Individuals as fractals

Monday, September 17, 2018

4:30 a.m. Read a lot of Morris on [Theodore] Roosevelt in quiet accustomed discouragement at the waste of my own life by comparison. I have to wonder, given that I don’t profit from the examples, and given that these famous lives only dishearten me by the contrast, why is it that biography, and history, has so dominated my reading, for most of my life? It is as if I have been driven to immerse myself in the subject, but for what constructive reason?

[TGU, presumably:] Have you ever heard of specialization of function?

Sure, but is there a need for people who spend their lives doing nothing but looking on at the records others have set?

Apparently there is, or you wouldn’t be filling it, if that is what you are doing. But with everything being part of one thing (or perhaps a better way to put it would be, with everybody being part of one person), surely individuality is precious. You can see that.

We can’t all be King, I realize, nor Queen. So everybody who isn’t born into the royal family can either spend their life resenting the fact, or looking on in awe, or any other possible attitude. And the same with any other eminence, whether of talent or skill or luck or birthright or fortunate disposition. But the question of watching others isn’t quite the thing here; it’s closer to envying not the circumstances but the character traits.

And this demonstrates why envy is one of the seven deadly sins –if sin is defined, as we do, as “missing the mark,” as an unhelpful attitude. To envy another is to not see the justice in the universe. Of course, here we need to untangle the various meanings of the word “envy.”

We say “a decent envy” when we mean something closer to admiration.

Yes, and that one has little or no charge to it. But there is a corrosive envy that is entirely destructive.

And – you’re going to say – every degree between the two extremes.

Well, it’s true. It is always true. Life is a bell curve, not a binary switch.

My friend Dirk points out that with the discovery of fractals, it becomes clear that, just as you say, there is no such thing as a clear boundary, only approximate boundaries that look different at different (equally valid) scales.

It’s all part of the same undivided whole. We keep telling you, the universe does not have fracture lines.

So, in the matter of envy and comparisons and discouragements, a seemingly irrelevant and frivolous comparison, or rather an alternate way of judging things, would be to ask, How well could Theodore Roosevelt lead your life?

Before you answer that – and of course in this as usual we are speaking to anyone reading this, not only to the one writing it – consider all the ramifications of personality, environment, limitation of viewpoint. (You can’t, of course, not literally. But – make the attempt.) To make the attempt as challenging as possible, take a Teddy Roosevelt or an Ernest Hemingway or anyone whose life you are familiar with whose interests were broad, and whose energy was high. In other words, compare yourself to someone you would rate high on the achievement scale and on the personal-energy scale. How well could someone with those characteristics live your life?

But isn’t that the point? That someone with those characteristics would live our lives entirely differently, and would make them come to more?

Not so fast. They would live them differently, but that’s a lot of implied assumptions unnoticed. Recalibrate.

For the first time, I realize that when you say that, you mean it not only for me.

Not only for you, though not necessarily for all. Take it as a reminder that slower is sometimes deeper.

All right, let me take a breath, here.

What looks to you (any of you) like a life is always more complex and more enmeshed in circumstances inner and outer than can be known. To a small degree this may be obvious, but it repays more careful consideration.

I’m getting the feel of a great mass of information to be downloaded, needing some organizing principle if it is to come out coherently.

And you, choosing, are that organizing principle. That is what editing is; it is what you do whenever you pull out the meaning implicit but not yet explicit in anything you deal with. This is true not merely of texts, you understand, and not merely of you as an individual.

I swear, your sidelights [I should have said, “asides”] are as interesting to me sometimes as your main trail.

You may find it easier than we do, to find the differences between the two. To us, it is all side-trails, all main trail.

So, a life –

Take John F. Kennedy. With a different father, different brothers, a different body (that is, more reliable health), different opportunities and restrictions – would he have been the same man?

You are implying “which you” about him as well.

That’s inherent in the question, yes. If his elder brother had lived, would JFK ever have developed the unsuspected talents that circumstances brought out? But if his external life had been entirely or largely different, and his decisions therefore different or in many cases nonexistent, would he have been the same person.

As I am writing that, I get, “people as fractals.”

Exactly. Expand upon that.

That’s why we can ask “Which you?” Looking at the same person at a different magnification, we see differences unsuspected at other settings.

You may want to make it a little less abstract than that.

Yes, all right. John F. Kennedy as we know him is the individual produced by – and producing by his on-going choices – a web of relationships. His heredity, his father’s achievements, his illnesses, his bookishness, his social and intellectual opportunities, his career trajectory – all of this is Kennedy seen at a certain magnification. But change the scale and we would see (except, of course, we never can see this in anyone else) the essence behind the personality, the spark behind the glow. If all the external circumstances had been different, the spark would have been the same even if circumstances had constrained it to a dull glow, or had rendered it entirely invisible.

