Hemingway and Thoreau, a comparison

Thursday, August 5, 2010

3:10 AM. Reporting for duty, sir. (Mainly because I couldn’t sleep any longer.)

You haven’t been making note of questions and potential areas of concern, and so you don’t have the next easy step you might have.

True. I don’t know where the time goes after I read this in and send it out. It isn’t like I have a social life.

No, but it also isn’t like you are as systematic as you might be, and ought to be. Routine will be your salvation, if you will let it be.

Even such a thing as a notebook for questions, handled right, would be a help.

Of course. Now, yesterday you were very tired, and took a recuperative day. That’s one thing. But losing the time you intend for work would be another thing.

I have this sense of time always passing. I always have had it. Years ago – well, no need to re-tell it. I just always feel the ticking clock.

You do – and you also lose yourself in a book or a pursuit and forget the ticking clock. The two extremes define and bound your life.

So, is today’s topic the work I don’t do?

Like your brother’s joke – what would you like it to be?

Fair question. This book I’m reading, The Hemingway Women, is reassuring me that the things I am getting are right – the cause of Hadley’s quarrel when Hemingway went to the Greek-Turk war in 1922, for instance. It was very reassuring.

Yes, and then you heard yourself thinking of Hemingway and referring to him, in an imaginary conversation, as Henry. Which brought you up short.

Of course it did. To me, there’s only one Henry, and it ain’t Ford! But what do Henry Thoreau and Ernest Hemingway have in common?

You might list of their similarities and their contrasts. And you might bear in mind that although everything means something, it doesn’t necessarily mean what it may at first glance appear to mean.

Yes, well, a good approach. I was afraid to ask directly. Still am, I see. I wouldn’t be able to trust the answer.

Just ask an emotionally easier question. Such as, why?

Well, let’s start with making a list. They both loved the land, the outdoors. Both voracious readers. Both meticulous observers, close craftsman of words, highly individual writing styles. Both knew how to do things. They were skilled with their hands as well as with their minds. Both interminably self-educating. Both, I would say, spiritually present. It expressed differently.

But the differences are striking.

Thoreau versus Hemingway

No experience of warfare. No experience of sexuality. No marriage. No pursuit of fame. No active pursuit of writing as career. Active spiritual connection. Rejection of Catholicism. Read several languages. Almost no foreign travel. Not superstitious. Pursued by tuberculosis. No history of physical accidents. No children. Only a very limited fame

Yet I am not approaching the nub of this. All right, how stupid. Ask! (It’s what I remind other people to do. Don’t ask rhetorical questions, or try to figure it out, ask.) So, Ernest, how would you compare and contrast the two lives?

You have read that I passed over the Transcendentalists as dried-up intellectuals who were too spiritual for their own good. They didn’t speak to me. When I thought of great American writers, I thought of great writers of fiction, for one thing, not essayists, and that is how I saw them, as essayists. Essayists, moralists, safe village-people, or anyway New England people. It got all mixed up in my mind with my mother’s pride of English ancestry.

I don’t remember your reaction to Melville.

I only looked at Moby Dick. If I had read White Jacket, say, I might have realized that here was a kindred soul, or Omoo. And if I had gotten far enough into Moby Dick to see what he was driving at, maybe I would have been captured by him too. But his style was so different, and his metaphysical attitude, and his plot was so slight – so little cargo for all that sail, you might say. Now, of course I know what you know of him, so he looks radically different. Bartleby the scrivener was looking for a clean well-lighted place himself. But I didn’t know. And to return to Thoreau’s work, there was no entry-point for me. Even Walden smelled of the writer’s midnight oil, to me. It kept me from pursuing the man, nor did I believe in life-to-life communication.

So if you look at him and you now —

Henry Thoreau was born a lot longer before I was than one generation, or even two. Do the arithmetic. He was born in 1817, I in 1899. He died in 1862, still a long generation before me.

Well, he’s farther from me – nearly 130 years – but it didn’t stand in the way.

It would have, if you had been less steeped in history and if you hadn’t been pointed toward him! I was not. Anyway, his life was a secular equivalent of a lay brother of the Middle Ages. He was raised a Protestant, in a country that associated Protestantism with political and intellectual freedom, so he would have been incredulous if you’d told him so, but basically he was a good Catholic. Not a Catholic of the 19th century, of course, but of the Middle Ages. He was also a very modern American, pre-industrial and post-industrial, as you noted long ago.

I don’t think Henry would agree to being called a Catholic!

Ask him.

That’s a thought. Friend Henry?

Make note of this three-way conversation. It won’t be the last. Such interaction is one more possibility you are to demonstrate, so that others may do it and so much more.

That would be nice. That would be an accomplishment.

Showing the way; that is your function. So many of you, in your time, have that function. You encourage each other, because you coordinate on this side, and because your time so badly needs showing. So badly, and so well.

