Intuitive Linked Communication (ILC)

Monday, October 9, 2017

Drama

You said we’d start by looking at what 3D life as we experience it implies about “the underlying reality it suggests and mirrors.”

Meaning, merely, that the world you experience is not divorced from the realer world it is based in. You can extrapolate from your experience, you don’t need to accept a whole new scheme unrelated to your sensory-reported life. But it is extrapolation, it is not straight continuity. Your 3D experience of life is a useful platform for acquiring a deeper understanding; it is not in itself that deeper understanding.

So, as we said, your lives are primarily passions: emotions, feelings, drives, compulsions, shading down to interests, fascinations, vocations, orientations. If you don’t instinctively (now, there’s a word!) understand what these seemingly quite disparate words have in common, a little thought and some internal questioning will repay the effort.

Remember, you cannot reliably use academic habits of thought to understand. Mere associating or classifying is not going to lead you to get what we are saying. On the contrary, it will prevent you or at any rate interfere with your seeing familiar things in the new context that can revolutionize your understanding. The enemy of expanded comprehension is the habit of seeing things as “nothing but” variations of accustomed categories.

Your lives are drama. They are all forms of drama from morality play to farce. And they are this for the same reason that drama as art form was created within 3D reality.

Fiction within the fiction. Hamlet’s play within a play. And I gather that this is another example of “as above, so below.”

Drama always encapsulates in miniature its encompassing reality.

I think that means, drama as an art form shows us life in a condensed form, so that we can see it. A biopic may give us a person’s life and times in a couple of hours, or that same “life and times” may occupy a six-volume set of books, or may be conveyed in a Classics Illustrated comic book, or a children’s book, or in popular legend, or even a TV show.

Yes, that’s what we mean. So, since you are familiar with that process, extrapolate upwards, to see how the dramas you live may be miniature versions of something real. Just as a film is going to differ from the life itself by a huge factor of time and energy – a couple of hours’ worth of attention as opposed to decades of living – so your lives are but an illustrative blip on the record in comparison to what they illustrate.

Even more than ordinarily, I’m having trouble deciding whether what you’re saying will be clear to those who are not sharing the joint mind at the moment of transmission.

You can always expand and interpret. There is no great penalty to over-explaining to some, and there may be great benefit to explaining to those who begin from somewhat farther away, for whatever reason.

I hear you saying that just as drama is our way of understanding life by putting it under a microscope, so our lives are the equivalent to the next higher order of reality.

That is accurate, and said perhaps more clearly than we did, so, as we say, potentially a useful exercise.

Well, since this is true (as true as we can express given the limits of translation across conditions) you can see the point of your lives, perhaps.

I can imagine people coming up with all kinds of conclusions, some of which will seem to them to follow, but may not follow at all.

True, with the caveat that as usual, judgment of someone else’s conclusions is risky and not necessarily profitable. You can tell what seems true to you; that isn’t the same thing as saying that what is true to you is true in any absolute sense.

Relatively real

What I hear you saying, or rather, the implications I draw, are that what we get from drama is analogous to what another layer of reality gets from observing our lives.

Yes as long as you remember that it would be more carefully stated if you said, “What we ourselves realize at our higher reality by observing ourselves at the 3D level of reality.” That is clumsy, but it is important to try to avoid the “we versus they” polarity that continually sneaks in to the argument. “We versus they” leads straight to a sense of victimization and an attitude of distrust and paranoia. “One level of ourself versus another level of ourself,” though more difficult to envision, avoids that trap.

So do you begin to see your experience of 3D life differently? Do you see why it is only relatively real, why all possible versions of your life are explored, why so much of it is inexplicably caused and not easily seen even after the fact? And can you see what is or is not important within the context of your life, and how what is or is not important changes as you change context?

Yes. Hamlet may be prince of Denmark, but he is not owner of a bank account, doesn’t have a refrigerator, doesn’t even use the restroom. In other words, as a character in a play, he is real. As a living person outside of the play, he does not exist except as an idea. Like the play he is a part of, he is relatively real, to us at our level of play-going reality.

Now, that isn’t the whole story, because as you have learned elsewhere, created characters live, just as you do, who are yourselves created characters. So it isn’t as if they aren’t real, it’s that they, like you, are only relatively real, and how real depends upon the level of the observer.

Since our reality can’t really depend upon the existence of observers, I take it you mean, how real we appear depends upon who is watching, from what level.

It is not literally, but only metaphorically, true that your reality “can’t really depend upon observers.” But that’s a topic for another time. It will bring us far, and meanwhile people may want to think about it. For now, let us stay with the question of relative reality.

