Intuitive Linked Communication (ILC)

Monday, October 2, 2017

Physical train wrecks and psychological debris and vast impersonal forces flowing through us.

You all know how these forces sweep through your lives; you see it first hand, you see it in dramas and histories and twice-told talks. Passion and conflict is at the heart of story, after all. No conflict, no story. But is conflict as simple a thing as self-interest colliding with self-interest? You could make a reasonable argument that that is all it is, but we would say that argument would amount to “nothing buttery,” and would clarify nothing.

Lust manifests!

Anger, envy, swollen pride manifest!

You see them on all sides. Conversely, anybody could tell first- or second-hand stories of noble actions, of self-sacrifice, of quiet unnoticed heroism. Scratch any story and you will find people acting out of motivations. Scratch the motivations and you will find desirable or undesirable passions, maybe quiet, even placid, but passions. An old woman may be invisibly passionate over her flower garden, or her pets, or – anything, really. The key here is “invisibly.” Although passion is at the heart of all drama, not all passion expresses itself in a dramatic fashion.

These forces make up your life. The man who sacrifices his life day by day at a meaningless job, that his children may live and hopefully may live better than he, is acting from conviction, and what is conviction rooted in, if not some passion?

We will not continue to pile up examples. Look at other aspects of your life, the events around you and those you only hear of. Wars, cooperation, disasters and disaster relief, millions of private enterprises commercial and otherwise, and millions of pointlessly destructive activities like vandalism. Music, art, poetry, technology, finance, scholarship – all the forms of human activity you can think of. At some place they connect to passion.

So where does it come from? In trying to answer that, realize that plugging in a word like “instinct” is not an answer, because not a process, not a linking-together of things, but a word implying “nothing but”; it is a decision not to inquire. So – inquire. Where does this force come into your life from?

You may think, “I was born with it,” and that is certainly true, but it doesn’t answer anything. It says that you have never lived without it. (Nor could you.) But we knew this: Soul without Spirit is not living in the 3D world; it is closer to being a ghost of itself.

All right, but that sort of answers the question, doesn’t it? These forces are the forces of Spirit.

Fine. And what are the forces of Spirit?

I take it the answer is not as simple as “The electricity that runs through the wires,” or “The light that shines through the fiber optics.”

That would be merely to restate in other words what was said. Resist the temptation to consider the Soul as in 3D and the Spirit as coming from the non-3D somehow. Try to see both inhabiting the All-D, so that, although they coexist in the same space, Spirit is mostly not comprehended by Soul. You could say, pretty accurately, that

• Soul is bound to its 3D limitations in which it was founded
• Spirit inhabits all of reality, not only the 3D portion of it.

Hence Spirit is invisible to greater or lesser extent depending upon how conscious the Soul is. Spirit is always here, always functioning, but is it not always perceived, and rarely is perceived in the same way at different times by different Souls.

The next step is to realize that since Spirit interpenetrates your being, its vagaries are going to affect you, often directly.

I didn’t realize that Spirit has vagaries. I think of Spirit as – well, as a vast impersonal force, the way you have been describing it.

You are thinking of Soul and Spirit as two different kinds of things that happen to intersect in human enterprises. But Spirit created Soul. It animates Soul. It shares its essence with Soul.

I thought we were saying that a Sam creates a soul of its own essence.

Do you think a Sam’s essence (in so far as it is personal) is somehow different from Spirit? That we have Spirit on the one hand and Sam on the other?

I guess I don’t know what I thought. I never thought about that as a problem at all.

Well, let us give the kaleidoscope a shake and see if anything emerges more clearly. Look at it this way. Sam = Spirit creating and incorporating and developing and fostering Souls. In being so engaged, it loses some of its freedom of action, somewhat as a parent does to a dependent child, and becomes part of a compound being. So the difference between what we call Sam for convenience and what we continue to call Spirit is whether one is or is not part of a compound being.

So I take it that Spirit too can be subdivided into more or less individuals, some of whom make one choice, others other choices?

“As above, so below.” What is individual seen one way is community seen another way.

Huh! Well this is a startling development.