It would not be wrong to think of me as consisting of many strands, several of which were contradictory, needing to be reconciled. The living of a life reconciling them thus opened up new possibilities for others, by providing a model. You understand, we’re not talking here of reputation or observed example. More like a template. Once do anything, and it becomes easier for others to do it.

Sounds like the morphic resonance fields I have heard about, although I haven’t actually read about the theory.

Leading theory aside, the fact is that anyone’s life is an exercise in living contradictions without letting the contradictions destroy the temporary container. For some this is easy because the range of contradictions is not wide, or because they live mostly unconscious of the contradictions and so they work themselves out more or less automatically, at a lower pressure, so to speak. But others hold together great forces under terrific pressure – as Ernest did – and the results may be fruitful and the cost to the container considerable. In my case, I chose a quiet life surrounded by my family who loved me and supported me by believing in me and letting me go my own way. I mean my parents and sisters – and [brother] John, of course, while he lived.

My uncomprehending aunts served to remind me that not everybody grew up with my particular parents! I was fortunate in my family circumstances, and in Concord, as provincial as it was, and of course in Emerson setting up shop nearby and thereby opening so many doors for me by his recognition and his acquaintances and even his human failings.

My career did not take off in the way my talents would have seemed – and did seem – to indicate. Emerson was impatient with this, thinking it the result of my lack of ambition. But there was no immediate outlet for what I knew; only a very few people could hear. And when I published Walden and it wasn’t seen, I realized it. That lack of fame, that quiet life, that continual contentment, provided the external counter-pressure (though you might not think of it as pressure so much as lack of pressure) to the otherwise overwhelming force of internal contradictions.

Now look at my life and Ernest’s and see the difference. His life was lived in public, under great and partly self-created pressure. He attained fame by the time he was 25, at a time when I remained unknown and still undeveloped. His war, his rebellion against his parents and his surroundings, his thirst for fame and achievement, the intensity of his romances and friendships, his insatiable desire to learn and become expert in various fields, all added to (and also publicly expressed) the pressure. That pressure blew off, continually, in emotional explosions, in irritability, in manias.

It’s just one more example of how no one can adequately judge another’s life. What look like character flaws – the explosions, the suspicions, the irrational fears, the excesses of food and drink and other things – look different, do they not, if seen as the relief of invisible but unrelenting pressure.

Yes. And so you deliberately kept your own pressure lower?

Not entirely consciously. For one thing I was (consciously) a child of my times, which meant in my case a child not only of 19th-century New England but of New England’s mental universe, which was largely English and, among the educated class, Latin and Greek. That is a very different background. Also we had no Internet, no telephone, no electricity, no radio or television or – until my later years – telegraphed newspaper news. Our world moved much slower than his than his did yours. We chewed fewer things, but chewed them well.

Looking back, I see that we started this by Ernest saying you were a medieval Catholic.

It is curious – is it not? – that until this minute you should have forgotten H.S. Salt’s specific comparison of my life and St. Francis of Assisi’s.

Very curious, not to say suspicious, indeed. I read that book and was persuaded by it, decades ago. Wasn’t thinking of it. So you agree?

I agree to it being one strand of the bundle, as it is one strand of yours, and of Ernest’s. But to take one strand to represent the bundle, or to equate any two bundles because each contains the same strand would be intellectually slipshod.

And so, when I was mentally led – blindsided, in fact – to calling him Henry, perhaps I was having my attention called to this thread, or strand, we hold in common?

It bears further examination. But your time is long since up.

Yes, it is twenty of five. I’ve been at this an hour and a half, though it doesn’t seem like I’ve accomplished all that much this time.

Your ambition grows as it expects more and takes more for granted. Faithfulness is all.

I know. “Righteous persistence brings reward.”

Well, doesn’t it?

Seems like it. All right, thank you both.

TGU on the purpose of life in 3D

Monday, October 21, 2019

4:15 a.m. Okay, guys, if you know where you left off, here we are.

Take our advice and live, as much as your composition allows you, in trust. Trust the world, trust your life, trust your selves. “Trust” does not mean “blindly accept,” nor “refuse to plan,” nor “define away obstacles, contradictions, suffering.” It means, accept what comes and deal with that, rather than squander energy and passion on what amounts to a temper tantrum to the effect of “This isn’t what I want!” Trust that anything and everything that comes to you – or, equally, that you come to – is neither accident nor the result of malice. This simple but profound orientation will smooth your way remarkably, no matter how rough the way that remains.

  • It isn’t your life; it is life that has been lent to you as an opportunity.
  • You cannot lose anything but by your own consent, for it is never what “happens” to you but how you react – first-tier, second-tier, third-tier results.
  • The rules to a successful life are few and they are well-known. Love, be helpful, live your life and not someone else’s.
  • You cannot lose anything in life, because you haven’t any “skin in the game,” as they say. You are playing with borrowed money that you will not need to repay, and neither your winnings nor your losses will accompany you beyond the grave.
  • That said, the “skin in the game” that you do have is, again, how you allow the life to change you. Not the 3D-life-you; the real, underlying, you.