What you experience is real to you, as it should be. But it is a pale shadow of what is real in realer dimensions. (The very concept of dimensions is a metaphor, an abstraction. We use the terms because it is widely understood in a certain sense, but as you see, every so often we remind you not to take it literally. There are no dimensions bounding reality, only ways of looking at things.)

Beyond drama

Re-read what we just said. Another way to say the same thing would be, “Passions, emotions, feelings, etc., are more real than you are.” They, like you, are closer to being shadows of a real substance than substances in their own right. You want to know why life is so dramatic and often painful, so seemingly unfair and so seemingly arbitrary? You cannot understand it if you look at it only in its own terms, any more than you could understand Hamlet if you were within it rather than viewing it.

I know you are not explaining away our perplexities and sufferings here, but I don’t know if others will see that or not.

It can’t be calculated; there are too many possibilities. We can only make as clear a statement as possible, and trust people’s own internal compass to bring them to a right understanding.

So, this should explain to some degree why you don’t live in a world that is just as you want it. Be it Macbeth or Hamlet, the king is going to die, or there isn’t any drama. That doesn’t mean that every play is a tragedy, or that everyone within the tragedy is equally affected. It merely means, no story, no drama, and what is a better story than one with high stakes?

I remember my daughter once, when she was very little, saying with a sigh, “You know what I’d like? To have everything my own way.” I laughed and agreed that it would be nice. But I see now that this would limit us to our preconceived ideas of what would be good for us, or would be pleasant.

Prince Hamlet no doubt would have preferred that his father live. Certainly he would have preferred to continue the life he was leading before the tragedy, before his father’s ghost laid a burden of obligation on him that he did not know how to fulfill. But it was in living those complications that Hamlet became more than any other person, and became himself a legend.

It is a wrench for people to see the pain and suffering of this world as only relatively real. It seems too much like explaining them away, even when you carefully explain that this is not what you are doing.

But, you see, their wrestling with this is itself good and profitable work for them.

 

Sunday, October 8, 2017

We recognize that it is difficult for individuals to hold on to a continuing theme while moving thorough the accidents and distractions of the ever-flowing present 3D moment, but remember, your anchor, your un-moving non-3D aspect allows you to remain oriented,  if you orient to it rather than to your flowing mind.

I’m pretty sure you mean, the ever-flowing 3D timestream carries the 3D part of our consciousness along with it, like a raft on a river, but the part of us that resides in the rest of All-D, the non-flowing non-3D, does not get carried along, but rests firmly on solid ground, and the two aspects of us are connected but are not always conscious of each other unless we make the effort to make them so.

The point is, the “you” that you customarily, or let us say automatically, identify with, is not invariant. When it centers on 3D life and takes for granted 3D conditions, it is in effect limited in what it can do, what it can associate, what it can remember. When, instead, it connects with the non-3D and sees 3D life as a subset of All-D, it takes for granted an entirely more expanded view of 3D life, and it experiences limits that are significantly more expanded.

Just as Thoreau said in Walden, that I have quoted in the past.

That’s right. In the case of this kind of exploring, it isn’t traversing the terrain that is unique, it is in the reporting in modern language.

Yes, I got that. I don’t expect us to see what human eyes have never seen, only to maybe interpret what we see in language (and amid associations) that have never been used before, for the sake of translating to a new civilization.

Trust that the information will flow even when you yourself (consciously, in 3D terms) don’t know what it is to be or even where it is to begin.

What is it all for?

The underlying theme is your lives in 3D as conduits of vast impersonal forces. How can your lives be both personal and impersonal, both contingent (even accidental) and firmly rooted and determined? As we said, it is soul (pattern) flowing spirit (energy) through it. And the question beyond this is, why? What’s it all for? What is going on?

As always, “as above, so below.” Looking at your third-tier lives, see the continuities.

• First tier, the 3D experience in its own terms.
• Second tier, the internal reaction to the physical events.
• Third tier, the effect on the being of that second-tier reaction. In other words, how the transitory becomes the continuing part of the fabric of the soul. (Of course that doesn’t mean third-tier reactions cannot be counteracted or modified later. We are sketching a way to connect the somewhat-real 3D experience to the more real All-D situation.)

If you want to understand your lives, start with what is most familiar, the first-tier experience that happens to you firsthand and that is reported to you by everything around you: friends, news media, books, films, everything. In other words, begin with the world as it is reported to you. Not only wars and rumors of war, but passions and rumors of passions, predicaments and rumors of predicaments. Start with the dramas of everyday life at first-hand and at a remove. We want to explain life, not explain it away.