That’s more or less what we’re getting at. And the same for anybody else, of course. Even things that appear to be the result of free will applied over time in given circumstances – habits, in other words – are perhaps more the result of circumstance than of innate character. Someone in a receptive environment may prosper, where in a dampening one, they would not have. The spark is the same; the glow is not and never could be, nor is it desirable that different situations produce like results.

The actor is not the role.


And thus if we are cast as Othello we shouldn’t envy the role of Iago, or if an unnamed courtier, Hamlet.

Yes but.

That ought to be the title of my intellectual autobiography, Yes But.

There are worse titles. The “yes but” means, that isn’t the same as saying “all is for the best in this best of all possible worlds.” At one level of magnification, yes, all is well and injustice does not exist. At other levels, obviously, you have to measure by different scales. Viewing yourselves as 3D roles, there is room for all the seven sins, all the virtues. From the deeper level of yourself as part of the intricate fabric of reality, maybe not.

Are we finished for the moment? Sometimes I can tell, sometimes not.

That’s because sometimes you are well aware of continuities and other times, more aware of boundaries. But this is as good a place as any to pause.

Okay, just as well. Whenever I start to find it hard to control the pen, I figure it’s time to give it a rest. Till next time, then.


Special, like everybody else

Sunday, September 16, 2018

3 a.m. All right, I’m working on the assumption that as usual what you tell me has wider application than me alone. The purely personal and the “personal but meant for others as well” are two different things, and I think I’ve learned to distinguish the two, over the years. So – Joseph and Bertram and Frank as three simultaneous manifestations of one thing, manifesting in different times and places, but, simultaneous.

This needn’t be a big stumbling-block, because it is a distinction not so much aggravated by the difficulties of language – that is, expressing something in a medium designed to express very different understandings – as by a set of assumptions. And we have been working at undermining those assumptions right along. When we say “we,” we don’t mean merely those who connect with you in particular. It is a message being delivered in many ways, places, and times.

At one level, time is traversed sequentially and – as we have said – must be traveled in order. You can’t tear down the pyramids before they have been built. Common sense, after all. On another level, you have access to all times, and they are all going on continuously, are all alive, are all current. The first experience of time is like the hands of a clock; the second is like the face of the dial. Or, another way to say it, the one is like the part of the path you are walking on, the other is like the path itself as it extends past and forward. The path in its entirety exists; your particular place on it is all you know of it directly, but the path exists no matter where you step.

(You mustn’t allow yourselves to be distracted by the difficulties that can arise by taking that paragraph too literally, too mechanistically. It is mean to illustrate a concept, not to imply there is “a” path, etc.)

Now if all times are equally alive, if everything that exists ever exists now, and if everything that exists is part of everything that is – surely you can see that your possibilities are much greater than they appear to those who think that times are separate, individuals are separate, and, in fact, that the appearances of separation in space and time as appears in 3D are reality.

Quite a sentence. You do that sometimes, I notice, when you are reluctant to break up a complex of ideas.

We are aware – sometimes more than other times – of the difficulty, for minds functioning in 3D, of holding together what look like disconnected pieces. We do what we can to hold the pieces together for you, even if sometimes it results in awkward construction.

And I am aware that what you do is sometimes as difficult on your end as comprehension can be on our end.

If it were not for the intuitive spark to jump the gap, communication would scarcely be possible, even though your minds are as much in non-3D as ours.

Now, the point of this is that all times are equally alive because the world is mental and not physical. That is the point of the Brunton books, is it not? And all of you are part of each other, hence part of us, because after all there is only one thing, which is everything. And, finally, we remind you, in saying that one thing manifested in three people, we explicitly pointed out that this was a simplified example, that ignored all manner of cross-connections.

So this is merely to remind you that those cross-connections exist and must exist.

I’m getting what you are wanting to get across, but I don’t quite know why you are having a problem expressing it. Oh, because it is a general concept and you fear its losing impact in specifics?

Not exactly. State it and we will comment.

What I get is that Bertram-Joseph-Frank is not something special, but merely an instance, and you don’t want people thinking it is more than it is. It’s another case of, “You’re special, just like everyone else.”

The difficulty is exactly there. You are special; you are like everyone else in being special, though everyone’s special-ness is different. So on the one hand it is important not to succumb to false or exaggerated humility, and on the other hand it is equally important not to succumb to psychic inflation. And compounding this simple problem of balance is explaining it to others at the same time.