But we can’t really lose there either.

No, you can’t. We can’t. Your 3D life is important as the crucible in which you may (or may not) forge your soul, as James Joyce had Stephen Daedalus put it, but it is not important (because the situation is not real) as a critical part of 3D external life, or as you in that external life.

If I understand that last point, you are saying the soul who played Thomas Jefferson, say, or James Madison, although their external life affected 3D history (and hence the environment their successors in history experienced), nonetheless came into 3D for their own purposes, their own development, and the external roles were part of that development but were not instead of that development.

Let us explain your explanation, just a bit; clarify your clarification. Said more carefully it is this. Any of you may and indeed must affect your environment – mostly, those who come to know you – although relatively few of you will achieve notoriety, let alone fame. Regardless of how greatly or how little your effect on what is called “history,” your life in 3D is about your life, your choices, your reaction to what appears via time and space, because you and your concerns far transcend 3D life. It is the loss of a sense of this reality that has poisoned East and West alike, and is shaking things to pieces as a necessary preparation.

Razing the old buildings; clearing the ground.

Precisely so. Destruction is not “evil” even in the context of construction. It is all part of a reciprocating process, as usual in 3D.

  • Because your life is about you, regardless in what context (that is, regardless what you work at), you are the center of your universe, and rightly so.
  • However, this is so, and rightly so, for everyone else, as well. In effect, 3D life is also polycentric.
  • The only balanced position is that life is both all about you, and all about everyone but Not one or the other; both. Not one now and the other later; both.

I take this to mean, our moment-to-moment lives should be living in love.

We don’t say it is natural for all. For some, yes; for others, effectively impossible; for most, somewhere in between the extremes, but yes, this is the ideal stance, as you have been told, and as many of you present and past have experienced first-hand. Again – we feel obliged to strum this chord repeatedly because it is so neglected in your time, and meets such instinctive resistance – look to your scriptures. It does not matter what set of scriptures are most compatible for you, you will find they say the same things, as indeed one would expect unless one fantasized that scriptures could be arbitrary.

I remember well coming to a book of Sufi scriptures some 15 years ago and feeling such a sense of relief, of coming home.

Everyone can find a home; it is a matter of being open and allowing them to appear, for of course your non-3D component, not being limited in time and space, knows how to find what you need, when you need it.

You will notice, our abiding theme is that there is a practical truth to be found, and that it can be found only where it is by nature, not where you want it to be or even need it to be. If reality does not conform to what you want it to be, which do you suppose will work better, railing against it for not being as you wish, or accepting it as a guide to more effective living?

Offhand, I’d say Muhammad is better off going to the mountain.

So would we. This doesn’t mean approving of  “the way things are.” It means, seeing things as they are rather than as they appear through a screen of filers and prejudices. But the point we would insist on is, you will not be able to make sense of your 3D life if you insist that it not extend beyond 3D limits.

Life is about more than a 3D life.

More than about this 3D life, or any and all of one’s 3D lives. More than all 3D lives ever lived and ever to be lived, in fact. The halftime show is not the game – not that this is meant as analogy, only as spark.

I’ll forgive you for bringing in football, since you hastened to take it out again.

However, it is a good image. 3D life, judged from within 3D life, particularly if judged only by the seemingly objective evidence allowed that does not admit to extension beyond 3D life, will look like a complete report that amounts to meaninglessness or to some somewhat arbitrary meaning. It will never satisfy, not really, because part of you knows better, no matter what your surface beliefs.

We repeat, 3D life is all about you, and all about everyone but you, and it is never about 3D life in and of itself as it appears, rather than as it really is, extending beyond time, beyond (3D) space.

And we repeat, find the scriptures that speak to you, if you want to find resources in depth.

Enough for the moment. Again, a shorter session, but again, a complete thought.

Okay, our thanks as always. My personal recommendation, since I can’t remember the title of that book I had that contained scriptures from seven (I think) religions, is Essential Sufism, James Fadiman and Robert Frager, eds. Castle Books, 1997.


Hints about non-3D communication

Tuesday, August 3, 2010

3 AM. Meant to note, at the presentation Sunday a woman saw me surrounded by presences – in the form of lights, I think she said – which I took and take to be the guys.

And the idea you just received is a valid one – you could have someone photograph you with a digital camera and get some interesting portraits with your friends if you call them for the occasion. Or, if you call David, John, Joseph, Bertram etc. successively you might be able to get photos of them with you, although theirs would be like a superimposed blurry or pale image. You could take a photo in your bathroom mirror.

7 AM. All right, late start today. Who’s on first?

If Abbott and Costello couldn’t figure it out, you and I aren’t going to.

Say more. I don’t have you yet.

It’s Tuesday morning in early August. You’ve been doing this all of July, all of June and May at a couple of days of April. That’s a lot of time to get used to the feel of a certain voice.

Well, if it’s you, Ernest, it doesn’t quite feel like you.

As you have noted and explained, the TGU concept has served you extremely well over the years, by rendering identification unnecessary.