Think about it and we’ll come back to it.

 

Monday, October 2, 2017

To continue, then: How can all be well when all is not well, at the same time?

And you heard the answer even as you wrote.

Well, I heard the analogy: How can we be individuals and communities at the same time?

Mostly it is a question of focus. “What You See Is What You Get” is an expression you use sometimes. Perhaps this is true in a sense not intended by those who invented it.

In computer terms, WYSIWYG means transparency: Literally, whatever you are looking at is the result. It means there won’t be translation errors, you might say. But you are using it to mean, depending on how we choose to see things, that’s how they are.

Well – not quite.

Smiling. I get that a lot.

Better than “Dead wrong,” probably, or “Don’t be ridiculous.”

Still smiling. So –

Depending on how you choose to see things, that’s the aspect of them that seems to you to be real. That often seems like the only aspect that is real. In this case, closer to “choose your own reality” than “create your own reality.” It isn’t that you are shaping reality by how you choose to see it, but that you are shaping you, shaping your reality, which after all is the only reality you can know. Your, and our, perception of reality is always going to be less than whatever reality really is in essence.

So, accepting that, how does it tie in to the vast impersonal forces you keep mentioning?

First, are you clear that life is how it appears to you, more than how it really is?

We never see the entire picture, only our subset which we often take to be the entire picture. I am clear on that, yes. Even the fact that each of us has uncounted versions living different timelines tells me that reality has to be bigger than anything anyone or any one timeline can apprehend. By definition, really.

All right. So then it shouldn’t surprise you – though we suspect that it will – to hear that the shape the world is in is no more fixed than anything else, except in any given timeline.

That makes perfect sense, and you’re right, it never occurred to me. Not sure why. I suppose it has been obvious all along, but in a different context that I didn’t happen to associate with this one.

Most of learning is less the acquisition of new facts than the associating of what you already know in different contexts.

And I’m starting to get your drift.

It really shouldn’t surprise anybody that the world they see around them is integrally connected to the version of themselves that is walking that particular timeline. How else could it be? You and your world can’t be connected only arbitrarily. External events are only seemingly external and unconnected. Rita was at some pains to point out that the newly dead soul realized that its 3D life had all been internal after all. It is in the confusing of external and internal that so many people’s anguish takes place. And perhaps you can spell that our in our place.

You seem to be saying, if we didn’t take “external” events to be more real than the internal life we know first-hand, we wouldn’t be so upset at how badly things go. Can that be what you really mean? I know, “not quite.”

This requires some careful spelling-out.

If you take external events to be self-evidently real, if only because they seem to be perceived and accepted by everybody around you, they will seem realer to you than the thoughts, feelings, emotions that make up your life. It is crazy but natural: What is remote from your experience will seem more real than what is immediately at hand.

And don’t think this means only events you may see on the news. The things that happen to you – the innumerable things that make up the external interface with the world also may seem more real, because more undeniable and more unmalleable, then the internal events. So, tying your shoe, eating your breakfast, driving your car, reading your mail, talking on the telephone – that kind of thing – is all going to seem realer to you than your own thoughts! It’s crazy, seen from our viewpoint, except that we do understand the underlying dynamics.

So do I, now: We are used to crediting our senses more than our intuitions. Sensory data seems objective, intuition or call it non-sensory data seems at least debatable.

Does this seems like a stretch, then? To say that 3D life is a life that systemically inverts the order of importance of things?

I can see it. But seeing it doesn’t overrule the reality I experience. My lungs still function correctly or they don’t, and my part in that seems secondary to environmental forces.

Well, we aren’t trying to say that people ought to be able to overcome 3D conditions; just the contrary. 3D life was not designed to be superseded or outmaneuvered. Our point here is that this systematic distortion in how you understand the world, rooted in how you experience the world, helps explain how “all is well” and “all is not well” can coexist, both being true depending upon viewing point.

It still comes perilously close to saying, “It’s all a show; those mangled bodies don’t mean anything.”

No, that is not the idea. What we are really getting to is that the reality is the energy flowing through those lives, not the external incidents that result from energy flows, and redirect energy flows.