Because the others are prone to forget that what they are reading applies to themselves as well, only in ways not specified in this particular example.

Or in any particular example, yes. Any example is necessarily going to be specifically about someone else’s situation, and only generally or by inference about their own.

Hmm, so where are we?

Your semi-public life is being used as an example – something more personal than an abstraction, but less detailed than you live it –


Well, the more you, Frank, loosen the reins of imagination so that you live the life you can lead, the more clear (by the power of example) it is to others what they may do, which is the point, of course.

“Of course” meaning, I take it, that otherwise we could do this in private.

Yes. Your particular life is of interest mainly insofar as you give glimpses into subtle processes that go on in everyone’s life, and possibilities that are inherent in everyone’s life. But they are not you, any more than you are Colin Wilson or he was Shaw, etc.

That was Colin’s gift to the world, wasn’t it? He was pretty shameless about letting us see his explorations.

Not like you! But yes, he let you think alongside him. only of course that can’t really be done, because no two people bring the same background to what they read. Still, he struck sparks.

That, he did.

Now, anyone whose mind leads them to pay attention to your explorations is along for a reason, obviously. What that reason is will not be known to you (Frank) and why need it be? But it won’t be obvious to them either, because they will come to it only by living it. That is, living with a thought or an emotion or an experience changes you, and the change is part of the effect.

Third-tier effects can’t be predicted from first-tier stimuli, I guess you mean.

We wouldn’t have put it that way, but, true enough.

The ideal result is for one person’s words to throw the spark that lets another person catch fire. You kepi reading Colin Wilson all those years because he encouraged you to hope for something that was otherwise too good to be true. His written words threw sparks, and if you did not catch fire, at least you smoldered, and the spark did not quite go out. You may be doing that for others, and they for others yet. There is no rule that says that you or anyone else has to know the effects you help produce. Indeed, almost the opposite: You can’t know, needn’t know, maybe even are better off not knowing.

Speaking of smoldering, this session feels to me like that. You are saying something and not quite saying it clearly enough to produce a kindling effect; instead, we see a smothered smoking coughing.

Then try this. “Have you not heard it said, ye are gods?”

[That one stunned me. I must have sat for several minutes.]

I can see that’s it for today. Thank you for your continuing efforts to wake us up.


Boundaries and relationships

Saturday, September 15, 2018

4 a.m. All right, guys, you’re up. More on Joseph and Bertram and Frank as one thing?

You keep receiving hints, as when Hemingway was quietly amused when you were speculating over a past-life relationship with him. Or course he could not give you a straight answer. How could a straight answer be given, when the answer was too wildly different from the background assumptions, and any answer at all could only mislead? It isn’t the kind of question to pursue as an “Oh, by the way” sort of thing.

And, I get, a neither impersonal nor strictly personal relationship.

None of our relationships is either personal or impersonal. That’s what is hard for people oriented in 3D to understand. We have been telling you that for decades, now, and although you do have the idea, the idea can always be understood at deeper levels. Outside of the artificial situation created by 3D conditions, individuality as you are accustomed to thinking of it does not exist. That doesn’t mean “the mind you are” ceases to exist; you do not become like the sea that swallows the wave. But it also does not mean that you are as individual as you experience yourselves in 3D – and you never were.

This is a sort of halfway world, you are hinting at, one with fluid boundaries that are nonetheless boundaries.

Remember, it isn’t that things in non-3D are so much different than they were in 3D, only that they may seem so. The 3D world continually reinforces its impressions of separation – in time, in space, between minds as between bodies, between now and then or when, as Bob Monroe put it in that tape you liked to listen to. That is, between perceived past, present, future.

Here – in the realer (because less bounded, less artificially separate) world, it is meaningless to say “how many,” and even, to a large degree, to ask “who.” Rita was told right away, number and individuality was not the same. But “not the same” doesn’t mean non-existent. And it is the difficulty of not jumping to one or the other extreme of the polarity that keeps you from experiencing this ambiguous state of affairs.

And if you cannot realize it easily about non-3D, how much harder to realize that it is true within 3D! Yet it should be obvious that it must be so. Reality doesn’t have compartments.

So, on a day by day basis, you assume that you are one being. After all, that’s what your bodies tell you, isn’t it. Only – why is it that your bodies also tell you that you are incomplete? Why is it that neither living single nor living mated do you feel entirely at ease? Why, for instance, do you need friends? Why do you sometimes meet instant friends, instant antagonists, instant lovers? Why are you drawn to want to help certain people – or they you – for reasons that may be beyond either of you? And this doesn’t even touch the question of blood relationship.

