Choosing among non-3D influences

Saturday, October 20, 2018

3:45 a.m. Another question.

[Jim Austin: The sentence “Many are driven to suicide, if the concept of suicide be extended to include throwing one’s life away, giving up, giving in.” is very interesting. The ubiquity and importance of this problem (“it is not an issue of marginal or peripheral concern: It is of vital importance.”) could make one wonder what ‘non-3D’ is up to. It seems TGU and my guidance, and the guidance of many here want the best for each of us … and lo, in writing this I see the distinction: as usual, which ‘you/us’ do I mean? Each of us compound 3Ders have those “hair-shirt”/harpy stands, in varying numbers and strengths as part of a ‘larger’ you. The guidance I know works to make me aware of ways to deal with those parts of me; this post is a perfect example. But one could speculate on the equal availability of ‘guidance’ that would say “Listen to them, they are right!” Seems like that would be another of those ‘virtuous or vicious cycles’ TGU recently alluded to; the path forward would depend on which you listen to.

[Would TGU care to comment on the ‘existence’ of (from the 3D perspective) such ‘bad guidance?’]

[TGU:] Perhaps it would be worthwhile to extend the concept of “which you?” into the non-3D. That is, when you consider your guys upstairs – when you consult us either explicitly as in this way, or implicitly as in following hunches, inclinations, proclivities – remember that we are no more uniform among ourselves than you are. Why should we be expected to be? How should we be able to? As above, so below.

We return to prior themes. The truths religions are based in are true even if they have been privatized, even if they have been perverted for the benefit of certain individuals, or groups, even if they have been understood only according to narrow or bigoted senses.

Not senses.

No. Narrow or bigoted outlets, say, or guidelines. The sense of it is, the truth of it is distorted by preconception. Religions take aspects of the truth and express them. But even a partial view is better than a bland blindness to the problems involved, is it not?

Rhetorical question, I take it. You know I agree with that – only, at some point the distortion inherent in a partial view overwhelms the benefit.

Always true, and always part of the human situation, for none of you – we should extend that to say, none of us, that is, no one involved in compound beings – can escape the benefits and limitations of partial views.

So in your various scriptures, it would be as well for someone to go along compiling not commandments, not historical or mythical situations and commentary, but – advice. “Test the spirits,” for one. From advice given, a world-view can be deduced. More importantly, many a practical pitfall may be illumined and avoided.

So, Jim’s question. I get the sense of what you have to say about it. There are spirits on all sides of all questions, and it would be well for all of us in 3D to bear that fact in mind.

You have said it concisely.

Thank you. but don’t you care to expand it?

Really, there should be no need. You are composed of many strands, which may be harmonious or may be discordant or may be sometimes the one and sometimes the other. Realize your situation and you realize the appropriate strategy by which to live and guide your lives. If you do not realize it, you may be blown about by any stray gust of wind, or may confuse certainty with truth, and in either case be unlikely to make much progress in integrating what may be a very diverse and even contradictory bundle.

In effect, your lives are stretched between extremes, and you are enabled and also compelled to choose who and what you will be, according to how you choose among possible values. Your span may be relatively large or relatively small, but within that span of possibilities, it is for you to decide. That is what all that conflict is about: your right and need to choose.

Good and bad angels.

Certainly it can be looked at that way, only it would be better if even while one chooses, one remembers that what is good for you is not necessarily an absolute, and what is bad to you is equally not necessarily an absolute.

God looked upon what he had created and found it good.

It was only after the humans chose to see things through the tree of the perception of things as good or evil – according to the myth encapsulated in Genesis – that they decided that part of God’s creation was good and part bad.

I am reminded of the commentary someone quoted. I think it was a Chinese or Japanese man, commenting on the Western world view. He said: “Man against nature, nature against man. Man against God, God against man. God against nature, nature against God. Very funny religion!” That isn’t exact, but that’s the sense of it. It may be from Joseph Campbell.

That is an outside view of Western man’s blindness, and all the more valuable for being outside it.

So, in a nutshell, “bad” guidance is – unhelpful guidance? Malicious guidance?

It is unnecessary to label it in that way. Merely say this: Guidance that comes via non-3D sources is no more to be accepted unconditionally and automatically than if it came from a 3D source. But neither is it to be automatically disregarded, in the same way. Rather, it is for you to use your discernment; to choose. That’s all that is involved. As with Andy’s question, the nub is this: It is your life, for you to decide. You choose. Cast your net widely, but that doesn’t mean you are to unthinkingly accept anything and everything you dredge up.


Well, that is enough on the subject. No need to stretch this out merely to make up your hour.

Okay. Thanks as always.


Managing internal conflicts

Friday, October 19, 2018

5 a.m. We have a question here that applies to more people than one. Comment?