I’m starting to get what you’re driving at. They are real forces, real consequences. But the reality is in the real part of us, and not in the merely physical part of us.

You’ve gotten it by a spark leaping mind to mind, but your readers may not get it from the words they’ve read so far. Some may, some may not.

Well, how to put it any clearer? Our emotions, and that includes all the emotions of anybody in any news event, are real, and they are the point of the experience. They (and the changes they result in, within ourselves) are what we will take with us in the realer All-D world. Nobody carries a burned building or an exploded bomb or a deadly virus from 3D into All-D. They are all, you might say, local phenomena. In that sense, it hardly matters what happens externally in 3D. What matters is what happens internally to each of us, because that is what is real and that is what will persist. In that sense, all is well no matter the train wreck. Although, this does leave the fairly large question of what about the psychological debris caused by the physical train wrecks.

That has everything to do with those same forces we keep promising to discuss. And of course, your time being up –

Next time. Okay, thanks.

 

Sunday, October 1, 2017

We as 3D beings may be receiving different-colored input (so to speak), as well as coloring it ourselves?

You are part of a process, not only the result of a process. Creation isn’t finished, and creation isn’t something that was done to you, so to speak. It is something done with you, and is forever being done with you, not merely to you. Remember this, if you can.

As I was writing that, I got an image of people watching television, passively receiving input.

That may be how it seems to them, but even “passive” is active, in a sense. You might as well describe plants in a garden as being passive to input like water. Receiving is transforming, conscious or not. It isn’t really possible to remain unaffected by anything that flows through you, even by an active decision not to be changed.

The resolution would itself be a change from a prior state.

Even if it were a continuing resolution, yes, it represents an effect of an interaction. You are never inert recipients, but, by nature, inevitably, creators. That aspect, that you attribute to your God or gods, is the one descriptor that best includes all humans.

Creation is not a matter merely of imagination, of focused thought, any more than merely of skilled hands, or channeled willpower. It is your essence, your continued and uninterrupted and uninterruptable effect upon the world around you and within you. Every moment, you create by what you are.

• You are creating your flower,
• you are creating a habit-system (your mind);
• you are molding the possibilities of the present moment in the context of past moments and future moments.

And of course it all proceeds in a broader context – past lives, other versions, interactions with all the parts of your Sam, and so on  and so forth.

I don’t know, that sounds kind of high-flying. Too mystical to still have any practical meaning, almost.

Oh do you think so? Then what is the meaning of lives that last 10 or 15 years in the middle of some African war-zone, or in semi-starvation somewhere in Asia, or in meaningless drudgery in middle America? How do you make sense of the world if you think (implicitly, as you often do) that the measure of a life is what one does with it?

Is that why you can say all is well? Because no matter how miserable a life people may have, it is a creation somehow?

You see, we just pushed a button you didn’t quite realize was still wired up.

You certainly did, I take it you did so deliberately.

Well, we aren’t sorry to have done so. The more you are aware of, the larger your options, as you know.

It is always well to have compassion for others and to do what you can for those who touch your life. But it is a hasty person who concludes that life is poorly designed because the world is full of suffering or (an even more common, if unconscious, reason) because the world does not conform to your expectations of it, or your desires for it.

Here’s an experiment: Why don’t you do something to prevent the slave trade of the 17th century? Or, prevent the Roman Republic from degenerating into the Roman Empire? Or stop the Opium War of 1842? Those are all worthy causes, and your ability to affect them is exactly the same as your ability to affect things halfway around the world today.

Between the lines, I get, “unless your life calls you that way.”

Well, unless your life brings you there, or brings them to you, yes. Explain.

You aren’t saying don’t help when you can; you’re saying don’t confuse feeling bad over a situation with actually doing something to help, and don’t spend your life feeling guilty that you are leading your life instead of somebody else’s. I get that the people who formed the anti-slavery society, for instance, were doing something that came to them, or were finding a way to affect something that was affecting them. This isn’t a contradiction to what you’re saying, but an illustration of it.