But if your bodies tell you that you are not the absolute units you may think yourselves, your experience of “your own” minds tell you even more loudly and clear. You may have different voices in your head, or different complexes (call them) coexisting and taking their turn at the wheel. You experience different “moods,” accepting each in turn as reality even though they contradict each other. You see the point.

Yes, our concepts of who and what we are overrule our experience.

Only – be careful. Neither extreme position in the polarity is accurate. The polarity itself is accurate. You are individuals; you are a collection of many; at the same time, that doesn’t mean that your collection excludes what it does not include.

That sentence makes more sense than it ought to.

Only because you are – temporarily? – living above the contradiction, and are seeing the continuity. In another moment, perhaps it will seem to be nonsense contradicting itself.

So, if you are neither individual nor undifferentiated community, even in 3D, how much more so in non-3D where the illusions of separation are not existing. Only, what does it mean?

Are you not in the process of explaining how Joseph and Bertram and Frank can be part of one thing even though separated in time and space?

Not “part of” one thing. One thing.

I can’t seem to get that.

This is more elusive than usual, because not only is sequential language inadequate and misleading (in that it is the product of prior assumptions, if nothing else), but so is logic and your sense of possibility. How can something be singular and plural at the same time, depending upon how viewed? How can a relationship be both exclusive and porous? What – in such case – does relationship even mean?

I do admire how you stack up the difficulties to be considered, so that we see them in advance.

It would do no good to bring you to a partial view by ignoring difficulties, only to then have to break down the new understandings. We prefer to try for larger movements of thought, even if each larger step is more difficult than many smaller steps would have been, considered one by one.

Well, that way of working suits me, which I suppose is why you chose it.

Is why we chose you. Only, look at “we” and “you” in these sentences and see the unexamined assumptions they contain.

In a part of my mind I keep remembering that “you” are a part of “me.” It can be hard to remember, given that you are also not me as I ordinarily experience myself.

Or, more accurately, as you used to experience yourself.

Yes, that’s true. and it is the changing how we experience ourselves that is the work to be done, isn’t it?

Always. It is the only work there is.

Care to elaborate on why?

Because you – each and all and any of you – already contain the universe! You are all everything, only you are separated from the realization of it by various ideas, experiences, emotions, prejudices. You are the universe; the universe is embodied in you, no matter who you are. This is no reason to become inflated, because it is as true of the drunk in the gutter, and the psychopath or sociopath who is ruining things for others, or the hopelessly insane, or mentally defective, as for anybody else – but it is true, and could hardly be a more important statement.

You mean, I think, “The sky’s the limit.”

In the sense you mean it, yes. More literally, there are no limits save those you accept. The universe does not have absolute boundaries or separations. However, intellectual acceptance is not the same thing as removing limits. Life is more intricate than that.

Still, as we change who we experience ourselves to be, the world we live in changes, in effect.

In effect. And all anyone can do for anyone else – in 3D or out of it – is suggest and encourage. If it could be done more directly, it would be not assistance but interference.

All right. So, sticking with three of us being one thing –

Start at the other end and look at it as one thing manifesting itself as three. It will give you a better sense of the reality of it, of how it is possible.

Interesting. So it does. I suppose because it begins by taking the unity rather than the multiplicity for granted.

And here we should pause, even though not yet an hour. More next time.

All right. Many thanks as always.


Three lives, one being

Friday September 14, 2018

8:55 a.m. Okay, specifically Joseph and Bertram: For all I know, you were the guys this morning. But in any case, I would like to know anything useful to me.

We are one. That means more than you can know unless / until you loosen the reins.

Yes, I understand that. It can’t be required to make sense and satisfy logic or be consistent with past information.

Can’t go somewhere new without traveling.

So –

We are one. Not, closely connected, or “on the same wavelength,” but one. Unseparated. It is the nature of our tripartite existence that allows for the creation and maintenance of the triangular plane you intuited some while ago, I in ancient Egypt, I in medieval England, I in 20th and 21st century America – three continents, three different millennia, three very different civilizations. But, stretched on the loom of one being.

That’s a lot, right there. If we are one, why can’t I remember vividly and in detail, and is it desirable, and can you (I) show me how to do it?

You do remember, vividly and in detail, the emotional (that is, the intuitive, non-physically determined) events and being. But you want intellectual opening as well.

I do.

And you hope for it when you visit Egypt.

I do.

For the right reasons?