Surely it is obvious that life consists of negative and positive emotions and experiences. Those experiences and every way in which they can be sorted into categories are not incidental to life. They are life, they are the fabric of life, the essential background of life.

It is true that some people in their yearning for peace and for meaning would transcend all this if they could. And it is true that some religions and philosophies argue that such transcendence is the only worthwhile goal of a life, all else being Maya. In a way this is an accurate perception, for the 3D world as it presents itself is not nearly as real as the casual observer assumes. But there is a difference between seeing the only-relative-reality of the life you lead (on the one hand) and deciding that 3D life is a waste of time, so to speak, a fraud, a snare, a delusion. Just because you wake up for a moment and realize that the play “Hamlet” is not the reality you thought it, doesn’t mean it wasn’t affecting you. Similarly, life.

For some reason – certainly not a logical association of ideas, at least if it is I can’t see the logic – I think of flight simulators.

Flight simulators

A good analogy up to a point. A flight simulation machine gives you a somewhat-real experience that prepares you for the real thing. By simulating the first-tier experience (the physical sensations), it allows you to experience the second-tier experience (the intellectual, kinesthetic, emotional reaction to the first-tier data), so that in a sense you will form third-tier reaction-patterns based on what you have become by having gone through that experience. This is not an exact analogy, remember, but it is useful. Don’t parrot it, but do chew on it and see what further analogies suggest themselves.

I get, just because you realize that what you thought was flight is actually a simulator, don’t jump to the conclusion that flight itself is an unobtainable illusion.

Isn’t it more logical to assume that if this is a simulator, it is in aid of something? Preparing you for real flight, perhaps? The conclusion that the world is only relatively real may lead you to conclude that it is a meaningless charade, but it doesn’t have to. It is, shall we say, at least equally probable that life means something, is in aid of something, is preparation for something. Otherwise it’s a lot of money, time, and effort to create a simulator just to fool you.

Smiling. I figure you guys (we guys, I realize) work for Industrial Light and Magic.

Not so unflattering a comparison. They do produce remarkably effective second-tier experience, even though they think they’re in business to make money.

As we say, start with what you know. Next time we will begin at this point: Looking at 3D life as you experience it, what does it hint at regarding the underlying reality it suggests and mirrors?

 

 

Friday, October 6, 2017

Here is a long message Henry Reed posted on my blog. I have my own reaction to it, and I gather that you’d just as soon I set that out so you can correct and comment as usual.

[Henry Reed: A professional Intuitive posted this recollection,.

[The other day, after the Vegas attack, comedian Jimmy Kimmel … stated that it seemed like a window onto evil had been opened. This made me think of something my clairvoyant professor had said back in the mid ’70s…. He said that the first bomb testing, and all the bombs that have followed, have actually “blown holes” in Earth’s spiritual layer of protection…. With each ‘hole’ a tremendous amount of evil or dark forces has been able to enter. They have come streaming or flooding in. In his words it was like a “vacuum cleaner” sucking in tremendous amounts of negativity.

[Then the drug revolution went hand-in-hand with this. He explained that loosening one’s consciousness thru drugs allowed many of these dark forces to have access to them. To easily come into (either partly by influencing or more totally inhabiting) bodies. That with this much dark forces on Earth now it is no longer safe to do mind-altering drugs and he even discouraged social drinking. (You see literally the evil that literally comes into some people who drink often). Some people I know do peyote rituals, insisting it is fine and the native Americans did it. But here again, this creates a “loosening” of the finer bodies (etheric, astral and spirit layers etc.).

[With the prevalence and existence of SO much negativity on Earth now along with the heightening of energies our way of living cannot be the same as in the past. He said that Earth’s protective layer is now more like “Swiss cheese” — extremely full of holes, giving free access to negative forces…. Indeed literally many ” windows onto evil” have opened. If only people more in general could understand the many layers of existence. [He also said] that as time went on closer to the millennium and after, good spiritual forces or beings would have to be streaming energy to the planet just to keep us functioning long enough for a major event or change to happen. And that these “speeded up” energies would be something that a segment of society would not be able to handle. Some people would become erratic. We are seeing lot of this happen…. Interesting that Jesus had said something like “except that things be ‘speeded up’ there would be no one left alive.”

[MOST SIGNIFICANTLY, as I see it anyway, weapons of killing SHOULD NOT be easily accessible to the public!! This should NO LONGER be possible! The human climate is changing and has changed so dramatically that this can no longer be possible, as I see it anyway. There is way too much instability now.]