[From Andy W: Here’s a question I have for the guys. I have a “hair shirt” strand, or strands, who are reacting intensely to all the changes I’m making – and they find my focused switch to positivity and business activity “unpleasant” and “nonspiritual”, especially since it involves making money, and not giving in to panic and fear. So, do I say “thank-you for sharing” – ignore the input, and keep focusing on guidance from those parts of me who are OK with business and support my existence and “all is well” attitude? I explain to my “hair shirt” strands my motivations for the work I do is to be of service and help others. Yet those strands tell me that I don’t deserve ANYTHING, (and that I can’t really help others) and that the solution is to check out. Like some of them did/do in their strand. It almost feels like my “longtime” project is merely to stay alive, active and connected to my “all is well” identity/strands in face of the current challenges that are being discussed. It feels like I’m changing my spots.]

[TGU:] Indeed it does [apply to more than one person]. And not only does it apply to more people than one, it is not an issue of marginal or peripheral concern: It is of vital importance. And, just as it causes real damage when unchecked, it has the potential to do great good – to lead to great liberation – when once understood, and dealt with. In religious people, the same problem manifests as a hyper-active conscience, what is called “scrupulous” behavior [not meaning ethical; meaning nit-picking concern for every little thing, blowing things out of proportion], and its corresponding trait of continual carping criticism of the conduct and character of others, as spillover from the continual onslaught of criticism of oneself.

Yes, put into that context, the connection is very clear.

But we should spell it out, because it won’t yet be clear to all.

It amazes me, sometimes, this process. By all means, proceed.

It may become clearer if we transpose the situation. Suppose we look at it this way. Andy (and the unnumbered multitude who suffer by this kind of carping criticism) is in the midst of a community. How would it look if the community we refer to were 3D individuals, rather than non-3D individuals? Would he allow the same presumption of competence to judge and condemn him?

I have lived among an unsympathetic community – people among whom I could not express my true feelings, could not expect sympathetic hearing for what I knew. Sheep, intolerant of any animal that was even slightly different from the accepted norm. It is very crippling.

It is, although overcoming such opposition may build strength of character. Now, in 3D circumstances, you can physically relocate. Get another job to be rid of a bad work environment; change cities or states to live among more congenial people; find a different circle of friends, etc. You have the option of changing your surroundings. But what of living in a similar situation when the intolerant, opinionated, emotionally hostile, presumptuous know-it-alls are not 3D individuals but non-3D aspects of oneself? How does one escape them?

I suppose some people may be driven to suicide, if it is bad enough.

Many are driven to suicide, if the concept of suicide be extended to include throwing one’s life away, giving up, giving in.

That is bleak.

It is. That’s why it is valuable to bring it to people’s attention, so that they may free themselves from it.

Of course. The first step in anything involves becoming conscious of it, as Jung pointed out and as I keep finding myself quoting in many contexts. If you aren’t conscious of the various aspects of a situation, it controls you, even though by rights you should control it. But by analogy, you can’t control a dream until you become lucid.

And “Life is but a dream.” True, and relevant. So let us say more, even though we have already said all Andy and others should need, because this is one case where it is better to say too much (to be sure the point is made) than to settle for having said it.

Yes, and I see why. The same internal confusion – even opposition – that causes the problem may tend to obscure the message by interfering with one’s ability to hear it.


We say it as clearly as we can: You are the mind living in 3D, you have the right to determine who and what you shall be. This you do by your choices. Your choices. If you choose to be a musician and you hear a chorus of inner voices screaming at you that no, you have no talent, you are deluding yourself, you are stupid to do anything except X – whatever “X” may be – should you listen?

Well, transpose the situation. If it were your family or co-workers or neighbors or strangers acting that way, “should” you listen? Or do you have the right and even the obligation to make your own choices?

Conflicts come disguised. Situations internal, no less than external, may have their own confusion. It isn’t always easy to know what you want, what is practical, what is essential to you if you are not to wither and die. When is advice wisdom and when is it merely opinion, possibly malicious or jealous opinion? When may your guys be implicitly trusted, and when must they be resisted, even defied? These are important questions, that do not answer themselves as soon as posed.

Joseph Campbell famously said, “Follow your bliss.”

And that is very good advice, properly followed, or we should say properly understood. You wouldn’t want to tear up your life every time you felt another whim, but whims are not bliss. They may be temptations, they may be leading indicators of something important, but whims per se are not what Campbell meant. He meant, since feelings are the language of the soul, your soul – your deepest self, your essence of you – will tell you (defining “you” as the 3D consciousness trying to discern its true path in the world) what is most congenial to your nature by providing deep satisfaction when you are doing what you ought to be doing to fulfill your nature.

Yes, like me doing this.

Exactly. “Your bliss” doesn’t mean you are on cloud nine when you are engaged in it. It means, this is what is important to you, this is what gives you meaning, this is when you feel yourself expressing your true meaning as a 3D individual that is also something deeper and wiser and stronger and – well, connected.

The “bliss” you follow may make no sense externally. It may solve none of your problems; indeed, may pose more, is quite likely to, at least in the beginning. But you will know that it fits the real you. you will never follow it grudgingly or perforce. You will no more have to endure doing it than a river has to flow grudgingly and against its will.

To answer Andy explicitly, your right and we would almost say your responsibility is to say to non-3D people what you would say (hopefully) to 3D people: “Thanks for your advice, but you may not know as much as you think you do about what is good for me. Even if I am wrong, I have the right and duty to choose what I want to become, and no one can relieve me of the responsibility or take away from me that right.”