That’s right. If you are called to a crusade, all right. But if you are called to every crusade, well – not only do practical objections arise, but what you are doing with your self-creation is not perhaps what you think you are doing. All paths are good; we aren’t saying, “Don’t do that, it’s futile.” We are saying what you decide will be what you do, and what you do (internally as well as externally) will be what you are. And it is “what you are” that ultimately will count.

But there is a larger point to be made, and a more difficult one: Life is good, no matter what it looks like to you. Human life on earth in 2017 is not mostly a failure, no matter how it looks to you.

Your political and social and economic and ecological troubles – not to mention the huge spiritual vortex stirring up everything, ramping up the intensity of all conflicts – could tempt you to say, “All is obviously not well. We are doomed. The injustice of the world is suffocating us all.” Can you hold that thought and feeling – which is not wrong – and still realize that all is well because all is always well?

I think people would be glad if you could help them with it.

We can, probably making them angry in the process because it involves associating two lines of thought that they typically keep separate, even if they shuttle from one to the other several times a minute.

On the one hand, follow the news, with its unending serial of disaster upon problem upon intractable conflict. You mostly do it all the time, scarcely even noticing. Studying it in history isn’t all that much different from allowing it to flow through you via television or computer or gossip. Even sagas of heroism, altruism, even success stories, take place against a background of on-going train wrecks. This half of your mind is firmly mounted in a setting of on-going unfairness, stupidity, incompetence, malice and – in general – a throwing-away of all good possibilities, and unnecessarily.

True enough. That has been my experience since Nov. 22, 1963.[i]

Certainly. You compare what did happen with what you think might have happened, or should have, could have happened, and it all looks like waste. So you understand the half of the dilemma that looks around and says all is certainly not well, and anybody who thinks so is blind or stone-hearted. And by nature and on faith you nonetheless hold to the conviction that somehow all is well, regardless.

I hold to it, I feel it, but I certainly can’t explain it or even defend it.

And, unlike many, you are able to hold both incompatibles at the same time. Do you know why?

I do since you just conveyed it. I got “all is well” not from somebody else, either first-hand or second-hand, but from essence. The guys flowed it through me, telling Rita in 2001, and I never doubted it, even if, as you point out, it is incompatible with everything else I know.

That is where we can go next, then. How can both be true, and what does that tell us about those vast impersonal energies flowing through you, which we remind you is our main focus at the moment.

 

[i] The day the assassination of President John F. Kennedy changed everything.

We were describing compound beings living, deciding, shaped by and shaping (to a slight individual effect but a somewhat larger cumulative and collective effect) the winds of spirit that blow through them.

We remind you, as you seem to need to be reminded periodically, that all of this effort is not so that we may draw castles in the sky or that you may daydream “what if” pictures to compare with other schemes, but so that you may change your lives.

In other words, work with this, don’t merely be entertained by it. You don’t have to accept it, or reject it, but, work with it, wrestle with it. See what you really think. Of course, this too is within your choice, but the reminder is there. We don’t mean this as a chastisement, but think of us as an alarm clock, set to go off at unpredictable intervals, lest you fall asleep and have no one to nudge you.

So, keeping in mind that we intend to give you something of practical use, let’s consider your lives as you know them. In all their infinite variety, still they have patterns common to all. No need to enumerate them, you know life. But for the moment, concentrate on your emotional life, or – let’s say, your internal life, which is nearly but not quite the same thing.

When the morning’s energies flow though you, how do they flow? Do they flow through unshaped space?

I think you are meaning some illustrative images, like wind flowing across a field, unobstructed; or funneling through and between trees, or being channeled down the streets of Manhattan, or blowing into windows on one side of a house, blowing through and emerging on the other side, things like that.

Yes only more intricate, more obstructed, more convoluted, and at the same time under less pressure and more pressure.

Harder to find an image for that. Air conditioning is one example that comes to mind, perhaps an absurd example.

Not so bad in some ways. Air conditioning is channeled through duct work, and the ducting may be looked at as both channel and obstruction, as interference with flow and as magnifier of flow. But for the analogy to work, you need to see your lives as the building, and the ductwork as the pattern of your life to date; that is, at any given moment.