I don’t know what the right reasons would be. I want to expand what I know; always have wanted to. But I wasn’t particularly interested in – oh, that’s an interesting thought. I wasn’t interested in scientific laws, etc., but was (am) interested in history. Both could be considered abstractions, but they are different types of abstraction. I’m interested in the invisible; that’s one way to put it.

You are also both gullible and skeptical, [both traits] stemming from the same distrust of sources.

And with good reason to be so.

True enough, but even good habits deter when wrongly applied. Now, in asking us (yourself) for information, you need to consider. Does a habit of gullibility and skepticism serve you?

Well, I can’t say flatly that it does not. I still don’t want to succumb to Psychic’s Disease.

Then, where are you left?

Okay, I get it. Perceive first, discern later.

It is the safe way to proceed, the fastest, most reliable path.

I can only try. And yes, Yoda, I hear you.

Well, it is true. [“There is no try. There is do, or not do.”]

Very well. Begin with what is easiest, and only slowly work toward what is harder. Recall how you worked with Joseph Smallwood, as you called him.

I got the sense of him, and a sort of vague outline of the major tides in his life, and gradually came to fill in the story, and here and there came facts that could be verified, or, at least, falsified.

So let’s proceed here the same way. Let us assume – for the purpose of making this simple enough to perhaps succeed – that we three, only, are one. In other words, we will for the moment omit to consider all the infinite connections each of us has in all directions, and consider ourselves as – so to speak – one parental spirit (call it that) manifesting in these 3D (and non-3D, remember) compound beings.

Divide the three lives in various ways and they illustrate various specialties.

I get what you mean, but that doesn’t say it. You mean, taking the three as a unit, we can look at that unit from various directions and see different similarities and differences illustrated.

Yes. So, Joseph is a priest in an undivided culture based on knowledge. Bertram is a priest in a somewhat less united culture based on emotion. Frank is a priest in a fragmented culture based on speculation.

Or, Joseph’s science is mental, Bertram’s is minimal, Frank’s is overwhelming. By this we mean the time they live in, of course, not their personal mentality.

Joseph’s life is circumscribed and given form entirely by ceremony. That is, he lives moment to moment in a vast and continuing ritual. In a manner of speaking, of course. Don’t let this get too literal. Bertram’s life is partly ritual partly unsculptured. There is his life as priest performing ritual, and his life as priest living day by day. Frank’s only ritual is anything he happens to think of or wander into. Or perhaps his reading and writing might be considers his on-going ritual.

Joseph’s task is to preserve and to embody; Bertram’s, to reassure and be a means of connection; Frank’s, to offer hope and reason for hope.

Joseph’s experience of sexual union was sacramental, regulated, channeled to higher opportunities. Bertram’s was non-existent in terms of ordinary perception, and was a form of higher union when sublimated. Frank’s, like his culture and his life, was a hodge-podge of aspirations and longings, and had no external support to make it more productive.

Now what does this overview give you? Not detail; not even outline. Yet it does provide something.

It does. It gives me the beginnings of a place to explore emotionally.

Which is the key, always.


Loosening the reins

Friday, September 14, 2018

6:25 a.m. Again watching movies, in a way. In the middle of the night I woke up from one and thought, “How intricate!” Maybe not in so many words, but that was the meaning. Such an elaborate story, having nothing in particular to do with me, as far as I could see or feel. Netflix in the night, only I don’t get to choose the features. Nor do I think this is unconnected with yesterday’s topic, and presumably today’s.

So, guys, you want me to loosen the reins of imagination. How?

First –

I know. Recalibrate, slow down.

Well, you’re seeing the effects in many contexts, aren’t you?

I am. When Michael and I were talking the other night, he noticed the differences.

And when you observe yourself, you too notice. So now, only an occasional reminder is necessary.

A word to the wise, or anyway to the hurried. Okay. So –

It is less a matter of learning new good habits than of unlearning old unhelpful ones. We are talking of your loosening the reins, you see: That implies that the horses are already in harness, and it is up to you to steer rather than rein in.

A pun comes to me, without much point: “Long may he rein.”

A useful play on words, at that. Use a longer rein. We aren’t saying take the horses out of harness – far from it. Only, they know how to work the trail better than you do. You have picked (or will pick) the trail; let them see to their own footing.

But – the “how” of it?

Learn to go slowly enough that you have time to observe. Keep your attention where it should be, though it vary at any given moment.

You mean, I think, pay attention in the appropriate way, no matter what subject matter may be appropriate at any given time.

