffolding. It is always well to be gentle in your approach to “helping” others see “the truth.” Kicking down their scaffolding because you can see its provisional nature helps nobody. Merely providing alternative scaffolding is enough. Those who can’t use it won’t, but won’t be harmed by its existence.

 

Wednesday, March 28, 2018

So, my friends, if I have the idea right, you are tying together personal self-development (dealing with our individual issues) and development as a group. But I find, writing this, I am still a bit vague as to the latter.

Instead of thinking of yourselves as individuals only, we are encouraging you to see yourselves as individuals and as communities; similarly we are encouraging you now on a larger scale to see yourselves as individuals and as part of a larger community which is itself also an individual.

Odd. It feels like you’ve said all that, only now it is new ground all over again.

There is a momentary blurring of focus, nothing important. Remember “as above, so below,” and you will see that the blurring comes chiefly from limitations of language that tempt you (and therefore us) to use the same words for different things, and sometimes different words to not recognize the same things. In this case, it is a matter of scale which is being obscured.

Here is the gist of what we mean.

• The 3D human is one level, a collection of strands living together in the 3D crucible, and ultimately either fusing and attaining permanence, or not.
• The All-D human of which the 3D-human is a part is itself both individual and part of a larger being. That is, it is both individual in its own right and it is a strand in a larger being.
• That larger being is itself also part of something still larger, but it passes from our range of vision. We are concerning ourselves with structure as you may experience it practically.

You are sticking to the levels we may directly affect, and that may be directly affected by us.

That’s right. It is important that whether you choose to occupy yourself with effort or with flights of fancy, you know which one you are dealing with. We hate to see you spinning your wheels thinking you are going somewhere. Spinning your wheels may be fun sometimes, or unavoidable in certain conditions, but it is well for you to know whether you are really working out your salvation or are merely running in place, enjoying a daydream (or suffering a nightmare).

So, again: The 3D human, individual yet comprising a community of strands. At another turn of the microscope dial, individual, yet, as an individual, only one strand in something larger.

Why don’t we invent a simple way to distinguish between whether we’re talking about us in one way or in the other?

The disadvantage to doing so is that as soon as we invent names, people will begin to see the distinctions as more absolute than they are. It is a tendency of left-brain sequential processing to exaggerate the individuality and forget the underlying unity. We have been going to some pains to counter that tendency.

Either way, there’s a tradeoff.

However, even your being aware of the constraint aids understanding, so the discussion every so often is not a waste of time. So, to return.

We are currently tying together your lives

• as individuals-in-the-making (that is, experiencing the living-together of the strands that comprise you)
• as pieces-of-the-moment: that is, as part of the 3D world as it is affected by the vast impersonal forces, (most of which you will never experience directly nor even suspect) that are the world).

We encourage you to reread that slowly, encouraging your deepest intuitions to surface, not overruling them with logic or with previous assumptions. What if what we just said is true? How does the statement feel to you? It needs to be weighed as a unit, and not as separate pieces, and some of you will find it very hard to do that. If you find it hard, persist, as long as necessary (that is, repeatedly when you remember to), and the very effort will bring its reward.

The first half, you see, is more or less Rita’s discourses to you, concentrating on the less obvious facets of the 3D experience in its All-D context. The second half is Nathaniel’s, concentrating on the day-to-day struggles of human life and their meaning for you. These are not separate agendas or separate fields of study, but one agenda, one field of study, necessarily considered separately at first and now rewoven.

It is all well and good to study your lives as they appear once you remove some of the epicycles, so to speak. Equally, it is all well and good to study your lives as the battlegrounds among forces and impulses that you experience. But it is far more enlightening to do both at once after the ground has been cleared. Just as the sun rather than the earth is the center of the solar system, the compound being you are continually shaping is and should be the effective center. This is not contradiction; it is expression of the fact that life is both.

I think of Yeats, in this context: “Why does the struggle to attain truth take away our pity, and the struggle to overcome our passions restore it again?”

He was seeing the unity of the two subjects, you see. He wanted to see as profoundly as possible; he also wanted to overcome himself, so to speak. The two tasks sometimes seem contradictory; they may be better seen as reciprocating.