My thinking is that this is all confused. I think it is inaccurate use of metaphor, for one thing, inappropriately concrete. Atomic bombs, being physical, can’t blow holes in something that isn’t. But – I don’t know, I suppose. I could be persuaded to think I am being too rigid.

Always a good attitude, if uncomfortable, being ready to be made to re-think. All right, let’s examine it.

Atomic bombs

“A window on evil.” Doesn’t this metaphor suggest that you are on one side of the wall and evil on the other, and if only the window weren’t open, you’d still be separated?

For many years I have been quoting somebody, can’t remember who, who pointed out that the line between good and evil is not between people but within them.

Correct. But, a careless or ambiguous metaphor does not necessarily discredit an argument, still less an insight or position. So, let’s look farther.

At the most simple and physical layer, atomic bombs do not blow holes in a layer of protection that would by nature be non-3D and would be internal. Clearly at the literal level, this would be inappropriately concrete. But look at it symbolically, and there could be an argument. Certainly the implied devaluation of the sanctity of life that has followed the use and development of such weapons might be expressed that way. However, as a literal material description of reality, no. The thought coupling atomic bombs and current manifestation of evil rests on interrelated incorrect ideas. That::

• Physical events cause rupture in a postulated spiritual protective shield.
• The spiritual shield existed, with one side being protected against evil on the other side.
• “Windows” have opened between the 3D and non-3D worlds. When you remember that there is one world, and that 3D and non-3D are subsets, where is there a place for walls and windows? (Yes, we recognize that the window was metaphor, but within the construct of the metaphor, that is the function, and, as we say, where is the possibility?)
• Great amounts of negativity were allowed into 3D by the disruption of this spiritual shield. Without the shield, without the separation of spiritual and physical, without the segregation of good from evil to begin with, what is left of this idea?
• Without a spiritual protective layer to be breached by a physical event, where is the potential for it to be full of holes?

The analogy resembles the hole in the ozone that was detected decades ago, except that ozone depletion was described as resulting from physical causes affecting a physical substance and system. No one suggested that the ozone interacted with spiritual forces.

To sum up the portion on atomic testing, we would say, no, this is bad theory, inappropriately concrete, and if meant only metaphorically, much more misleading than elucidating.

Drugs

In relation to drugs, however, this is on firmer grounds. Notice immediately one difference.

This one attributes a physical mechanism (drugs) to individuals rather than to society as an abstraction.

It is true that drugs affect the individual mind. Do they therefore affect the individual spirit?

That isn’t a question I have thought to ask.

Think in terms of what we have been encouraging you to think of as the structure of the world.

So much easier to take dictation.

So it is. Think.

Well, if 3D and non-3D are two aspects of the same world, and everybody is in both, the differences between mental and spiritual aren’t necessarily even real. I mean, whatever spiritual means, we are it. And it can’t be something walled off within us, this much body, this much spirit, this much mind. If there is a difference among them, we’re closer to raisin bread than separate bins of wheat, raisins, yeast, etc.

Does it affect your spirit when you take aspirin?

Does it affect my spirit when the headache goes away?

Exactly.

Well, “exactly,” only I don’t know quite where that leaves us.

Drugs, even psychotropics on one end of the scale and pain-relievers on the other end, are all physical substances. They affect the physical body by producing chemical changes. Those chemical changes may be mild or profound, and they may have effects on the 3D consciousness ranging from disorienting to imperceptible. Where is the scope of action for the physical substance to affect a postulated spiritual barrier? What they affect is consciousness, and their chief effect there is indeed to lower the barriers, but they are internal barriers, not barriers between the individual and the outside (even if non-physical) world.

I have long said that LSD does not bring chaos or harmony, clarity or confusion, but magnifies what you are. You may be overwhelmed by it, but it is overwhelm by what you already are, unsuspected. At least, I think so.

That is substantially correct. Again, the metaphor implies invasion from without. Absent that, what remains?

However, despite inappropriate metaphor and inadequate examination of premises, this is still a valid perception, that the current moment is one of heightened activity.

Long-repressed content

I get that the point here is that this is a time when what was unconscious is becoming conscious (whether we would prefer it or not) and therefore the negative is coming forth full strength, having been so long repressed.

It isn’t that the negative has been repressed, it is that the awareness of, the acceptance of, the negative has been repressed. And like any long-repressed psychic content, it is now erupting full force.

Yes, I see that. And, because we are good as well as evil, protection flows forth along with destruction.

It is your choice, always.

This is very helpful, and a lot more thoughtful than my reaction would have been.