Or, more succinctly, “Shut up.”

Well – we smile and sort of agree, except that a confrontational attitude doesn’t always smooth the way.

I love that line from Stephen Leacock: “’Shut up,’ he explained.”

Well, it can be emotionally satisfying, and sometimes that’s what a situation requires. But a smoother long-term attitude is probably more like, “I know you think you’re helping, but you aren’t. This is my life, my decision, and if it is a mistake, it is my mistake. Why not sit back and see what happens?”

You don’t really think a chorus of harpies is going to be silenced or even muted by that approach?

You think blunt confrontation day by day is going to get better results? Think of your daughter with her children.

Now that is a very interesting analogy. I have been impressed, watching my daughter deal with her very young children having temper tantrums. She would hold them reassuringly, saying, “I know,” sympathetically, while not giving in on whatever was causing them distress. It was wonderful to watch, as she maintained control without impairing affection.

You have any reason to think that wouldn’t work with your own non-3D strands, some of which may act like infants sometimes?

I never thought about it.

Well, now you can [think about it]. To sum up: Discordant strands within one’s makeup have their own right to exist and be heard; that is not the same thing as saying that any or any combination of them have the right to override or second-guess what you decide to do or become. But they won’t be any the worse for being reassured that their concerns have been heard and even perhaps that their interests are not being disregarded.

Hard to realize just how that last would manifest.

Never mind. Those to whom it applies will recognize it as it manifests.

So, probably enough on this subject, but if people raise further questions, or objections, or if somehow it is not yet clear, we’re always here to consult.

I suspect that many people, not just I, thank you for this. Till next time.


Living the knowledge

[Monday, January 16, 2006]

(5:40 a.m.)

It is more than a matter of writing a book, or of writing many books. More important by far is the need to live the knowledge. To some extent one serves as a model to others in anything one does, and that serving as a model can occur – must occur – in every aspect of life. If various aspects contradict each other, each aspect – and the contradictions among aspects – serves a different model. This is not to say that one is primarily a model for others. Is one’s life primarily lived for the sake of one arm, or one ear? Yet the arm and the ear are as integral as any other past of the whole

So – this is a time to be transformed. Clever phrasing, eh? It may be and should be read two ways. The times are to be transformed; you are to be transformed in these times.

It is more than a matter of writing books. But you always knew that.

All right, friends, it is 6 a.m. and I am tempted to go make some coffee as my starter to the day. Yet I know it is a little early to be starting with coffee. I could but I don’t need to. So – where am I and why am I finding it harder to work?

The phase of any project after the initial enthusiasm is often discouragement – at the least it is, well, a reaction from enthusiasm. You still see the value, but you cannot help seeing the amount of work to be done versus your ability to do it, and you have not yet done enough of it to see clearly that you can do it, and are doing it, successfully. It is just a transitory thing. We do warn you, however, against diverting your efforts into several channels – that is, thinking to write the Iona book at the same time you write the healing and guidance book. Given that the nature of the work is the same, this will leave you merely with so much more unfinished work – so much larger a pile of notes, so much larger a list of things to be done. If you want to day-dream a novel as you proceed on the non-fiction, that is fine and will provide amusement. But not two non-fictions at once. You did sense that, but tried anyway. We as usual let you try – it is your life. But now that you have seen the result, there is no use in trying to persist (though in actual fact you would do little) when it is a dead-end process.

Well, putting aside the note-taking for Iona is a relief, actually.

Robert Johnson says that when something is ready to move into consciousness, it needs an intermediary, generally a person or thing, and will be projected onto it. This is as I was discussing the other day. He tells of following Krishnamurti and what a wretched teacher he was – and of his dream that sent him to Fritz Kunkel and ultimately to Jung. I really have been guided by an automatic pilot. Maybe we all are if we listen. I knew Jung was the important man the first time I read anything by him.

Johnson says (p. 76): “Our projections of the hero onto others always represent where we are headed.” He says, “I feel that the ego is properly used as the organ of awareness, not the organ of decision.” I like that very much. “The ego serves as the eyes and ears of God. It gathers the facts, but it does not make the ultimate decisions. The decisions come from the Self…. (p. 100)

And he quotes British philosopher Owen Barfeld as saying “Literalism is idolatry.”

The external world and the internal

Thursday, October 18, 2018

6:40 a.m. A comment on yesterday’s message / conversation sends me to John Michael Greer. [] I used to read him regularly, but have forgotten about him for years. He is a little ponderous in his style, but when you get used to it, valuable in the way he weaves various strands of thought and reading into a vision of what is happening. The archdruid.

So, guys, how about elaborating on your statement of yesterday? You said, “Those of you who can, now is the time to take advantage of these heightened energies to work on your own longtime project, which is not this lifetime, yet must work through this lifetime. If you can believe that all is well, when what you see is falling apart, you will realize that what you see is not all that is, and that will be an important clue and a valuable aid.”