All right, well, what’s today’s subject, or is it up to me? I’m tempted to ask what is it that’s going to happen today.

Disclosure, of a sort, but not of a sort anyone is expecting.

Going to say more about that?

No, because there’s no point in trying to describe a snowfall to one who has no experience of snow. Also, remember Rita’s description of her attempts to contact the future, how she continually readjusted anything that came, to stick to the probable? We laughed at her logic, and she did too when she realized what she had been doing. You’d be doing the same thing. There’s no need to try to predict as a way of being sure we didn’t say anything that didn’t come to pass. And there is no reason to move into guesswork instead of reception, which is about what would happen.

All right. So we’ll see. I did get that Barack Obama is too well protected to be killed. And I certainly hope so.

Oh yes. Been there, done that.

[Again, as yesterday with Rita, a voice and a phrase I recognized immediately.] Joyce?

How are you? That’s merely a social convention, but you know us Southerners.

Joyce, very nice to hear from you. I didn’t realize we were working together. Or are you here for a particular reason?

You have so many of us helping you, and of course you aren’t aware of most of us, and often enough aren’t aware of any of us. There isn’t anything wrong with that, I’m just pointing it out. You’re the focus of a tremendous lot of attention because of what you’re doing.

Well, then probably we ought to keep on doing it, huh?

Probably a good idea, yes.

So what in particular, my lovely friend?

I’ll bet you say that to all the spirits.

Laughing. When you find an approach that works –

Frank, I just want to particularly encourage you. You could ratchet up what you’re doing very easily merely by posting daily on the Monroe list and encouraging any and all to re-post to their own lists, and you could post every day’s, as it comes, on your blog. The reason – or one reason, anyway – is that your changes are coming so quickly that no one will be able to follow them without journeying along with you, and this was never intended by you here or you there to be only a private voyage of discovery. You made up a conversation between Angelo and Claire [in Babe In The Woods] about being Columbus and not shrinking from the implications – so maybe it wasn’t you who made it up. Or, as you always say, why do you suppose you made up that instead of something else?

So I should – or could, anyway; I do recognize the distinction – post as we go as well as put it all together in a more organized form?

It’s right-brain/left-brain in a way. Any given day’s catch is an experience unto itself even if it consists of a logical explanation of some facet of something. The detailed analysis and interrelation of the various separate elements is an act of synthesis such as the left-brain was fashioned to be able to provide. So, each has its rightful place.

All right. And that will solve the problem of feeding the blog, nicely, won’t it?

You can’t know what you’re in the middle of starting (not that anyone can, ever) because what you do is interrelated on a global and beyond-global scale with what everyone else does. One fisherman in the North Atlantic probably isn’t aware of his part – or let’s say isn’t aware of the total pattern of which his life is a part. And that “probably” was for the sake of ironic emphasis.

You, nor anyone reading what you post, whether they read it right away or after a long delay, can have much idea of how you fit into the larger scheme of things. Fortunately you and they don’t need to know. It would be a fine thing if something impossible were necessary, wouldn’t it?

Encouragement for the troops, eh?

Don’t you all deserve it? Don’t you sometimes need it, and don’t you usually appreciate it?

All encouragement gladly accepted. I certainly try to encourage people. I spent years without it, or anyway without recognizing it; I know its value.

So –

You can see what a creature of habit you are, and how even necessary changes in habit [I was away from home as I took this entry in my journal] deprive you – deprive one – of a certain support.

I wish I’d recognized it early in life!

Well, things take as long as they take.

I never knew whose advice was good, or what commonly accepted advice pertained to me.

You can see, being totally at sea has its advantages and its disadvantages. If you don’t know where you are or where you are headed or even where you came from – a pretty good description of everyday life in any case – it’s harder to stick to one course, but it does mean you may discover some previously unknown island.

Yes, if you don’t die of hunger and thirst, and your crew doesn’t mutiny, and you have a ship that doesn’t founder, etc.

Ernest told you, there’s a complaints desk somewhere.

No doubt. So are we just floundering around this morning or is there something more pointed?

You can always ask a question. The message I wanted to deliver, I delivered.

All right, I do appreciate it – and shall I pass on your best wishes to a certain mutual friend?

No need. We can do that ourselves.


Evil and the 3D world

Friday, October 18, 2019

4 a.m. All right, continuing. Why should evil manifest in 3D? Where does it come from? Is it inevitable? And, depending upon the answers – how should we deal with it?

And in considering such deep questions, it is as well to breathe deeply, relax as deeply as you can, mentally as well as physically, and allow, because bringing answers in is going to create stress – stress for you, Frank, in this instance, and stress for those who read what is produced and have to decide what they think of it. For this is an unusually charged subject, associating within your minds with large numbers of important belief systems, some of which may become threatened.

Bruce Moen used to talk about belief system crashes, and cascading belief system crashes.