That’s right. Sometimes inward, sometimes outward, sometimes both, sometimes (in deep meditation, say) neither. This is not about narrowing your mental world, but about sharpening your focus on whatever you observe.

That seems a bit contradictory. I should sharpen focus yet loosen the reins.

The difficulty here actually illustrates the tendency [that is] to be overcome. The same character traits that enabled you to function well with ILC rather than with channeling or with ordinary 3D logic and reasoning are the traits getting in the way here.

My putting in my oar too vigorously?

Your trying to steer, unconsciously. You have in mind that the theme is how you loosen the reins, and you sort of surreptitiously – behind your own back, as you say – keep trying to keep us to the point. You do this much less when you don’t know where we’re going.

I can sort of feel that. Any helpful hints how to not do that, or at least become aware of my doing it (beyond your telling me)?

It is a fine point, but you are able to discern it and learn from it: When you want to steer, either just don’t, or say so explicitly, which will make it conscious or rather overt, you see, where it can be handled, as we are doing now.

I keep telling people, “until you make it conscious, it runs you.”

And this is a lesson that you truly have learned, but there are always deeper levels to integrate. Don’t worry about it, but don’t forget it, either.

All right, then – steer away.

Well, a little carefully, here. You steer in the larger sense, only keep a looser hand on the reins.

Terribly mixed metaphor, between boats and stagecoaches.

Shall we discuss metaphor, or shall we stick to the point?

You’ve got me smiling. Proceed.

You imagine your life. You all do. Only, in 3D, the land of delayed consequences, what you imagine does not materialize – interesting word – immediately. And by the time it begins to materialize, you may be imagining something entirely or partially contradictory, as in assuring yourself that your deepest intuitions or most cherished dreams are impractical, pipe dreams, stupid, childish, escapist – you name the epithet, somebody is even now cancelling their dreams by using it.

We are talking here of third-tier consequences, and we’re going to recapitulate them for those who may not have been privy to that discussion.

First-tier. What you actually experienced in a 3D moment, whether that moment was an instant or years or a lifetime. This is Viktor Frankl in the concentration camp.

Second-tier. What you decided to make of that experience, a decision that may be made consciously or unconsciously. This is Frankl deciding he will not succumb to hatred and futility.

Third-tier. How your character changes over time. That is, the cumulative effect of so many decisions (which may contradict each other, or mutually reinforce, or some alternation of the two). This is Frankl after the fact, living with his pain, transmuting grief into understanding and hopefully into pity.

So, you see, day by day you decide what you will or will not allow into your definition of reality. Day by day, first-time experiences offer you the chance to reaffirm or modify or contradict. Regardless of the strength or nature of first-time experience, second-tier effects are always within your choice, and you are at least peripherally aware of the fact, though you may choose to choke off that awareness.

A couple of comments come to mind. I remember George Ritchie’s description of the Polish lawyer and POW that the GI’s named Bill Cody because of his mustache and because they couldn’t pronounce his name. He had survived a full six years in the camps, after having seen his wife and children lined up and shot, and had survived not only whole and physically healthy, but the personification of love, the man all the other prisoners trusted to be fair. Cody told George that when his family was shot in front of his eyes, he realized in a flash that he had to decide whether or not he was going to be consumed by hatred, and instead chose love.

The other example is from my own life, and I see now – well, I have seen for quite a while – that I might have reacted well to bad situations, and a little spark well inside knew I could and should, only I didn’t usually listen. Instead, I listened to the resentments and the fear and the anger of the moment.

In the second instance, we would say that your third-tier effects contradict your first- and second-tier effects, which is all to the good. On the one hand, you could call it learning from experience; or you could call it metanoia; or you could say with the Sufis that a moment of true awareness of who and what you are will allow you to soar over your sins even though your sins be like scarlet.

Now, this may seem far removed from the announced topic of “how you loosen the reins,” but – do you still think so? Could we have gotten here if you had insisted on sticking to what was more obviously germane?

I get your point. There isn’t any point in asking for guidance and then rejecting it as it comes because it seems to be answering a different question.

That’s loosening the reins.

Got it. Okay, thanks for all this.


Imagination and liberation

Thursday, September 13, 2018

6:40 a.m. I was doing something, having awakened but still in bed. What?

You were letting scenarios play, watching.

So I was. But there was a point to what I was doing. What was it?

You need to loosen the reins on your imagination, quite a bit. We know this comes as a surprise to you, but maybe not to those who know you. Wanting to be a writer isn’t automatically the same as having a good imagination, and even writing a couple of novels doesn’t necessarily evidence the kind of imagining that we have in mind.