It may be important to some that we emphasize that when we talk about “all is well” and “things falling apart,” we are talking about their (your) personal lives and about the world around you. Can you remember in this context that inner and outer are two aspects of the same reality? That what seems external and disconnected from you only seems, and not is, disconnected and external? If you can remember that, the next step is to experience it that way. This will lead you to unimagined transformation.

Now, when I see you saying that what we are observing around us is also part of us – I think that could do with some explanation, because so easily misinterpreted. (Ask me how I know, as my daughter would say.)

You will bear in mind your own caveats about how to understand the saying that “the world mirrors us.”

All tight. I tell people, the world we meet expresses to us our own unconscious processes, but that doesn’t mean that what we see is what we are, necessarily; what we see may demonstrate to us what we are not. Our reactions may clarify who we are by opposition quite as well as by identity.

To a degree. Not entirely, or let’s say not exactly.

I’m open to correction.

When you saw the Kennedy assassination, you did not approve; it did not express your will; it was not what you ever would have had done.

To put it mildly.

So in what way did it mirror your internal world?

I suppose you will say it mirrored my capacity for violence, or hatred? I don’t know.

It showed you the world as chaos, as later it showed you the world as competing forces, and later showed you the world as conspiracy and secrets, and counter-conspiracy and rival secrets, and later showed you that everything that seems separate is actually part of a greater whole. Any of those interpretations could be taken as the truth at any given time. Whatever one takes as true reflects one’s inner being at that moment.

I can feel something very complicated coming up.

Not complicated, so much as intricate, difficult to express except calmly.

So, recalibrate, I know. [Pause] Go ahead.

At any given moment, you are many “yous” at the same time. There is the contemporary you, and all the great number of differing yous at various times in the 3D past, and the common denominator you for this lifetime (much of which you may not have yet experienced, paradoxically enough) — and that considers only the this-life part of you. To it must be added the whole vast rest of you, in at least two logical divisions. First, your larger non-3D self that is not restricted to the present lifetime but is your parent-soul, so to speak, though that is a very sloppy undisciplined way to put it, and second there are all those other aspects of you – those “past lives” and for that matter “future lives” that do interact with you, whether or not you recognize the interactions.

Can you see that all these various equally compelling equally valid equally alive versions of you are unlikely to be in total agreement about the meaning of anything? Can you recognize that, since they will necessarily have different values, some contradicting others, some shading off by nuances, your own reaction to the world is unlikely to be consistent and finely focused? If it is consistent and finely focused, we suggest it is because you have truncated contradictory manifestations. (That’s why one-pointed men tend to be violent; they are the product and producers of violence.)

Since “you” view the world from so many-sided a viewpoint, it should not be a surprise that the world seems contradictory, ever-changing, perhaps chaotic. It reflects not what you are, exactly; more like, what you express at any given moment.

Now, if you will back away from your current-3D-life perspective, you will see that your non-3D perspective is broader in some ways but is still closely tied to it. To get to the “larger project” we referred to, you need to envision the longer-term arrow into the blue that you are.

Poetic. I take that to mean, our original being as it differentiated from the universal source. I don’t know how to put it better than that.

That is what we meant. Behind any life or group of lives is a vector, expressing or rather intended to express certain values. “Intended to” means, it is your 3D-life-choosing that does the expressing. It is your reaction to what you experience as external events that shapes you, but you are shaped from a starting point that is that vector.

I doubt that that is very clear. I hear you saying, there is the original unity, whatever that is. (It isn’t something we experience, being too fragmentary.) That unity is subdivided into vectors – that is, into incomplete representations of certain values, and characteristics I guess, each of which continually or anyway occasionally express in a given 3D world-time as a person.

Yes, that is what we said.

Or meant to say, anyway.

The salient point is that your life is that of a fragment of something far larger and more complete. We use the word “fragment” not to indicate a breaking-up, but to indicate something which is in itself incomplete.

We know we are incomplete. We feel it, we reach for completeness and don’t know how to find it.

It can’t be found. How can green be a full spectrum? How can “this” be “that”? it isn’t your design to be complete, but to be alive and aware as a representative of your particular nature, which could be paraphrased, “of your particular kind of incompleteness.”

I’m starting to get the connection. Yearning for perfection externally is the same as yearning for completeness internally.

Very much the same idea, and of course impossible of satisfaction in either case.

Which isn’t to say that our yearning for improvement, even for perfection, is wrong or stupid or doomed.

No, but understand the nature of things. For any of you to perfect yourselves is to perfect one aspect of reality, is to polish one point of one vector. You aren’t perfect in the sense of reflecting everything, and you aren’t going to be. You are perfect in the sense of expressing to the fullest the potential you are born into. That is, you can become perfect, yet, you already are perfect. It is a matter of turning potential into actual, which is done by a lifetime of conscious choosing.

So, don’t expect Utopia (or, I imagine, Dystopia) externally, and don’t expect to encompass the world internally.

Isn’t that merely common sense? The world is bigger than any of its parts, and even more so when you remember that the 3D shades into the non-3D, and that past and future are concepts more than discrete realities.

It’s up to us to choose who we will be, what values we will uphold, continually.