It’s mostly a matter of slowing down, of sinking in, unafraid of what you may find. You do it by talking to us. You could profitably do it in your day-to-day interactions, as well.

I was about to say, “easier said than done,” but it is just a decision, isn’t it?

That’s what it is, and your lives are built upon a continual stream of decisions.

And as to the commercial for gun control at the end?

Change the consciousness, and the manifestations of the consciousness change automatically. There is much more going on behind the scenes than you can know – we are talking in 3D terms here, not speaking of non-3D manipulation – and the issue is not what it seems to anybody on any side of it. Stick to what you can do, rather than obsessing over what you cannot do.

Don’t go marching off to a pretended siege of Babylon, as Emerson says.

Some psychological situations never change, which is why older wisdom still applies.

Many thanks for all this.

Thursday, October 5, 2017

Again I am hearing time’s winged chariot at my heels, so to speak. A sense of “no time to lose,” even despite the need sometimes to cool our heels till the time comes around (if only to give ourselves time to recharge). I’m getting a sort of visual: force issuing as from a high-pressure firehose, then, as it enters the matrix of channels, being diverted and channeled by the nature of the terrain. Not a very good description. Can you amplify and correct?

What you are getting is that human life is a combination, an interaction, of two forces. One is, as we keep saying, these vast impersonal forces, flowing through you (and around you, and all but engulfing you), each one to his or her own carrying capacity.

And do the forces ever exceed that capacity?

They do, and those vessels break. But let us finish describing your situation.

The other force is what results when your share of these forces run through what you are. Because each of you is different, the appearance of the force flowing through you will be different. It may be classified by various schemes, but those schemes will be reporting averages. Thus Leo energy is different from Scorpio energy, and both are different from Gemini energy. But the commonalities do not amount to identity. One Leo is not interchangeable with another. You are all individuals. That is the point of your existence, after all.

You, who you are, what you have made of yourself at any given point, are unique, and so the forces flowing through you are going to be colored by your essence.

Temporarily, you mean. While they are flowing through me.

Well, it requires careful saying. The forces – let’s think of them as white light – are no less white after they have shined through the maze of obstacles, baffles, redirections and contradictory paths that you are. But you shine with the energy of that light, but the color of your own pattern. You see?

Yes, that’s very clear.

Good, but let us stop there, and you do other things, even if of less allure.

 

Thursday, October 5, 2017

Ready if you are. Where were we?

You had just realized why you live on a timeline where everything you don’t like nevertheless exists.

Perhaps you could spell that out again?

Even on any given timeline, decisions have consequences. Even though other timelines follow opposite decisions, and thus assure that every decision is explored – which means the fate of the universe never depends upon anybody making the “correct” decision – in each timeline, the decisions that have been made determine the reality being experienced, and determine which opportunities exist (or, as it appears to you, which opportunities are thereby created).

The sense I’m gradually getting is that our lives are the demonstrating of the consequences of a decision-tree. Each version shows what would happen along a given chain of decisions – ours as individuals, but within a context of uncounted others’, which means within what seems like a firm matrix. It begins to seem that life is the showing of uncounted possible paths, the showing being the main thing, for some reason.

That won’t be as clear to your friends as it is to you at the moment, and won’t be as clear to you later as it is now. So we should press on and provide context.

Perceptions and intuitions

Now remember that at the moment we are looking at your 3D life as an experiencer of the interaction of soul and spirit. That is, soul, the shaped collection of traits, and spirit, the free-ranging animating force. You may find it easiest to begin with negative manifestations. Let us start with hatred.

Which, I presume, begins with fear.

That’s a “yes but no.” But explaining why it is a “yes but no” may take some doing. It isn’t simple. Your ideas about things are based on a combination of things: input and prior ideas, mostly.

Input is skewed by perception, and your sensory perceptions are by themselves limited to a tiny percentage of the physically existent spectrum. Even the electromagnetic spectrum that is recognized by science – which is to say, by sensory data extended by instrumentation and inference – is mostly far beyond your ability to experience directly by sight, sound, smell, taste, touch. That limited input is interpreted by ideas of how things are, ideas formed from prior first-hand and second-hand experience, all of it also subject to those same limitations.

If this were the whole story, your possibilities would be very much more limited than they are, for how could you break out of the self-contained idea-system and experience-system delivered and limited by sensory data? You can get an idea of what your world would be like by looking at the mental constructs of people who believe that sensory data is all there is. Of course, these people themselves do not live in the world they deduce; no one could. But they ignore and deny experience to the contrary, so you can get an idea of that mental reality by overhearing their mental reinforcement of their ideas as they ty to persuade others.