That’s the threat – the perceived threat – exactly. And it is just that threat that sometimes leads people to refuse to consider propositions that others find quite reasonable, or even obvious. Again, realize as best you can that most of your mental processing takes place well beneath your consciousness threshold, just as is the case for your perceptions.

And I hear you saying, it has to be this way.

It does unless you can re-invent your representation of the world every time you wake up, every time you think a thought or smell an aroma or need to react to any form of stimulus. It will become obvious to you if you think about it. But that isn’t what we’re here to discuss today. We merely remind you, allow the discussion before judging it.

Will try. I got an email from an old friend I don’t hear from much anymore, saying he reads these sessions even if he doesn’t usually comment, and I found it enormously encouraging. But the point is, he said, jokingly, “And here I thought it was the devil’s fault.” Which reminds me to bring up that topic. But, I get, not now.

No, not now. It is important to discuss various ways people have seen the process of the transmission of evil into the 3D world, but it is equally important that we not adopt any of those schemes in our discussion. If the older schemes worked in your new emerging situation, there wouldn’t be a need for new expressions, would there? Even using words like “evil” and “sin” is difficult to do neutrally, because they are so charged from centuries of use within a different scheme.

Another problem you have, I imagine, is that so many people have so many different reactions, stemming from their backgrounds, that what may aid one may be a stumbling-block for another.

This is not a new concern, but of course it becomes more prominent as a problem when the subject is more charged. So, breathe.

You don’t need to give that advice to an asthmatic!

Au contraire, who needs it more? But, to proceed.

  • 3D life may be considered to be a series of concentrated reactions to situations.
  • As in any explosion, the nature of the result is inherent in the mixture of ingredients.
  • Just as a potentially explosive situation may exist for a long time in 3D, so in the non-3D.
  • The 3D world’s existence might be looked at as the equivalent to a refinery’s continual burning-off of natural gas.
  • Explosions may be destructive or may be harnessed as in the internal combustion engine.

That is a very interesting set of images, and if I am not mistaken, you are in the process of telling us that  our ideas of evil are all to some extent correct, even those that contradict each other.

Nothing new in that. Partial views always seem to contradict what they truncate.

So, pray, enlighten us.

Well, you can begin to draw your conclusions by meditating on the images and analogies. Your own cogitations will be more persuasive to you than will our statements.

If we were to leave it at this, it would be one of our all-time shortest sessions, though!

There might be value in that, as well. But we didn’t intend to stop, merely to say, the headlines strategy assumes that the reader will ponder, not merely read and immediately decide to accept or reject.

I think that is what happens, often enough, particularly as people decide “Oh, that’s nothing new, that’s just X.”

Yes. Can’t be helped. In such cases, though, one’s own non-3D component is there to prod or irritate or inspire, when it is desirable that one actually pause and consider. Otherwise no new material could get through the invisible automatically operating filters.

  • Non-3D conditions allow all elements to co-exist indefinitely. 3D conditions promote and often demand resolution.
  • What is the importance of the 3D crucible, after all, if not to facilitate resolution?
  • Chemistry labs do not cease to exist after chemical processes are allowed to culminate.

Sometimes they do, I’ll bet!

Yes, we’re smiling too, but the non-3D does not blow up the 3D through inadvertence, or malice. That isn’t something to worry about.

  • Chemical explosions, or reactions, or combinations – whatever their nature – do not bring the world to an end. Neither do 3D events.
  • However, if you yourself are part of the chemical equation –

Care to try that one again?

[False start]

All 3D creatures born of sexual reproduction – that is, all compound beings – are themselves observers in the laboratory, and are the chemicals being combined, and are the environment in which the combinations occur. That is, you have no independent place to stand: Your existence is experienced as part of the explosion, or transformation, or whatever. Yet, you are also continuing, regardless what happens, so in that sense you do have an independent place to stand. You are and are not an intrinsic part of 3D conditions; are and are not heavily invested in what happens there. You do and do not affect your non-3D components, and therefore the non-3D, by what you experience in 3D life, such experience including, obviously, your decisions and reactions as things unfold. [Note on transcribing: If you find this sentence hard to parse, put “and therefore the non-3D” in parens and see if that doesn’t clarify it for you.]

So, you cannot expect to see the world clearly; not your surroundings; not your life, not your nature, not your purpose. Of course it is going to seem chaotic. In a sense it is chaotic. But there is a part of you that is beyond your 3D experience, and this part does not lose its head, does not lose its equilibrium.

Let us pause here, a little early, as this is one complete image to be considered.

Very well. Our thanks as always for adding so much interest to our lives. I certainly speak for myself, but, I think, for others too.


About the process of working — and a surprise

Monday, August 2, 2010

5 AM. Yesterday worked out all right, and I didn’t get a bad night’s sleep. I’m regretfully concluding that sleeping with the windows open may be a problem. At least, not doing so has alleviated the problem, maybe.

Open for business, papa?

Not now — I’m busy re-running those Star Trek episodes.