And that is why we have been able to broaden the scope of inquiry, finally. You were given the necessary ideas. You have been living your lives, which is itself instructive, assuming you pay attention. So now we begin to show you how theology sheds light on psychology, and inner work turns out to be outer work as well, and politics and ideology are seen to be not irrelevancies nor “external” (whatever that would be) but illustrations writ large of whatever work is yet undone in each person’s individual case.

Which is enough for the moment.

It felt, as we are going along, as if we were only re-treading familiar ground, yet I see that perhaps we did make relationships a little clearer.

You will find that novelty is not as useful nor as much a sign of progress as one might tend to think. There is value in consolidating what one may think of as familiar territory. After all, you will not be the same person as you do so. you won’t be stepping back into the same river, because that can’t be done.

 

Tuesday, March 27, 2018

At some time you will want to describe what you are learning – or remembering – about the process of communicating via ILC [Intuitive Linked Communication] rather than mediumship or trance-work. It will be worth spelling out in some detail, because for some people it will be the available path in a way that other processes are not.

A dredging operation, I take it.

The material is all there, in past conversations, in your memories, and in what will arise when you hold your mind to the question of the “how” of the process.

Okay, so today?

We continue to encourage anyone reading this to widen your nets. Focus more intensely than ever before, but make your area of focus wider, not narrower.

I get that you want us to learn to do two seemingly contradictory things at the same time. There is ordinary consciousness, different for everyone, somewhat random, somewhat flickering or erratic, somewhat diffuse. Any given person may be highly intense, or less so, or not at all; may be very broadly interested in many things, or less so, or quite limited in scope; may be inclined to be, or less so, or not at all:

• motivated and skilled at prolonged periods of concentration,
• and / or analysis of what is experiences,
• and / or sensitive and reflective to meanings

What it all has in common is probably greater than the differences among us. When we learn to focus our attention upon an object, we concentrate in one way. When we learn to focus our attention-apparatus itself, we concentrate ourselves in a different way, setting the dial of our attention to a certain point regardless of object.

Close enough, although a clarifying image would help greatly.

Well – the first concentrates upon the object on the microscope slide, and the second concentrates on the adjustment the microscope lens is set at.

Better. And we are asking you to learn to focus harder on more. More intensely, on a wider scale. We want to help you to get used to minute examination of a wider field of vision. It isn’t impossible, and it isn’t even particularly difficult once you acquire the knack and the habit, but it does require focused intent, and then practice. Specialists already do the former, and generalists the latter. Now combine the two approaches.

So, we have been examining in detail the reality of your 3D lives in their greater context (“past lives,” strands, Sams, All-D interactions, etc.). Recently we have been widening the focus again, moving into “different” or “unrelated” or “discursive” fields such as theology and ideology and politics. You may be beginning to see how consideration of vast impersonal forces and their interaction with structured All-D minds in their limited context changes the context. Your lives are lived less in thought than in emotion, and we are helping refocus your ideas about life (which can sometimes verge toward relatively lifeless, un-lifelike, abstraction) to better take into account the forces you actually live among.

It will serve each of you to make a very short outline of the pillars of the worldview we have been presenting as you yourself understand it. A skeleton will clarify your understanding if only by the occasional blankness you will experience in connecting gaps in your understanding. This is a way to make it more yours, less a borrowed artifact.

Your religious opinions, your political and ideological opinions, must be taken into account if you are to know yourselves. And if you do not know yourselves to the best of your ability, how can you progress? One can only build upon what one has, and what one has is that which is made conscious to the 3D mind. All the resources of the All-D mind are available, if only through this ILC process, but until something is associated with other things in the living present moment – which is almost a definition of consciousness – it cannot be used, scarcely apprehended.

If you do not inter-associate the contents of your mind, they do not coalesce to form a higher, more complex structure, and that is what we are about, here. In associating what had been separate, you create a platform upon which to climb toward a higher consciousness. Pardon the physical analogy but it is nearly unavoidable.

There would be only limited value in providing a new model of human existence as compound beings living in the 3D crucible if we left it abstract and tidy. Life is neither abstract nor tidy; by design. The material being melted in a retort does not experience the flame as abstract nor as tidy. Instead, it experiences it as very personal: perhaps destructive, perhaps liberating, perhaps both. Well, don’t wall off the untidy reality of your lives and think you have come to a greater understanding. You have, in a way, but, to the degree that you wall off your experiences, you have overspecialized to the point of distortion. A person who is a geologist lives a life that is more than rocks, however fascinating he may find them. Someone suffused in military science, say, will find himself on very different ground should he fall in love, or have an NDE.