It is always the condition, but at the moment, like water boiling, you have the advantage of extra energy that you may be able to employ. However, a caveat: It is an entire waste of time to condemn. In every direction you will see things you disapprove, perhaps fear (and therefore, soon, hate). If you fixate on what you reject, how does that help you manifest what you uphold?

The unconscious doesn’t recognize the negative, we are told.

True enough. Say “I am not that,” and it hears an expression of identity: “I am that.” This is true in itself, but isn’t what you want to be expressing. So all you are doing is setting up or enhancing internal unconscious contradictions. It won’t improve your temper and it won’t improve your understanding, and it certainly won’t improve your ability to choose, even though it will appear to express great firmness of vision and will.

Enough for now.

Okay, thanks for all this.


3D and also non-3D

Wednesday, October 17, 2018

5:10 a.m. Gentlemen, any comment on Kristiina’s comment (responding to “Strands and Viewpoints”)?

Kristiina: [Been wrestling with my own fluidity or plasticity recently. But also watching how the world applies more and more pressure on humans, in workplaces and politics, for example. Tremendous emotional pressure is used in trifling matters while truly big issues interest no-one. Is that pressure to help in crystallization? It is as if the plan is to make everyone behave like hens running around cackling and flapping wings. And this is only social posturing. When the hawk is flying, hens will shut up and hide. I find the social field extremely difficult to navigate because the pressure to join some cackling coterie is so big. But there is so much to chew on this post, I’ll need to re-read and examine myself. Important to remember Gurdjieff and crystallization. Although I have a constitution that is quite averse to crystallization.]

[TGU:] This is relevant in connection with your current reading.

You mean The Education of Julius Caesar, by Arthur Kahn, published 30 years ago and more relevant today than then.

More obviously relevant, you mean.

Yes. Our eyes are open more. But you surely don’t want me to try to summarize it.

Only the theme.

Oligarchs rule the world and attempt to prevent anything from happening that threatens their predominance. When a man like Caesar emerges from their ranks, they oppose him at every turn, because they do not understand – nor want to understand – pressures for change except in terms of fear, and therefore in terms of “a few troublemakers” who are attempting to destroy the social order for their own ends.

That is simplified, but will do for our purposes at the moment. Kristiina sees that people obsess over trivia and cannot concentrate on larger issues. This is of course encouraged by certain forces in society – but what may not be obvious is that sometimes the resulting social situation may be of use to us in our attempt to wake people up to their true situation beyond merely 3D matters.

Mostly people see a division between “practical” and “spiritual” matters.

One reason why we do not use such terms, but prefer emotionally neutral language like 3D and non-3D. To divide the two aspects of what is, after all, one reality is to distort the picture. How could anyone hope to understand half a reality? Yet that is what is commonly attempted.

The image that came to me was of molecules of water being brought to a boil.

Well – we didn’t include the idea of molecules. That is your understanding of it. But anyway, water, boiling. The very uncomfortable pressure of events is energizing people in the way more energy is any system must. More energy is not necessarily smooth energy, nor ordered energy.

Are we not speaking too elliptically here?

It is as well to begin with very generalized statements, so that people may first feel the familiarity, rather than beginning with any given particular instance that must miss the majority, being applicable only to a few.

Still, this seems a little – vague, undefined.

You observed, years ago, that life often holds one’s attention in one direction so as to more smoothly move one in another direction.

That isn’t clear. I mean, if we are looking to the West, the ground beneath us may be moving to the North or South without our being very aware of it, because we are intent on whatever it is in the West that we are fixing our attention on.

Or, obsessing over the trivial while (perhaps because) oblivious to the momentous.

It is true socially. I take it you are adding, also in a larger sense.

Well here you could use a new word or phrase, to describe an aspect of reality in an emotionally neutral way, in the way we use 3D and non-3D. The word would describe the overarching purpose of a given soul that transcends its specific 3D life and yet is integral to it; dependent upon its decisions; inescapably intertwined with it.

I’m open to suggestion.

We prefer that you seek it, as it will be better rooted in 3D experience that way.

If you say so.

This connects with your realization yesterday.

In that it is the same process? Well, I’ll transcribe it here, and we’ll see.

You won’t be able to convey it by transcribing your notes to yourself. Describe it, thus bringing it to greater clarity for yourself as well.

And this isn’t a digression?

The insight we are attempting to find a word for – the approach, we should say – will be worth the small amount of time invested.

I woke up at four in the morning yesterday and made myself get out of bed and write down what I had just experienced, lest I should forget it. I had had an image of a large room, with a wall two stories high, hung with great art, and I knew it referred to ___. But I couldn’t find the name. I knew full well it was a name I knew, but I couldn’t find it. In other words, this was what people jestingly and in some worry call “a senior moment,” where the knowledge is there but the word is not.