That one got a chuckle, not quite a laugh out loud. I can see you couldn’t watch Shatner if you kept kosher. Or maybe his director thought he needed to be that way to be “dramatic.”

Or maybe they never put the thought into their performances that you are assuming they did. Like Bogart and his leading lady in Casablanca, they figured it was just a job, not art.

Now why would I — let alone you — be unable to bring in her name? Ingrid Bergman? It isn’t like it isn’t something entirely familiar to me. How many times have I seen Casablanca, after all, twenty? Yet there was this blank and I just covered it with “his leading lady” and kept moving, so the gears wouldn’t clog up. But — can you give me a clue? The same thing happened years ago with Joseph Smallwood being unable to remember Missionary Ridge or Hood instead of Bragg, and I couldn’t figure out why — but in this case not only could you not have forgotten her name, but neither could I — yet when I reached for it, that name was not there.

It’s out of my league. Add it to your list of questions — which you have been neglecting to keep.

All right, I wrote it down.

Write down enough of them, and you’ll be able to sort them into categories, and the sorting will bring out enough relationships to half answer them. You’ve acquired many more than you suspect, in the course of the past few years.

Now, a word about your writing.

I know what’s coming.

Feel like you’re about to be Dutch Uncle’d?

Feeling like I deserve to be, maybe.

No, it isn’t quite that we regret that you aren’t working better and longer. What you have systematized is working well. At how many points in your life would you have been able and willing to get up in the darkness and write away into daylight, communicating? And by immediately reading it into your computer, you have preserved the record in written form — typed form, we mean — thus accomplishing step two right away and not adding another pile of backed-up work to the pile. Sending it to your friends has acted to prod you gently to accomplish so much the more. But now that you have provided headers for all the sessions, you need to start working on the next part without waiting for this process to end, unless you want this process to end — and we know you don’t.

No, I sure don’t. So — a certain amount of time daily doing a different kind of work?

It’s only an analogy, but — think of how you told your group yesterday how to go about receiving messages. First have a question, then receive it (go into receptive mode), then report some of it (moving into the more active mode of writing it down), then return for more, asking more questions if need be. Writing all this isn’t that much different. And in fact this provides a kickoff place for a brief lecture, as much to your readers (and potential collaborators) as to you yourself — but no more so.

That process — reception, reporting, analysis — is a natural rhythm. Repeated, referencing previous understandings (and incomprehensions, too) in the formulation of new questions, it will assist you to penetrate continually deeper into whatever subject matter you may choose (or may be led into). But you must work. Or rather, you must work if you wish to progress.

Some people use journals, and some use them for one reason and others for others — and many use them now for this and now for that reason. They are very handy but of course there is nothing sacred about the means of communication. Others may prefer the computer, or notes, or sketches. We do suggest that you employ some medium to leave a trail, not for the sake of an historical record but so that you will have anchors for yourselves — for consider your situation.

You live continually moving — carried along the eternal present, so that today’s conditions are not yesterday’s, nor tomorrow’s, nor one minute’s or the next’s. Continuity is thus in the non-physical hands of your higher self, your unconscious as you call it. Have you ever thought about that? How much continuity can a present-moment consciousness provide? That’s why people make lists and use appointments calendars, after all.

Your thoughts, your emotions, your daily routines often, fluctuate unobserved, you identifying with each in turn. Nothing wrong with it — that is the nature of life in the physical. But it means that it’s easy for you to lose track. Hansel and Gretel tried breadcrumbs. They learned that it’s better to use something not subject to being carried away, like stones, the very symbol of permanence and imperishability. If you wish to preserve a trail for yourselves, we suggest something less perishable than access to memory. The memory itself can never die, but if you lose access to it, how much good can it do you? So, some record of your work is worthwhile. Even if the record is kept in habit, that is very valuable. What is sitting-zen but a reminder of purpose, by the very act of once again sitting? End of lecture.

Looking back, I think to wonder if everybody will get my joke about Shatner’s acting. He strikes me, in these early episodes, as a terrible ham. Okay, that itch is scratched. Next?

Yes, well, looking back we wish to remind you that the lecture interrupted a lecture. If you want to make this process a continuing series instead of a burst of information/interaction followed by digestion followed by another burst, you need to be spending some time organizing past material as you go. Otherwise you will keep doing research forever and never write the report.

[And this voice I recognized!] Rita?

[Rita Warren] Surprised? I’ve been among your “guys” for a while now, but not identified so as not to distract you.

Well, I can say it’s a distraction! So, how are you?

I’m having a ball, as I told you I would.

Yes, you’re doing research in all directions and delegating me to do the reporting, I take it.


Not complaining! To each his blue-eyed own, as Pogo said. Wow, this is the first time I’ve really felt your presence.

Everything in good time.

Tell me about your research. What does “research” mean, in a non-physical context?

It means the same thing it always did, but without the physical apparatus to fix it in memory, because here there’s nothing to distract us the way the passing through time does in the physical.

We’ll have to talk about it.

Add it to your list.

I can hear you chuckling. All right.