The compensating factor in your lives is, of course, direct feed. Call it intuition, divine guidance, extra-sensory knowing, instinctive wisdom, inexplicable useful connection – however you think of it, it is the other part of your being that makes possible your limited 3D existence. No one and nothing could exist without an unbroken connection to its larger self centered beyond the 3D construct. The birds that build nests may not be able to say “non-3D,” but they rely on it, as all animals and vegetables do, to enable them to make sense of incoming sensory data, particularly in advance. You call it instinct, but it really is connection. And remember, that isn’t connection to a something else; it is connection to another part of yourself.

Aha! And the two forms of perception are sometimes at war with one another.

Not the forms, but the results of having contradictory ideas about the meaning of the data from two different kinds of sources.

Okay. But still, war.

Responses to contradictions

It can be; it certainly doesn’t have to be.

• Some people respond to contradiction by attempting to define one half of the contradiction out of existence, and this can lead to conflict in one or another form.
• But others respond by seeing any contradiction as an implicit invitation to see more clearly, deeper, to resolve it, and only if they are unable to find resolution do they proceed to ignore one half, or go to war on it.
• And still others, fewer, respond to an irreconcilable contradiction by leaving it in suspension, waiting for further developments to clarity things.

But yes, there is the potential within you of warfare, one element against another, and of course it is easier to direct those forces outward – projecting the conflict on to others – than to deal with it within your own psyche.

Now, you could argue that in the case of self-division turned outward, the hatred is the unacknowledged result of fear (fear of one’s own contradictions, illogical, inexplicable, and perhaps therefore terrifying), and that isn’t wrong. But it isn’t the whole story either. This particular genesis of hatred is the most common by far. But it is not the only one.

Does that imply that if we could overcome the resistance of the 3D personality to realizing that it extends beyond the 3D, the world would be a more peaceful place?

It should scarcely need stating. Instinctive societies anywhere are inherently peaceful; it is the separation from one’s roots beyond the 3D world that leads to a society’s madness. We are not quite saying, indigenous societies are sane and the technological post-Christian Western world is crazed. But we would say that if you will look around you, you will see some societies that take instinct and folk-wisdom for granted – Italy, say; Poland; country-folk pretty nearly anywhere before they are disillusioned and mentally overthrown by the assumption of superiority by city culture. These are not societies roiling in hatred, and they aren’t very easily roused to hatred based on abstract ideas and plans to reshape the world.

Unlike technological, materialistic America. Our rulers, I mean, not necessarily those who happen to live here.

Well –

I know, don’t give ourselves a pass as if we were living here by coincidence. We must bear some responsibility for what is done in our name.

That isn’t quite the nature of our reservation. It is more to the nature of your attitude than to the substance of the comment.

Okay, I get it. You don’t like me making blanket condemnations.

Condemnations

It isn’t so much what we don’t like, as what is good for you. To issue a blanket condemnation is to show that you don’t understand, or are suspending your understanding. To understand everything, someone said, would be to forgive everything. In your life you mostly know this. And, in fact, a teaching opportunity: Consider your reactions as opposed to what you would prefer your reaction to be, what your reaction often is. Where does the difference come from?

I think you’re going to say it is the difference between a reaction from my 3D-only personality and my larger personality which presumably knows better.

Well, “knows better,” but also isn’t hurting in the same way. First-tier experience hurts, we said. Well, anger often proceeds from injury. And this is one reason for bringing to political and social questions the knowings you have developed in your “higher” moments – that is, your moments of meditation, or of communion with your larger self. The closer your connection with your self beyond 3D limitations, the more accurate and effective your reactions within 3D, you see. It is in effect a fountain of wisdom that cannot be matched by any amount of 3D experience.

 

Monday, May 22, 2023

Dirk sent me three YouTube videos explaining the functioning of life at levels below the chromosome, and it is like looking through Jim Meissner’s dark microscope, I can’t emotionally comprehend that all this is going on, all the time, at a tiny scale. I can’t get an image of the intelligence at work there. The videos show the mechanisms, but of course they cannot show the intangible behind it, any more than they could show the intangible thing behind our consciousness at this level.

I said I might ask the guys, though I have the wrong kind of training for it.

You said we would ask you why a mind that thought in terms of the significance of Daniel Boone (as an example) would be a good medium to explain scientific understandings.

And even as I write that out, I get a hint where you’re going to go with it.