I see that a less mechanical and solid analogy would serve us better. It would need to be able to change the ductwork moment by moment, like a computer responding to commands of a programmer.

More than that, it would need to allow for different kinds of winds blowing through. Try another analogy.

Instead of wind, let’s think of the forces as electricity moving through a neural net. The configuration of the net determines the direction of flow and, to some extent, the strength of the flow (in inverse proportion to the obstacles it throws up, the tortuous pathways it requires). The configuration is determined not by the electricity but by the controller of the net, however we wish to envision that.

A much more elastic, serviceable analogy. We congratulate you.

I can’t decide whether that is sarcasm. I’m well aware that what I did was wait, receptively, holding the requirement in mind, until it surfaced.

No need to fear sarcasm. When something has been achieved, it has been achieved.

Okay. So then—?

Well, you see, between the two analogies, you get closer to the idea we are trying to present. Analogy is never exact, but two or more may together suggest what cannot quite be stated outright.

All right, so look at what we have. Energy flows through you. If it did not, your computer would not work, so to speak. But how it flows through you is not the same as what flows through you.

I think you mean, the very same energy, flowing though us, will appear to be different in that it will exhibit different characteristics depending on the nature of what it flows through.

No, not quite. It is the same energy, and depending upon what it flows through, it will seem to  exhibit different characteristics. Spirit will be blamed or credited for what it animates, not for its own neutral animating force.

A better analogy comes to me: Light shines through a vast maze of fiber-optic threads, and the configuration of the threads is what channels the light.

Now you have three analogies; so much the better. Continually triangulating, you can get closer to it.

Now, bear in mind the contradictions in what we have said.

• We have described these vast impersonal forces (we repeat these words for a reason) as representing or even exemplifying what you know as sinful or soulful attitudes, negative or positive biases, predilections that dominate and complicate your lives.
• We have also described these vast impersonal forces as being, in effect, causative and neutral, like wind, like channeled air, like electricity, like light.

That is contradiction, and in contradiction, faced and (so to speak) faced down, is greater understanding to be found.

In effect, you are asking us to do as Rita did, posing questions and pointing out ambiguities and contradictions.

Wrestling with the material, yes. Taking it seriously. That’s the invitation.

Well, how do you reconcile the two positions?

We don’t.

I beg your pardon?

We don’t reconcile them, we use them to show that they are contrasting points of view. In such case, resolution always comes only by moving to a higher, more encompassing perspective. The resolution is in realizing that the analogies are still too simple. They are good as halfway houses, but they contradict the facts somewhat.

It is as if all the light shining through the fiber optics must be white light, or all the electricity must be at the same amperage or voltage. All light may have been white on the morning of creation (so to speak), but that was a long time of experience ago. All voltages may have been uniform initially, but, again, not by now.

Remember, these are analogies. Try not to get caught up in the logical problems caused by the nature of the analogy; center on the logical problems posed by what the analogies are trying to convey.

I get that by this act of the play, nothing is pristine; everything shows the result of prior use.

An interesting take on what we are trying to convey. Not that the forces of the world are shopworn, but that the very energies that flow through you are themselves the product of much that happened before you arrived on the scene. It isn’t white light; it is light some of whose qualities have been enhanced or hampered. (That is a definition of color, you see.)

 

Our weekly Intuitive Linked Communication class did a five-minute drumming session on this question: “What is the nature of instincts, habits, and intuition?” After I heard what everyone got, I asked them to type it up , and Dirk volunteered to concatenate them and send them back to us.  Given that this does not raise privacy issues, I decided the net result is a post in itself.

I think this is of interest on a couple of levels:

a) the similarity of results,

b) the fact that everyone got their answers in the same way, by consulting guidance and reporting what they got, and, of course,

c) the material itself.

Here’s what we got, working together/separately:

Drumming:

What is the nature of instincts, habits and intuition?

Dirk’s session:

Though you sense there is a relation between these, and there is, it is not so strong as you imagine.

Habits we covered yesterday. And some of those are related to instincts and intuition. Many though have very different origins and are unrelated.