But for now, a reminder that you would benefit from adding more structure to your life. You have the open schedule, your physical needs are met, you don’t have to make a living, you know what you know and you know how to say it. You must work at it now rather than someday if you’re going to put it into form, because implied in “someday” is the fantasy that you aren’t going to have vastly more to assimilate as you go along.

Not aimed merely at me, I take it.

No, although only you and Michael are so directly centered on writing. But anybody accumulating material should consider — should continually remind themselves by whatever method works for them — that today’s total is only going to be added to. It isn’t like Machiavelli or one of those Romans in exile, having time and leisure to do nothing more than remember and repent.

I know you got that analogy from my mind.


So nothing. Glad to see you not watching CNN in all the time.

How do you know that you won’t wind up doing it when you lose enough of your mobility and access to direct first-hand experience? It kept me active.

So it did. An awful lot of Wolf Blitzer, though!

Nothing comes free.

Well, I can’t tell you — don’t have to tell you, I know — what a pleasure it is to suddenly have active contact with you again. It has been a busy couple of years.

I have observed. And I’m happy for you.

I figured you would be. Now — is there or is there not some prior connection between you and Hemingway? For it just occurs to me (which itself is suspicious) that it was your reminder that he had promised, that made me realize that he had helped me write Babe In The Woods.

Put into the context of past lives, you could say that he and I and you were all together.

But you’re not going to add story to perception.

No need to.

No, there isn’t. I’ve come that far, anyway. Well, I’d better quit. So nice, seeing you, old friend.

Old friend, eh? I’m smiling at both words.

And that is what’s called a teaser, I believe.

You’ll just have to stay tuned.

You got me smiling ear to ear. So nice seeing you again (so to speak). Maybe more later.


Maintaining our health

Thursday, October 17, 2019 Captain’s log, supplemental

6:45 a.m. Sometime when you aren’t busy, I’d like insight into what makes the wheezing start and stop. It doesn’t seem to be anything in particular that brings it on, if we don’t count weather. So – what?

Relaxation is a key. More than any single thing.

How can that fluctuate without my being aware of it?

You have to be kidding.

Very funny. I mean, when I am paying attention and still don’t see the triggers.

Bear in mind, changes take place at a level usually far below consciousness. That is, the evidence is not apparent beyond the filters of attention.

You are saying, I think, that I would not be aware of fluctuations in my lungs any more than in my liver function, for instance.

Yes, and for the same reason. These things, you are taking care of beneath the level of your own attention.

I am taking care of. I suppose that makes sense, but it isn’t how I have ever thought about it.

No, because you have been seeing it as inner v. outer, or you v. matter, or your mind/soul/spirit v. the casing it rides in.

And if it is true for me, it is true for everyone. Dirk and his ankylosing spondylitis, Nancy and her shoulders. [Transcribing, I see that the “it” is not clear. I was referring to “These things, you are taking care of beneath the level of your own attention.”]

Anyone and everything, or you end up believing in chance, and disconnection (which is chance in another costume).

So what do we do?

What do you do already? You remove mental (logical) and emotional filters that persuade you toward helplessness, and you increase your monitoring of physical processes at a deeper, more fundamental layer. That’s really all you need to do.

Sounds way too easy, given our histories.

Simple; not necessarily easy. In concept it is merely two steps, but you may (or may not, but may) find each step quite difficult to accomplish.

These situations must stem from what we are, how we were created. Hence, they are creative obstacles, presumably.

Great obstacles offer great potential rewards, as a vigorous exercise program may offer enhanced fitness, or a serious intellectual challenge may provide intense mental satisfaction both in the engagement and in the resolution.

Remove filters, increase  monitoring.

That’s it. Another way of putting it is, you will be finished with it when you determine to be finished with it – only, that doesn’t mean when you threaten to hold your breath until you turn blue, nor to throw a tantrum, nor to wave a magic wand.

Pity: There went all my strategies.

Nonetheless, simple steps, not necessarily easy. And no reason not to disseminate this, though there will be few enough able to put the advice into action.


TGU on evil and sin

Thursday, October 17, 2019

3:55 a.m. Gentlemen, you will notice that we meet resistance to the idea that evil is real, rather than absence of good, or a matter of taste, etc. – this despite all your careful exploration of the subject a while ago. Why is that, do you suppose?

There is a very real instinct that says “Life is Good!” To some, this implies that evil does not exist.

There is an instinct that All Is Well. How can that include evil, if evil is real?

An instinct says Nothing By Chance, and this implies that either evil is an ordained necessity (an unpalatable idea) or that evil cannot exist (as it would imply sand in the gears, so to speak).

Interesting take on things. I believe all three of those things, but am not forced to the conclusion that the evil I see around me, now and throughout history, is only an illusion. Life is good; I have come to believe that all is well; I have come to see, in Richard Bach’s words, nothing by chance. Yet – perhaps I am too shallow a thinker; it is quite possible – I don’t see that these beliefs mean real evil does not exist.