So, in brief: Take all that you know of yourself and add it to your microscope’s field of vision. You needn’t – can’t – do it in public. This is between you and yourself. But you can’t lie to yourself and get any benefit from it. Therefore, you now must range beyond our explanations, using them only as guidelines (which is all they have ever been). Now you must bring to light all that is hidden within you, hidden from you, stashed away by you as uncomfortable, unacceptable. And, therefore, you must move into areas you have until now left unexplored.

• If you are religious, you must dare blasphemy.
• If you are secular – still more if you are materialist – you must dare superstition.
• Scientists must move among the unscientific, even anti-scientific mind, as Carl Jung was forced to explore the mentality of the alchemists.
• Mystics must resign themselves to system and order.

A lot of “musts,” and you understand, they are “musts” only if you wish to go that way. No one can force anyone to do the exploration with its attendant growth. It’s up to you. Only, if you do want to go in a certain direction, you must take whatever crops up on the way. You can’t commit and not-commit at the same time. You don’t explore by staying within the confines of what has been mapped out.

To participate in the coming stages, you will need to willingly enter into uncomfortably alien terrain. You don’t need to follow, and you can turn around at any point, but what you can’t do is explore and also stay home unchanged.

The whole world around you will throw up to you all your unthought thoughts, your unacted desires, your unacknowledged predilections. It won’t always tickle. But to understand yourself, to consciously build the requisite base for a more complete and more complex self capable of greater things, there is no other way. Thus, theology. Thus, politics. Thus, your personal psychology and biography, all thrown into the mix.

 

Saturday, August 31, 2019

I am feeling that I still don’t have a handle on what you mean by vast impersonal forces as they refer to us. The sense of it flickers but does not steadily illuminate. Is it beyond us? Beyond me where I am? Does it require other preliminary information?

It butts up against uneasiness in you, so makes little headway. But give it time, it may come.

If you say so.

People who envy your fluency at ILC [Intuitive Linked Communication] perhaps underestimate the lubricating effect of decades of practice on the friction of sensory non-reinforcement.

Care to try that again?

Funny, we were about to say the same thing. Practice makes perfect, is all it amounts to, with the added thought that nothing is as easy and fluid as appears to others. People may not realize that they see what succeeds and not what fails.

I’ve tried to leave in our mistakes and dead-ends, for just that reason; encouragement, and honesty.

Yes, but what of the attempts not worth transcribing, and the times you would have liked to do something but couldn’t? This is not a matter of suppression or even of selection, but of the natural effect of your not printing every thought you ever had, or every notation you ever made. To put it plainly, we are reminding people that nothing is as meaningfully smooth as it may appear, if only because of such natural selection.

You make me sound like Darwin.

Very funny – to quote a friend. Could anyone ever really describe his or her life? Detail every bump? List every book read, every mental connection made, any coinciding event inner and outer? Obviously not, and if it could be done, who would want to read it? The equivalent would be to have a map on a one-to-one scale. As your professor said, so many decades ago, if you had one, where would you store it? The same goes for maps of moments. However, consider expression to be a process of successive compression.

Interesting way to put it. Selective editing, is what I might have said.

Successive compression gives the sense of it a little better.

• First is the living of it,
• then the rough recording of it in memory,
• then perhaps the jotting down of notes as in journal entries,
• then perhaps the transcribing of some of those notes,
• then perhaps the compilation of such notes as articles or books.

Each stage in the communication is a process of selection and arrangement (even if only arrangement by chronology or by topic). It may appear to swell as well as contract, for notes may need to be more fully expressed, but at every stage in the process, fewer items are retained and more are silently discarded as irrelevant, usually unnoticed. Selection produces clarity. A literal transcript of everything would be impossible to produce, and useless. It must be condensed according to the need of the user. And this is an exact description of the process, the nature, and the use of ILC.