Instincts come mostly from the past experience of yourself, your threads, your parts and the interaction among them happening in the background – subconsciously so to speak.

They are a reflection of past experience overlain on current experience.

Intuition is a bit different. It can be very similar. But the major distinction is that intuition relies more on connection with ‘higher self’, connection to others, and even more about direct and indirect sensing of those things that are about to happen.

For the intuitive insights that do not rely on future memory, or anything like that, they rely in part on a pattern recognition similar to instincts and related to insight. They are projections of likely paths based on all of that and on connection to guidance.

For intuitive insights that are dependent on future memory, there is a strong filtering aspect to prevent you from always “falling” into a seemingly preordained future, and instead keeping you grounded in the present moment.

Paul:

Instinct or intuition is unlikely to manifest “purely,” that is, to be solely composed of itself. Just as, in Ben Franklin’s words, “Diligence is the mother of good luck,” so instinct and intuition can result from the cultivation of other qualities. If you learn to absorb sensory input before you judge, if you put aside intellectual rationalization—which after all is primarily a learned or education-imposed habit—forces are free to arise—when you get out of your own way.

For the group, this is a contribution to the question. Obviously there are many other aspects and points to be made and discussed.

Dave:

What you’re really asking is, what is happening below the level of conscious thought. The answer is… everything. The universe. All that is. You’re looking at instincts, habits, intuition as different things. What happens if you look at them as all one thing, emanating from the totality of you? [I assume this includes threads, higher self, sam, what have you]. Perhaps a more productive question is, what can I know now, below the level of consciousness, that can lead to living life more abundantly?

At some point, they mentioned the Dunning-Kruger effect, measuring a cognitive bias to overestimate ability. I took that as a cheeky way to say, the veil is there to allow full immersion in the physical experience, enjoy.

Frank:

Instincts – innate habit. Habit – results of past choices. Intuition – manifestation of instincts.

That is, instincts allow faster-than-thought reaction to present-moment situations. This is because they rest on past habits – past agreed-upon ways of proceeding – among and within various strands. Intuitions are instinctive summaries.

We know this is difficult. We can talk later at more length.

Nancy:

Immediately you felt instincts had to do with safety and survival.

Habits are for comfort and rest periods between growth spurts.

Intuition is heart centered, coming from a more inclusive connection to divine nature.

Martha:

The 3 words are a semantic continuum.  Intuition is in the moment guidance.  Instinct is more historical.  Maybe generational knowledge.  Ingrained, reflexive.  Can be a warning system.  Habits are unconscious, usually.  Easier to change than instincts because they start consciously.  So you can use the conscious mind to stop them.

Jon:

They are basically each from separate sources. Habits being like programming in software. Instincts being hardware. Intuition being neither of those. But some input from spirit. They can all be experienced in a similar way. But they still have different origins.

Jane:

You remember some of the rough water times in your life. And you thought you were spending too much on 3D and not on your non-3D self. Consider it was when you were relying on the work ethics of an earlier self, like a thread. And you needed to refine that for the current line of work. That work ethic may have been just fine for the work that that thread was doing. And it was time to update it.

Christine:

Instincts intuition and habits – instincts and intuition resemble each other as they can both be nudges from guidance. Some instincts are built in reactions – hardwired. Guidance is always available depending on your vibrational opening or states.  Instincts can also be learned like Pavlov’s dig.

Can I be aware of the difference between instinct and habits.

Put your energy there.

Dick:

Hey. You forgot about us. Well… where do you suppose they came from?

 

Let us begin our discussion of the forces that influence your lives, and that your lives use to make shapes.

Interesting way to think of it.

Think of the air you breathe. You are not the air, and yet the air is a part of you, but not as a component so much as part of a process. Air flows through you. It is changed in predictable fashion as it does so, but this is not a one-time change, nor an accident, nor an incident: It is a process, and it must continue if you are to live. Eliminate humans and the air continues to exist and be influenced by other beings. But eliminate air and humans die.

So you may wish to think of these “vast impersonal forces” we have been mentioning as the equivalent of air to breathe. And, in fact, the same word is sometimes used for breath and spirit, and that’s what they are talking about.