Perhaps it is a matter of terms.

Go ahead.

I think you, Frank, in believing those things yet coming to a different conclusion, are seeing things in a different, silent, context from those who believe these things and conclude otherwise.

We might have added, by the way, those who believe that free will does not exist. From that premise, some conclude that no one can do evil (since they have no choice in their lives) or that evil is an intrinsic part of life.

That view doesn’t make much sense to me. I think it is based in logic rather than experience, hence is logically demonstrable, but wrong.

Nonetheless we include it for completeness of statement.

So, you said, “a matter of terms.”

Yes, or a matter of context. When you look at evil in the world, unspoken is the context that 3D life by nature is choice within constriction of time and space. That is, every moment allows you who are in 3D to choose what you wish to affirm, who you wish to be, in that moment. Just as it is true that your life is the sum of all such moments, so, contradictorily, is it the same moments individually. That is, you may express X only 10 times in 1,000 choices during your life – hence, that reaction is a decided minority vote – yet you did choose it those 10 times. Both statements are true. You are both, not merely one or the other.

The analogy that comes to mind is the concept of sin. You may sin many times without necessarily giving in and becoming that sin, so to speak.

Yes to what you said; no, or not necessarily, to everything that the statement may bring to mind, either for you, Frank, or for others. One step at a time. That was a valid step, but only one.

I think you are meaning that the concept of sin as either (1) a one-time thing (no matter how many “one time things” it may be by the time we are finished), or (2) an identification with it, illustrates the concept of evil you’re getting at.

Notice – we know you noticed, Frank, but this is for others – the distinction you just drew is the distinction Catholic theology drew between venial and mortal sins.

Is it? I had never understood the distinction, thinking it more like trivial v. serious, or let’s say misdemeanors v. felonies. But I admit, as that abstraction came flowing out of my pen just now, that analogy did occur to me. I’m not sure any theologian would agree to it, however; it’s just what came to me.

“What came to you.” We like that.

Very funny. But anyway, it does make sense of a distinction I had heard since I was a little boy but had never really seen, and then gave up trying to see. It is the difference, I suppose, between someone taking a drink because he wants one and taking a drink because he has to. Chesterton’s distinction.

However, this is a digression from a digression, if we wish to explore the existence and nature of evil. We were saying that for you, Frank, looking at life as it plays out in 3D, evil clearly exists. As you point out, we examined the subject, differentiating true evil from mere perception as evil, but pointing out that when you have made all careful distinctions, a residue of evil does remain. Just because not everything is evil that is called evil, does not mean evil as such does not exist.

The question then arises, is it only because of circumstances? Does the 3D environment make it appear that some things are evil, or, better, that any thing is evil. And this you explored with us when you realized that the Biblical Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil might be better translated as The Tree of the Perception as Good and Evil, or, in short, the tree of seeing things in duality.

So our answer is that evil definitely exists within 3D terms, but that doesn’t mean that it exists beyond them.

I think you have said or at least implied something similar in the past.

Yes, but as usual, this is a step into a changed river by a changed you, so it won’t be quite the same.

Take for granted the fact that evil exists in 3D – you see it all around, present and past (and future) as you said – and you can escape a tremendous amount of complicated logic-chopping if you do not at the same time insist that evil therefore exists in non-3D. But this requires headlines, perhaps.

  • Every kind of energy in 3D originates from beyond it.
  • What is true evil – torture, deliberate infliction of suffering, etc. – cannot play out in non-constricted spaces beyond the 3D. That is, they depend for their nature and effect upon 3D constriction into time and place.
  • Nonetheless, your 3D existence hinges on choice, leading to the creation of a more permanent “you.” To choose 3D evil rather than 3D good is not without meaning or consequence.
  • None of this has anything to do with following religious rules because they are rules; just the reverse. The rules were meant as guidelines, as buoys marking shallow waters; as guardrails.

In other words, we shouldn’t be deterred by the track records of the various religious structures from taking seriously their advice on living.

That’s one way to put it. They won’t see it as “advice,” and their take on things is conditional rather than infallible, though they don’t realize it, but there is valuable material there.

I gather we can sum this up by saying that evil is real within our experience of 3D, regardless of what it may be in any larger sense.

Certainly. Your lives tell you that. It requires a certain effort for you to overlook murder, torture, rape, robbery, intimidation, bullying, swindling, etc., etc., for the sake of an “enlightened” perspective.

I used to say, New Age people are all love and light until you dent their fender.

As long as you are not excluding yourself from that judgment, we have no quarrel with it, other than the omission of the word “sometimes” or even “often.”

I sit corrected. But, often.

So if evil is real within 3D but not necessarily beyond it, where does it come from and what is its nature?

Selfishness, I always say. “Me first, everybody else a long way second.”

But that still begs the question where that comes from. Why should it manifest? Some blame society, some blame circumstance, some say it is innate in human nature.

To some degree, they’re all right, I’d say.

Well, stay tuned.

Okay. Thanks as always.