I remember how hard it was at first, sensing various possible phrases and meanings, and not knowing which was more accurate. It was strictly private, with no thought of an audience, so it was merely – merely! – a matter of trying to be accurate, yet I often could not tell which of two words or phrases or even, sometimes, directions, was what “the other side” wanted to convey. I learned to go ahead without so much angst, and eventually I realized that intent is more important than exactness. Provided I was intending to do my best, the message would come through.

Eventually you came to see that any of the alternatives would go where we wanted to go – which is what you just said, but we thought it was worth the rephrasing and repetition. Now speak of Jones Very, and you will make our point.

Jones Very was an intuitive, a poet, who came to Emerson with transcriptions (so to speak) which Emerson recognized as genuinely inspired. However, Very would not allow a word to be altered, because, as he said, it was the word of spirit. Emerson is said to have drily remarked that it was clear that spirit didn’t always know how to spell.

Yes. You see, Jones Very was in touch; he received. But he placed too much reverence on the word as he received it, not realizing that he was necessarily part of the process. (Thus, we warned you repeatedly not to treat our words as scripture, but you still aren’t comfortable rephrasing or paraphrasing what you get this way. As if the source that provided would not be available for the editing process!)

Yes, it is that “they’re still part of the editing process” that I didn’t realize. It made for lots of unnecessary scrupulosity. [I used the word to mean too scrupulous: too prone to nit-picking one’s performance. I notice, looking it up on-line, that some people are now defining it as a mental disorder, which figures.]

Intent is the determining characteristic. All else is technique and detail. This, to those who read your reports: Lighten up, free yourselves to receive by realizing that you will always be part of the process; confide that mistakes are always corrected in process, provided sincere unflagging intent to be in genuine and helpful connection. Take this encouragement and go forward.

It’s each person’s job to see what life calls them to do.

It is. It cannot be any other way.  Even if one were to decide to blindly follow another (a path we do not advise!) the decision to follow would of course be the individual’s decision. Even a decision to abdicate is a decision.

 

In June, 2018, I attended the Monroe Institute’s weeklong residential course titled Discovery. The attraction for me was that all participants would be wired up to Mind Mirror software that recorded brainwave patterns during the exercises.

In the very first exercise, which was as much calibration as anything (measuring our base lines), facilitator Judith Pennington was surprised at the level of integration I was able to achieve. When we talked about it, I suggested that it may be because for 20 years I had been accustomed to staying in a slightly altered state (talking to the guys) while not only interacting with them but writing it all down.

After the program ended, we came to my house and she wired me up to see just what the process of talking to the guys looked like electrically. The following transcript of that session may be of interest.

 

Session for Judith Pennington

Friday, June 29, 2018

10:15 a.m. Beginning. Guys, you know what we’re doing here, I know. What would you like to say to Judith and me?

We approve the idea of verification by electronics, although it isn’t necessary, of course, strictly speaking. Yet – it is. There is a type of person – you should know! – who needs to be sure “I’m not just making this up.” Electronic signatures don’t give content but they do give an indication that something is happening.

Now, looking at your whole week at Monroe, you cans see that merely seeing electronic signatures of brainwave activity validated your process to you even though you didn’t really understand what was being measured, nor what it really means.

Yes, I know. Sort of a circular process, I thought. They tell me it’s real and I say, “See, this proves that it’s real.”

Nonetheless, it did help. Your difference from others – or in the case of Dirk, your similarity and difference – shows you in isolation.

Not “isolation,” I think. “In relief”?

Yes. Better.

So subjectively as you know I feel like things changed. To go from a housecat to an eagle is if nothing else great symbolism.

You already knew it was going to be a big week.

True.

Well, must have been a coincidence.

Very funny. Ready for questions?

You can try.

[I had thought to allow Judith to ask questions, but she had none at this time.]

What can you tell me about where I go from here? I get that you want me to write out the gist of the material I have been given all these years, but – beyond that?

It isn’t so much a “beyond that” as a “how to do it.” It begins with seeing yourself differently. You have come to that, this week. Decide and execute. Once you know what you want – and decide to get it – the way clarifies.

Specifically?

There is the speaking aspect – interacting persona to persona, so to speak – and the writing aspect – interacting mind to mind, or, in TMI-speak, mental body to mental body. You can see which one has the potential to reach the largest number of people.