Well, this has been happening to me since I was in my twenties or thirties, and it does not panic me, nor does it make me impatient. I lay there trying to work out whose name it was that I couldn’t find. [And, typing this, it occurs to me that my tracing it out consciously was what was important here. Just waiting for the name to surface often happens to us, but wouldn’t have elucidated anything in the way that observing myself trace it out did.] My mind made association after association, something like this, though not exactly. This is for the purpose of illustration. Some of these were the stepping stones I used, some may not have been. I thought, a woman; acquired the art with her brother; Rose; Jewish; Stein; Gloria?; Gertrude! Gertrude Stein, famous for having said, “a rose is a rose is a rose. All the clues were correct. Even the slight wrong number (Gloria?) was in the direction of the right answer, in that her name did begin with a G.

From this unremarkable event, I came to two realizations:

1) The information was there, but I had had to retrieve it from an unfamiliar starting place. Had I begun with Hemingway, or the Lost Generation, or any of the usual connections, probably I wouldn’t have had any difficulty in retrieving her name, nor even been aware of the retrieval process. It was as if the information was usually approached via a well-trodden path leading from the left, and I was this time approaching from the right, and there was a barrier between me and the information, so I had to feel around in other directions to arrive there. By a circuitous but oriented path, in other words.

And that led immediately to:

  1. This is the same process we use sometimes in bringing information from non-3D into conscious thought.

“Senior moments” aren’t necessarily what they appear to be. Oh, and suddenly I see the application here in yet another context: Plasticity. The more versatile, flexible, adaptable, fluid our mental processes, the more easily we cope with the processes that tend to construct barriers between various aspects of our lives. Interesting that I didn’t see that right off, it is so obvious.

Yes. You see the application to our discussion of the individual both in 3D society and in its own non-3D process?

Perhaps not quite. You could spell it out for us.

You realized that a specific 3D condition (we won’t call it a problem) is also – not instead, but also – a problem in a larger context.

I thought you weren’t going to call it a problem. Did I get the word wrong?

No matter. Take it as a problem in the algebraic sense, rather than as a dilemma or an obstacle. The salient point is that because you are beings in 3D, and of 3D, yet also beyond 3D and of another nature entirely – all your reality is different from your understanding of it as long as you understand it only as this and not that, or that and not this.

I’m nearly with you, not quite.

And you couldn’t make such a statement if you weren’t seeing that you transcend 3D. but those who do not realize that they do, in effect don’t! hence, panic. Hence, frantic undirected activity. Hence, fear-driven obsession with whatever aspect of their reality they do perceive.

I don’t think you are saying that social chaos is good for us, or even quite that it can be turned to account.

Oh no, of course it can be turned to account. It may be the heat that brings the water to boil, loosening the bonds. But we are saying that isn’t necessarily why the chaos exists, merely that it may be turned to account.

I think we need the point of this spelled out a little more plainly.

Those of you who can, now is the time to take advantage of these heightened energies to work on your own longtime project, which is not this lifetime, yet must work through this lifetime. If you can believe that all is well, when what you see is falling apart, you will realize that what you see is not all that is, and that will be an important clue and a valuable aid.

If you say so. Okay, thanks, and maybe we’ll need to return to this.


Exploring and postponing

[Sunday, January 15, 2006]

6:45 a.m. Another odd night. I was awake repeatedly but didn’t really lose sleep; it was more like a segment would finish, I’d be back here checking in, then another segment, and the times between seemed longer than the clock time indicated.

Another thing; as I went to bed I felt I might be going to get sick. My chest was cold, it seemed to thicken. I think my head started to fill (can’t remember) but I quietly determined that I wouldn’t, and after a while it all settled down and I forgot about it till now.

So. Here we are again. I shied away from that discussion about TGU versus any one of you. Why? It is as if I wasn’t ready to hear it – or as if I hadn’t finished making up the answer! But in fact I don’t know why. So I guess I’m ready for you at least to tell me why I’m gun-shy, and then the rest if you can get it through the pipeline.

This is a bigger subject than you consciously know. You recognize that you almost wish the question had not been raised, but you don’t know why. It is because you know, too, that “here comes another hit on my belief system.” But that is a danger of exploration – that at some point you will find something that reevaluates – or forces you to do the re-evaluating, rather! – everything you think you sort of know from experience.

When you first go exploring, that is the easy part, at least for a certain temperament. You start, knowing that what you think you know is probably wrong and certainly inadequate. For the first long phase, it is all gain. Each discovery is an item, one more useful trophy. If it doesn’t seem to fit very well into anything, that’s all right, maybe it will fit better later; maybe further discoveries will demonstrate where and how it fits; maybe it will be the key to fitting in other things. And in fact this is your assumption, your reliance, and your experience.

But after a while you have begun to accumulate. You have begun to perceive patterns. You have worked at trying this fit, that fit, another fit. At some point impossible to predict in advance, you obtain a pattern that more or less accommodates your new data, and more or less fits in with older data – via a new interpretation – and you feel that you once again have found firm footing, firm ground.

At that point the temptation becomes strong to stop finding or stop recognizing new pieces that might require readjustment of the new footing. Small accommodations, yes, but not major ones. For one thing, it starts to look rash, given that perhaps a bit more data would reconcile the stubborn item with the rest. For another, it may be that the new item is wrong, and the more that has gone before it, and the better it has fit together, the stronger the weight of evidence has to be if you are to justify overthrowing it or even modifying it heavily. And there is sheer weariness. “I’m tired of never knowing where I am!”