Okay. Enlighten me. I sort of know this behind my own back, so to speak.

It could be an intricate discussion, but for the moment we would prefer to hold it to what is practical for your liberation, now, rather than to expand it into general truths. You are ready now; you need it now.

To write the book the guys are pushing me to do?


All right. I answered my question in asking it. So, I’m listening.

Just “imagining” that you could talk to The Boss, or Evangeline, or the guys, at all, was a form of liberation. It was the beginning peck at the eggshell from inside. Until then you were confining yourself, in effect, to what the 3D world was willing to validate. Anything else that you experienced or even longed to experience, you wrote off as wishful thinking. Now, wishful thinking could also be looked at as long-range planning, but it isn’t looked at that way, usually. It is dismissed, or rather is held in the “not really relevant” bin.

Now, when validated experience expanded your idea of the possible, you still held these things in that bin, in a way, only you redefined it as “perhaps realer than I thought, but still not fully trustworthy.” You did those things, but part of you was prepared to disown them – and thus [prepared to disown] the part of you that experienced them! – if it seemed necessary.

I never wanted to fool myself or mislead others. So I sort of fooled myself and misled others in the opposite direction, didn’t I?

No, that’s too harsh, too black and white. What you did was to hamper yourself, to stay half in and half out of the eggshell.

The trick seems to be to avoid becoming a flake, believing anything and everything, on the one hand, and being unable to escape cultural conditioning, on the other.

In your particular culture, yes. Other cultures, with different boundaries to what is “real” and what is “imagined,” create different problems for their inhabitants. But you came to live in the here and in the now that is America in the 20th and 21st centuries.

And, I feel and have long felt, [came here] to help at least some others to break out of the cultural trance – without losing their balance – so that they could live more freely, my own struggles being the model.

You might say you imagined that role for yourself, or you might say – which is the same thing – that you woke up in mid life to realize it.

Now, the next step beyond imagining a role for oneself – that is, imagining a life, imagining a purpose and therefore a means – is imagining the way to do it, and the consequences that follow from pursuing that way. In short, you get out of the eggshell, your wings are strengthened by the struggle to escape – as planned by nature – and, then what? What gives a chick the idea that those muscles that got it out of the shell will enable it to fly?

Mama and papa bird, usually. The newly hatched chick is pretty helpless, isn’t it? Doesn’t even know how to feed itself.

Correct. In the case of humans, even though they define themselves as 3D-merely, they are of course never divorced from their parent consciousness, their non-3D component but more than that, the beyond-3D-and-non-3D-divisions consciousness from which the creature was created. For, remember, though you think of “energy” and “non-3D” as different from 3D, they are not separate worlds. Energy is matter; the non-3D extensions of a 3D person may be equally well seen as the 3D person being extensions of the non-3D, but in either case they are part of the same complex. In speaking of the “parent consciousness,” we mean something prior to the 3D-non-3D-complex living a 3D life.

To continue the analogy for a moment, the chick has “feed” from its parents. The 3D person receives “feed” continually from its prior self, its parent consciousness. and in both cases, much of this feed is considered to be “instinct.” What is instinct? Pursue the definitions and you will see that they describe effects and step around the question of causes, because there is no way to account for that feed in any scheme that does not allow for (a) non-3D feed and, even more, (b) parental guidance, call it, from the non-3D being of which the creature is created.

Discussions of divine providence, guardian angels, etc. touch on these questions from a theological standpoint. Science has no such standpoint, and can only analyze ever more closely how such feed occurs, not from where and certainly not why.

But to keep it to the realm of the immediately practical. Your friend Michael [Langevin] assists you to pry open your imagination of yourself, and thus helps you break out of the eggshell in the only way that help can be given without enfeebling the chick. In other words, encouragement and mirroring lend the chick energy, but the chick still has to do the work, in the process strengthening the muscles it will need if it is to fly.

Michael reminds me of my influence on his life. This shows me that one idea I may have of myself isn’t necessarily inflated or fanciful.

That’s one way to look at it. Another would be to look back at your past 25 years or so and count the magicians / shamans / practitioners / acolytes / aspirers you have interacted with to your mutual benefit, sometimes leading, sometimes following.

More than 25 years. You’d have to go back at least to Louis Meinhardt, and that began in 1971, which makes, what, nearly 50 years.

Well, you see, that is how inter-3D reinforcement happens. They struggle, you struggle, but even in your struggles you encourage each other to keep pushing against the damned eggshell (for that is how it often seems to you).