Go at it through the emotions, in other words.

Not exactly. Slow down.

Okay.

Emotions are a part of the persona-to-persona interaction, but that doesn’t mean “emotional” in the sense of drama. It means, your whole essence, who you are in toto – in relation to the given listener – rather than merely mental constructs. Mental constructs can be as valuable as anything else, but they are limited, and that limitation has advantages and disadvantages. On the one hand, it puts things in isolation, eliminating misleading context. On the other hand, the “extraneous” aspects it weeds out may be (necessarily are) important in the overall scheme of things, and their absence results in a distorted picture.

It is a matter of words as sparks versus words as markers.

Yes. Direct speech in someone’s presence – even virtual presence such as a telephone or internet connection – allows for a greater jump of understanding between the two (or more) people. Fixing the speech in writing – still more, in print – reduces, though it does not eliminate, that potential, with the corresponding advantage in permanence of presentation.

So I need to be taking the show on the road, so to speak.

Yes, but virtually does at least as well as physically. Telephone, skype, web seminars, anything that brings it present-tense to present-tense, will serve the purpose. You don’t have to be P.T. Barnum.

Okay, I hear that. A word on process. I am very aware of Judith watching the monitor as I do this, and in the back of my mind I’m wondering, will any of this show? Will it demonstrate that I’m fooling myself? Now, I know it isn’t that, yet the background worry is there. Is there anything to be done besides ignoring it?

Just remember the doubt as part of the process. If you still occasionally doubt in unusual circumstances after 25 years, what must the person trying it for the first time (on faith, so to speak), experience? Remember that and allow for it.

Allow for it, how?

To a great extent, merely mentioning the problem reassures people that you are not qualitatively different from them, and so reduces the perceived distance they have to go.

Okay. I can’t understand how we can have covered so many pages in 20 minutes.

Perhaps you are a bit hyper being under observation.

Hmm. Maybe so. All right.

[Later when we looked at the charts, we saw a difference right here. My energy became less spiky, and more normal.]

 Can we talk about housecats and eagles? [Two images of myself that came up during exercises.]

Housecats balance energies unnoticed. Self-contained, alert, curious, they interact without much being interfered with. Eagles live away from everyday human activity and may serve more as a symbol of freedom and flight than as an everyday part of life. But both have their place. What you really want to see is the movement from seeing yourself as a housecat to seeing yourself as an eagle. The progression is a different thing from either given state.

Your life becomes less your own, and becomes at the same time of more consequence. People tend to hang their drama upon symbols, and, as you learned from watching Hemingway, public attention can be like the drag of a fishhook in a fish’s mouth.

Gary Powell is facing that concern.

It isn’t a unique problem. Life involves tradeoffs.

Somehow during the program – I’ll have to look back among my notes to remember how – I changed my image of things. Seeing myself as “a point of awareness extending” means that past lives, etc., are all part of my extended being.

You will find it much less constricting. You are already living as if; now you will live not as if, but as.

I think I’ll bring this to an end (I’m tired), unless you have more you’d like to say.

No, enough for now. Good work. Be well.

Thanks, and you.

[I then told Judith that I was ready to quit, and she had something for me to ask.]

Judith has a question. “What are the conversations that I’ve been listening to just now?”

Your framework has been slipping, so to speak, just as Frank’s. You are no longer seeing yourself as separate in the way you did previously – if only from sitting among so much evidence to the contrary all week. You are so much more than your consciously identified presence – “Judith” – and your awareness is now extending to be more conscious – more actively conscious – of interacting continuously with those other elements. At first they will seem to be “other” but in time they become familiar.

“Is this the astral realm that I’ve been listening to?”

To say yes or no would be to implicitly affirm a way of seeing the world that we do not share. Let’s say merely that you are experiencing greater range of —

“Range of motion” isn’t right. What is?

Greater range, let’s leave it at that.

[end 10:55 a.m.]

 

In the past 120 years or so, science has come a long way toward overthrowing all the theoretical bulwarks of the materialist way of seeing things. The guys upstairs must be smiling. In the absence of a functioning website at the moment, here’s a place-holder:

 

https://www.schwartzreport.net/2023/01/31/why-more-physicists-are-starting-to-think-space-and-time-are-illusions/