Now, in this you will recognize what you have criticized in materialist science. But it isn’t peculiar to science or to theology either; it is a human response to the continual overthrow of the familiar and even the newly absorbed.

Beware premature clarity. Yet – as in all things in the world of polarities and duality – beware never coming to a useful conclusion, never proceeding with what you have, rather than waiting endlessly for a standard of completion and certainty that may be impossible to obtain.

So that is why you hesitated at the brink. And if you choose to move now in another direction, we have no objection. After all, there is a tremendous amount of material you have been given in just the past five years, still unexpressed though we will say surprisingly much of it absorbed and lived – which is the important thing.

Well, I think I’m going to surprise you – and myself, to a degree – and take you up on the postponement. I sense that I’m not ready for more uncertainty – or rather, more at-sea-ness, if that is a word. I need some closure first. I would like to get some of all this out into the world first, and I am rather filled with dismay at the thought of having to do it all again – and mostly the thought of having all that trackless sea around me again. The only reason not to defer this would be if it is in my best interest, or the best interests of the readers of the project itself – “project” meaning our on-going project of bringing light. In short, if it is better in your judgment for me to overrule my desire for some closure at this point, fine, let’s do it. And if it would hamper my future growth, the same. Only if it is a matter of preference between equally valid paths would I say let’s let the new material ride for a time.

Don’t think for a moment that we do not appreciate the willingness to take the less comfortable path. “Your will not mine,” Jesus said. “Let the decision be made by the total self,” Bob Monroe said. Three versions of the same willingness to let the lesser be guided by the greater. This very willingness is the most important contribution that anyone can make, because it puts the center into the center.

There is no reason not to pause, or rather – knowing you – to lay down this particular set of strands so that in a while you may pick up others. You do, in truth, have a daunting amount of work to do.

Yes and let’s talk about that. I feel utterly physically inadequate to the task. It is that I have years of accumulated physical work to do, that is actually getting in my way. So much material, just from my journals! It isn’t like I’m researching elsewhere. It is so much that I’m starting to shrink from it.

Don’t forget to routinize. Get yourself a work schedule – again! – and hold to it. This includes a non-work, even an anti-work, schedule. There wouldn’t be anything wrong in taking that painting course with Carolyn.

(8:15 a.m.) I smile at your methods. “Go have a quiet cup of coffee and watch the sun rise.” Sure, and while there, sit in the white chair that is the only one that faces southeast. Sure, and on the table where you laid it – how long ago? – just happens to be The Secret Vaults of Time, by Stephan Schwartz, that I published but have never read. And – well, the rest of the story follows from the first. James Bligh Bond –a kindred spirit if ever there was one – and his explorations into Glastonbury, and I find my courage renewed. I am not the first one to tread this path, and the ground indeed has been broken for me. It is true, what Smallwood says, how soft we are next to these older ones.

David, is it desirable and possible to speak to James Bligh Bond?

Desirable, no, not on a whim. Possible if you have a reason for the contact. Would you just be wanting his autograph?

I was wanting reinforcement, I suppose. But it is true, I don’t have specific questions. I don’t want to do automatic writing in the way he did – that seems cumbersome to me, next to just sitting down and writing.

Maybe you are farther along than he was, because the times are farther along. “The veil is thinning, as you say.

— A little parable. I was lighting a fire in the woodstove, watching one spot intently to see if it would catch – and suddenly realized that although it hadn’t caught, it didn’t matter, because all around it was aflame. That’s like my work, here, in a way – concentrating so on this or that difficulty, and not seeing what is being accomplished at the margins.

(9:45) Seems clear that Bond was connected in a strong way – a “past life”? – with at least one monk at Glastonbury in the 1500s. Something kept him on the line. Johannes Bryant, perhaps. His love of the place being great enough to keep him there certainly seems congruent with Bond’s similar attachment – from which he had to be blasted out by the malice of others, perhaps really for his own soul’s good.

Strands and viewpoints

Sunday, October 14, 2018

6:15 a.m. Okay, guys, if you and I are both ready, let’s talk about the way we feel helpless in terms of the society we are living in, even if we feel somewhat in control of our own lives in terms of family, surroundings, career, etc. This, with the understanding that many of us don’t feel that security either – in other words, that everything feels unanchored, uprooted.

Notice how your premises changed even in the course of writing out the question. This is what happens when – we would put it – one’s opinion changes in mid-question.

I didn’t quite get that right, I know. Again?

You could look at it this way: You are communities of strands within you. Each of those strands may have slightly, or radically, different opinions and viewpoints. Thus, in effect, you have opinions and viewpoints that alter depending upon which sub-personality, which strand, is in momentary command. It can change in an instant, and change again, and change again, unless and until you take the steps to crystallize your essence so that one viewpoint emerges, one spokesman represents you.

That sounds like Gurdjieff, but, put the way you just put it, is it even desirable?

So much depends upon what you want and what you value. Executives value decisive aspects that emerge from one undeviating viewpoint. The downside to that, of course, is obtuseness and inability to adjust.