The soul is us, the created physical beings attached to strands etc. The spirit is the force that flows through us, animating us, interacting with us, but not us.

That’s correct. Spirit both is part of you (because you couldn’t exist without it) and is not a part of you (because it has its own independent existence that would not fail in your absence.) Compound beings are soul and spirit, localized collections of strands and characteristics, serving as conduits for forces forever beyond them. You interact with spirit; you embody soul. So now that you are clear on that distinction, let us look at the forces flowing through you.

The forces of good and evil, I take it.

Well, not quite. Good and evil may be looked at more as effects than as causes.

Huh?

God looked at his creation and didn’t find it good and evil, he found it good. Evil didn’t enter into the picture until a compound being chose to experience the result of perceiving things as good and evil. Dropping into duality, in other words.

But wasn’t “creation” – the 3D world in its widest ramifications – already by nature dualistic?

Only if experienced – seen – that way.

You’re going to have to explain that.

Oh yes, and it won’t be a brief explanation. By the time we have explained it as best we can, many things will appear in different light.

Remember if you can – the 3D world is not exactly a creation, more like a separation from the larger reality. It is a creation in so far as it is gathered together from a larger, more comprehensive, whole, but only in that sense. “The world was created out of nothing” can only mean – nothing like it existed before it was created. That doesn’t mean first there was a vacuum, then there was rubble filling the vacuum.

I get the sense of the 3D world as being a truncated part of reality, and it was the treating it as if it were a whole that is meant by creation. Is that right, or even partly right?

That is a serviceable interim way to look at it. Remember, there is one reality, not two. If 3D had been created out of nothing, in the way people commonly understand the idea, what of the rest of All-D? Considered as a world in itself, the 3D world came into existence when compound beings were truncated to experience only so much of reality and no more. But it is not this simple.

The forces that flow through you manifest as good and evil not so much because it is their nature as because that is your nature. It isn’t spirit that is perceiving things as good and evil; it is your perception. The “vast impersonal forces” that flow through you are themselves a non-human energy transforming what they flow through and being slightly transformed in turn, but they should not be considered to be human energies merely because they flow through humans.

The energy that flows through us manifests as our passions. So, depending on what it is flowing through, it may manifest as one of the seven deadly sins, or one of the virtues. I imagine it may also manifest as mental energy, not necessarily associated with either. How different is it from what Freud called libido?

In the sense that it is an energy that does not originate within humans but flows through them, and in some it flows stronger than others, and in some it may get dammed up here, in others there, it is closer to Jung’s idea. It isn’t in itself sexual energy; it may manifest in that way, and often does, but it is not itself limited to one kind of energy.

Then we should look at it as the source of our animation. Does that mean we each get different amounts, or does it mean our internal makeup means that we each allow different amounts to flow through us?

All differences between people that may be observed are the results of their initial composition combined with the results of their choices on an on-going basis. But one person’s lesser amount of psychic energy flow does not imply a cosmic injustice. Here, as everywhere, one size does not fit all. What some handle easily would electrocute others. What is comfortable for one would cause another to die of boredom, so to speak. Should it surprise anybody that it is as complicated and varied as life itself?

Symbols and idols

Do you mind if we give you a name, just for ease of reference? I realize that behind the name may be a shifting coalition of forces, and that the person responding to the name one day may not be the same person another day, but calling upon “somebody” isn’t an improvement over calling you Jack, or Rover, for that matter. A name you’d like?

We do see the problem, and rather than having you call us Fido, we will agree to a name. but – you select the name. If we were to select it, people would wind up reading things into the name, no matter how often or how emphatically we might deny any implied significance.

Oh, this is the dynamic behind the creating of idols in the desert in the Moses story, isn’t it?

Human nature – we should say “compound-beings’-reaction-to-3D-limitations,” but “human nature” is far more concise – doesn’t change much over time. The Jews wandering around in the desert were uncomfortable owing their allegiance to an abstraction. A golden calf had symbolism; it offered visual reassurance. And, as is typical of human 3D reactions, a symbol became an objectified reality in about three seconds.