Your function is as translator, and encourager, and if there is one thing your transforming civilization needs above all else, it is people to translate one level to another, to erase boundaries between specialists, and encouraging others to do the same. Not so that you yourselves may become specialists, nor, certainly, that you may create new specialties, but that you may make the walls between cells more transparent, and see farther, encourage others to see farther. The alternative is a specialization that understands less and less, because always within an unchanging and increasingly arbitrary context that comes to seem more and more inevitable and obvious.

And if non-specialists

[They interrupted me here, which they rarely do.]

You are all non-specialists in everything except whatever you do specialize in. Just because you ignore whole worlds of thought because they do not interest you, or are beyond your ability to master, doesn’t mean that they cease to exist or cease to influence you or cease to matter to your own specialized circle of knowledge, whether you do or do not realize it.

Thoreau said “We are all provincials in the universe.”

Precisely. So do not feel that there is any area of thought or of life that does not affect you. Any time you feel impelled to look at something new, be assured that (a) there’s a reason particular to you, and (b) your very interest in overstepping bounds is of interest to the universe. Again, the world does not revolve around you as an individual, and does.

Bear in mind, non-specialists do not trump specialists in their own field. Rather, they complement them. They provide what the specialist, from long mental habit, may no longer be able to provide: a fresh look at thing, informed enough to be thought-provoking, but inevitably wrong and even wrong-headed in many details and perhaps even in large areas of interpretation.

That’s interesting in itself. I know of historical examples of vital reframings coming from non-specialists. Jenner. Lister, Pasteur. No doubt I could think of others in other fields if it were important. But let’s look specifically at what those YouTubes aroused in me. I can’t state it very precisely.

Make the effort, first recalibrating and slowing down as much as possible. The effort to bring the concern into focus always polarizes you toward the attitude needed to hear the answers. (At least, that’s one way to look at the process.)

Very well. I see life at microscopic and sub-microscopic levels – life-processes enlarged as much as one million times – and what I see is so active, so intricate, so multitudinous and almost demonically energetic, that it is impossible to reconcile what I am seeing with the stable, macro-level body I am somewhat familiar with. Trillions of cells always dying, always being generated; all that helix-stripping, recombination, etc.

Yes, but look at your – emotional vertigo, I suppose we could call it – in trying to absorb the reality of it.

I see all those madly functioning machines, and it all goes on without our participation – at least, at any level  we can identify with – and it looks like an ant colony.

Go deeper, please.

I guess I’m seeing it as life at a different level, presumably directed by some intelligence, presumably proceeding at a different level of intelligence, a different kind of intelligence, pretty alien to us even though we depend on it every moment.

You’re getting closer. Keep on.

I have gotten used to the idea that cells and organs and what I call sub-assemblies of the body each have their own intelligence, their own kind of intelligence that, as you have said many times, does not read newspapers but knows how to process sugars. But this takes that to another level.

Yes. It ties things in more, if you stop to realize it. It isn’t like there are only two or three types of directed intelligence making up the 3D world. There are actually millions.

Millions? I would have settled for “uncounted,” but I got that you were insisting on millions.

Yes. You can radically expand your understanding of things if you make the effort. Remember, now, everything is made of mind-stuff. Can it be castles in the air, created at whim, altered at whim, maintained – as you say – “horseback”? Just as minerals provide stability in the 3D world, so does every kind of intelligence in every manifestation, and it all interlocks, with – as we keep reminding you – no spare parts and nothing missing or accidental.

So, insects, mammals, birds not only have different receptors, and therefore to some extend perceive different worlds; each is in the world representing a different niche in creation.

Well, if it is true at the levels you can perceive with the senses, why would anyone think it wouldn’t be true at levels too small or too large to be grasped by physical analogy? As above, so below. We remind you, the structure of physical reality is fractal. Not only patterns but, let’s call it, purposes, repeat.

Stars and interstellar debris have their own level of consciousness; they play their part in the whole scheme of things. Like you, they are born, live, die – which means, their non-3D essence appears in 3D and eventually winks out again, leaving them changed by their experience and in another way unaffected and invulnerable.

What is true of the universe you see around you is true of the universe you do not see, within you.

But here is the point you felt but didn’t quite express: Everything at every level has as its purpose to be what it is and to do what is appropriate for it to do. But you will never see the purpose (though you may intuit it, or deduce it); you will never see the animating intelligence that produces, organizes, directs that purpose as it manifests. But can any rational creature imagine that the universe if winging it, day by day? Can anyone imagine that the sun “just happens” to rise in the east and set in the west, day by day, varying slightly according to age-old patterns?

The closer you look into mechanism, the less sense it makes, emotionally, intuitively, until you remember that the animating and directing intelligence is invisible in it as it is invisible in you.