All right. Now, suppose you spend what seems like a lifetime, packing at that shell, pushing against it, experiencing it as a crippling, almost suffocating impediment to your real life that you imagine (though of course you cannot remember). When you finally break out of the shell, is it surprising that your initial reaction may be disorientation?

All our personal history will suggest that we are not free, but that this must be some new form of struggle against the confining shell.

And it will take an effort of reimagining yourselves to see – to realize – the new possibilities.

Good thing we have nagging parental consciousness to prod us in new directions.

You also have drives – hunger, discomfort, everything the 3D world throws at you continually, to keep you moving. It’s all designed for your benefit, but, as usual,

It all hangs on the question of “which you.”

That’s it. Even understanding that question is a massive advance, enabling other shifts in perspective.

Are we still in “the realm of the immediately practical”?

We smile. Don’t worry about it, of course we are. Absorbing a concept is a form of re-imagining.

That hadn’t occurred to me.

It is what we have been talking about.

I see it, now that you say it. But I hadn’t.

You are going to have to find ways to expand your ideas of what is possible to include a sense of it being possible for you, and here, and now.

I guess we’re sending this off. Some valuable clues here.

Even sending things a little more personal is a rearranging, you see.

That’s what happened with the Mind Mirror, isn’t it? When Judith [Pennington] gave me feedback showing, electronically, that my alpha state was something objective as well as subjective, it changed me.

It validated a part of your imagined being, yes. You are not only a self-contained housecat but also (not instead) an eagle looking on from a high place at a distance.

I get that there is much more to be said, but that’s enough for the moment, given that I have this to transcribe.

You could reimagine a different way of working, of course. You could do this much longer, and transcribe later, maybe not even the same day. But notice, your immediate reaction is against changes. So, look at that.

I see. What we’re used to doing has its own momentum.

Habit is strong, and like anything in life, has its advantages and disadvantages. Think how helpful the habits have been that led you to early morning conversations, and to touch-typing, however awkward at first, until it became another advantage.

I first taught myself touch-typing in 1966, when I had access to an IBM Selectric typewriter. But it wasn’t until a little while ago – 2015, maybe? – that daily feed over a long time moved me to a new level of ability.

That’s what happens. Long, often discouragingly long times pecking at the shell, then liberation and new abilities and new struggles.

Presumably not only here in 3D.

Let’s just say that those who are longing for death to bring them to a land of eternal rest aren’t entirely wrong, but are in for a surprise! Rest looks good when you are tired, but it palls into boredom later. The world is better organized than that. But this is enough for now.

Okay, many thanks. Entertaining as always.

That’s the bait.

Smiling. Till next time.


The dangers of over-reliance



A couple of long-lived perplexities cleared up here, mostly — how can information from the guys be real and yet sometimes wrong?

(2:30 pm.) So on the one hand, wonderful material and it resonates with people. On the second hand, Tom wants to know more. On the third hand Mary Ann sets me a blind question and you guys strike out entirely but with utter confidence. And on the fourth hand Rita gets a sense of me becoming a performer for people. And on the fifth hand there was that request from ______ that I shot right back at him, saying you do it. A lot of hands. So how does all this come together and – mostly – how can you guys be wrong?

We know a sincere troubled question when we hear it, and the sincerity deserves an answer regardless other things.

Rita is right as to the temptation. You will remember that Cayce wound up in jail one time and he wasn’t even being tempted into new territory.

If you were to be sure that anything you said was true – this is different from Psychics’ Disease – how?

Ouch. I hadn’t thought of that.

Over-reliance on intuitive powers, we remind you, is something we did warn you against.

What I’m getting between the lines – and I can hear you saying “exactly!” before I even finish writing it – I get that I can’t get certain kinds of information from you.

It is a delicate balance on our end. On the one hand, not to put any barrier to access. On the other, not to encourage dead-ends. Your choice, always, but we do not need to, nor intend to, facilitate the making of what we see as bad choices. And this moves us into deeper waters than first appeared. As you see, we are continually needing to open a topic with a greatly over-simplified bird’s-eye view so that, once you have oriented yourself, we may proceed to enter qualifiers, contradictions, caveats, and swirls and eddies.

But we can explore conscience, and the choosing among paths, and our nudgings, and free will, at another time. Too bad you don’t have more acquaintance with theology.

I can hear a hint. I bought the books. I just can’t make them read themselves. I get this: This is expanded access, and it is real access. But nothing obtained in this way is to be taken on faith any more than information obtained any other way.

Exactly! Exactly. No less – but no more. It is a question of resonance, and willingness to go one way rather than another – and of guidance considered at a whole new level.

I begin to see.