Churchill – and Joe Kennedy, too, come to think of it. When they’re right, they’re right and they are tremendously hard-driving executives. But when they’re wrong, God almighty couldn’t bring them to see reason. They change their minds – if they ever do – only in the face of overwhelming evidence.

And, at that, they don’t change their emotional makeup; they merely decide that they hadn’t properly considered this or that bit of data. Yes, good examples. And on the opposite end of the spectrum?

You are looking to me for a biographical example? Probably whoever would be a good example would be unknown to history, because he would have been unable to accomplish anything. Or maybe someone known to pathology, like the woman whose story was told in When Rabbit Howls, or the one in The Three Faces of Eve.

No, you could find an example of alternating strands dominating a personality, but the reason the example may be hard to find is that it will not appear that way. It will look like a multi-talented individual, perhaps.

A Leonardo da Vinci? A Michelangelo?

More, a Yeats or someone whose extreme plasticity spanned several disciplines.

I’m at sea here, speaking of –

Hmm. Well, of course we have been talking about me as one who has so many strands in competition and alternation.

Not you exclusively or even particularly. The fact is – as we have bene pointing out for a good while now, coming on two full decades – the situation we just described is the norm, not the exception. You say “I changed my mind,” sometimes. You might more accurately say, “The I of my mind changed.”

And every time an “I” changes, we see things from a somewhat different viewpoint.

Well, here is the point. If you can remember, this can be a tremendous advantage. You can understand other points of view. You can “see it from the other fellow’s viewpoint.” You can examine a situation with something closer to objectivity. But if you can’t remember, if you identify in turns with each new shifting viewpoint, each new strand, then you “gain” nothing but chaos and inconsistency.

Which requires an “I” that is superior to the changing strands.

That’s it exactly, and it is what Gurdjieff was driving at. If you do not forge a permanent viewer (call it), you have no place to stand in life. The strands that came together to form your life have not produced what is in effect a higher viewpoint that includes themselves but is more extensive and deeper than themselves.

Well, I don’t know about that. Say one of my strands itself was the result of such a process – and it would pretty much have to be, wouldn’t it? – what difference does it make if it does or doesn’t help form another strand (in this case, me)?

In the largest, most philosophical sense, it doesn’t make any difference. But you don’t live on that high philosophical level. In your day to day life, you want order, growth, meaning. You can’t have them without a certain coalescence of constituent traits.

Rita was bothered by the implication that people who didn’t form a crystallized soul were somehow rejected, wasted, thrown away.

And we were never able to make clear to you – hence to her – that it wasn’t anything more than the formation or non-formation of a new representative of that collection of strands. If a new viewpoint formed, fine. But if not, what was lost? The strands remained. The possibility of their being used in other combinations remained.

What we never succeeded in getting across – come to think of it – is that strands continue to exist, hence “have a future,” so to speak – regardless what happens in any given experience, or we should say any given experiment. Joseph the Egyptian lived his life. Lives his life, if you can understand that. He is an available asset for you to incorporate, and if you do, you are the richer for it; but if you do not, is he any the poorer?

Gurdjieff was concentrated on trying to raise the self-selected individuals he dealt with to a higher level of consciousness. That meant developing their will and their – call it their concentrated, directed, oriented awareness – so that they could realize in that lifetime some of their extraordinary but unsuspected potential. There was no reason for him to stress to them that the potential they did not develop did not cease to exist; to the contrary, he tried to imbue them with a sense of urgency, so that they might succeed in that life. He was not interested in more philosophic outlooks that might say, “Nothing lost, old boy. Try again some other lifetime.”

This session didn’t go where I thought we would go. Not for the first time! But we still have time, if you’re willing to address the original question.

We smile. Whatever do you think we have been doing?

Well, I kind of thought we got distracted.

Re-read it later, and think again.

Let’s make this point: The world is always larger than your view of it. The currents that swirl are always well beyond your control. Things never go the way you want them to except temporarily, and (usually) more as illusion or mirage than as reality. Surely you can see that this is a good thing?

It doesn’t always feel like a good thing.

Of course not. But this is the way it is – for everybody. Everybody is always a chip being carried along in the rapids. Some prefer one stretch of the river, some prefer another, but nobody is in charge. Ever. Amen. And it’s a dammed good thing – or, say, a blessed good thing – that nobody is. Who do you suppose is competent to shape the world, working from a 3D viewpoint?

Rhetorical question, I take it. Obviously.

Yes, but see, inherent in the sense of being carried along helplessly is the implicit assumption that ordinarily you aren’t; and that just is not true, nor ever could be.

But that is, of course, looking at things from a 3D-only level. When we look at it from the non-3D – where, we remind you, you primarily live – the question of society, and control and helplessness and all that, looks somewhat different.

And we’ll examine that view another time.

Correct. For now, just remember, nobody in 3D is in control (no matter what people may think, whether powerless or in power) except in the way a bird may judge air currents. And that’s enough for now.

Cryptic. I wrote it but I don’t yet understand it. Very well, thanks and until next time.