Enough for the moment.

Well, this was very interesting, and should strike sparks. Thanks as always.

 

Tuesday, October 3, 2017

Seems to me you have a good opportunity for teaching us how “all is well” coexists with all not being well, in the latest terrorist incident, in Nevada.

Yes, it will serve.

Once I know that something like that happened, I avoid anything more than the bare fact itself. I don’t immerse myself in the detail and the analysis that is sure to follow. I suppose that is somewhat ostrich-like, but it seems to work best for me.

Not your reaction to the JFK murder, however. Could your subsequent reaction to tragedies have been molded in reaction to your reaction to that event?

Interesting thought. For years, I didn’t want to know anything about various theories as to who really killed him. I accepted the official story, and my mourning was too deep to allow me to touch the questions, for decades, literally. It was years before I emerged from that shell-shocked condition.

And you weren’t about to allow yourself to be equally traumatized again.

No. I walled it off. I remember that. I felt Bobby Kennedy’s murder deeply, but I stayed away from reading about it after the first week.

Now consider the situation. In the 3D world, there was your suffering and there was the resultant habit to deal with the possibility of similar shocks. What about in the All-D, where your 3D reactions were only a part of the reality?

I don’t know, you tell me.

Outside of time and space – which in context means in the world beyond the constrictions of 3D-ever-moving-present-moment life – what was real? Your day to day movements of your body? Your moment-by-moment words, thoughts, emotions, reactions? It probably seems like it, but no. Outside of the present moment, what is real is –

Well, we’re going to have to backfill for a moment. It is true that in one way every moment of your lives is real and enduring and vividly alive. That is what the Akashic Record is, really, each moment held like a fly in amber, except alive. But it is equally true that this could be considered your soul’s record, while your spirit’s record is in what you sometimes call the completed self.

I think you mean, the spirit’s record could be thought of as the end-of-the-story record, rather than the moment-by-moment record. It is how the spirit was changed by the events and by my reactions to the events, from the point of view of “that life is over and done with; here’s the net result.”

Yes, that is the sense of it.

Which as usual begs the question of how there can be a net effect when every possible path in my life is taken, including any paths in which JFK wasn’t killed in Dallas. As usual, the question is, why wouldn’t they all cancel out.

And as usual the answer is, they don’t cancel, they add. The result is not a result of attrition but of addition. The very plethora of results is the answer.

I keep forgetting that. My tendency is to think that a life will produce a result that will be built upon, and I keep getting reminded that a life produces a huge range of results, all of which considered together, and only all of them considered together, is the result.

It makes a difference. Many a conundrum in logic disappears when you realize that common sense is misleading you by over-simplifying the situation.

What is real in your life, as seen from the non-obstructed All-D perspective, is the result within you of going through such experiences either directly or vicariously. Yes, your moment-by-moment reaction is as real as the 3D world, but, in a way, it isn’t any realer, even though it continues to exist in a way the moving-present 3D world does not.

To put it in a hierarchy of reality:

• The 3D experience itself, including bodily impact, anything sensory.
• The psychic portion of the 3D experience; what enters the Akashic Record.
• The net effect on this version of your life of having gone through the experience.

The first tier hurts; the second tier has meaning; the third tier contains the potential from that life forward.

Well, what about the time I healed Joseph Smallwood’s injured back?[i] Didn’t one life move to at least the Akashic Record version of another life and alter it, thus opening a new path for the entire life, at least that version of his life?

And perhaps you might have been able to – still could – cause him to move his body during the battle to avoid the crippling blow. That would be at the first-tier level of reality. Wouldn’t that be a good thing?

I’m sensing a trap. I don’t know if I would still be me if he didn’t have his altered-state experience of an angel healing him. If that is a true risk, I don’t suppose I would change things even to spare him. But, is it a true risk?

Remember, you are considering one given time-line. It isn’t like it would remove all other possibilities or even one of them.

Ah, but in effect I would be creating a new possible time line, and I would be somehow tied to it.

Haven’t you spent years wondering why you couldn’t live in a timeline in which Kennedy did not get killed?

For the first time, I’m beginning to understand. Not all timelines lead to the same place, of course. From your third tier of reality, where we come out is more important than what we go through to get there. Can’t avoid the speed bumps if we want to traverse the road.

That’s a little too simple, but close enough.

 

[i] As described in Chasing Smallwood. I, working in an altered state from 1994, changed what had happened in 1863, with momentous consequences. Impossible, according to conventional views of reality. Less unusual than we might think, according to the scheme sketched out by our non-3D friends.