Hence the tension over the centuries in religions over representation or iconoclasm.

People who have an ability to perceive abstractly are not as numerous as those who take sensory reality to be “the” reality, and take anything beyond that reality to be debatable, or somewhat fuzzy, somewhat theoretical. So religions using symbols move over time toward a more literal interpretation of symbol, and you have the worship of idols. Conversely, over time every so often counter-forces will acquire influence and will smash those symbols and representations as idols.

Thus the Protestant sects that accused Catholics of being idolaters, and did not allow statues or paintings of individuals. And come to think of it, thus Islam, with its ban on the creation of similar representations in art. And at the other extreme, Hinduism with its vast array of statuary and art, Buddhism with its endless array of statues of the Buddha.

You may choose to look at the tension of opposites as an example of the natural effect of living in a dualistic world. There is no “right” position, and no “wrong” position other than the position that claims unique validity for itself. But even that is an argument waiting to happen, and perhaps our focus today should be less abstract.

Yes, but that was a very interesting side-light. Okay,

Naming

I’m tempted just to call you Friend. But then somebody sure as shooting would read Quaker into it. I can’t use the name of people I respect as pioneers – Swedenborg, Emerson, Thoreau, etc. – for the same reason, to avoid unwanted associations. And you decline to suggest, then?

You can see why, in your own process. It can be very difficult to avoid unwanted accretions by those who come later, perhaps with misplaced admiration, let alone reverence. That is what happens in churches.

Oh, I know. I’ve been explaining that for years to people who think churches lose integrity only by someone’s malicious intent. Superstitions grow from the bottom; they aren’t imposed from the top. But this still doesn’t result in a name. Maybe we ought to just proceed to the business at hand?

Maybe this – and the thoughts it brings up – is the business at hand.

Interesting. Well – Nathaniel. I don’t know where that comes from, but suddenly there it is. Let’s call you Nathaniel.

That’s fine, and we’ll see how long you can remember the caveats about it being only a brand name, only a label, and not an individual.

And don’t go looking for significance in the name.

You just saw, and shared, the process. Ultimately it was like any time you “get” a bright idea: It wasn’t there and then it was, and who is to say why it emerged? But hopefully our spelling out the process of searching for it will discourage people from being too sure of whatever significance they choose to attach to it.

 

 

Time	Perceptions	Inferences
	Dedicate session to Higher Self and appropriate Lower Selves of  DW, to MS,  and any others who may appear, for use at appropriate time(s) – or for non-use if that is in the best interests of all concerned. Confident of, and grateful for, all needed help to identify, clarify, understand, and if appropriate heal issues presented, recognizing that it is an unusual session.	DW begins to enter extra-ordinary states of consciousness
	January 6, 2022 3:10 pm EST DW:  “Is the soul now embodied in MS available for conversation at this time?” MS:  “Yes.  I am relieved and gratified that you have finally called on me.” DW:  “Thank you.  I could not call until I had received a kind of permission to do so.  I  hope you understand that I needed your Free Will authorization to call.” MS:  “Of course.  What else might I have expected of you, DW?” DW:  “MS, would you be interested in joining JG and approaching the tunnel to heaven – at this time?” MS:  “As a matter of information, of curiosity, yes.  Would it be safe for me?” DW:  “In all my experience, yes.  It is and would be safe for you – whenever you are ready.” MS:  “JG, are you ready to take a little trip now?” JG:  “Yes, my dear one.  Let us go look, together, And they do, in the company of a WOWG and a WOMG, stopping at the entrance to the tunnel as depicted by Bosch. MS:  “It is beautiful, isn’t it.  So peaceful, inviting, with such a strong feeling of love inside.” JG:  “Just as I left it last time.” Entrance to Bosch’s Tunnel to Heaven, PG, JG with MS, WOWG, WOMG, DW observing   MS:  “I had no idea it would be like this.” JG:  “It’s always like this, always inviting, always loving, like coming home.” PG:  “Welcome, friends.  I/we have been hoping to see you here soon.” “How pleasurable it has been to see your caring for each other.” MS:  “PG, You left a wonderful man when you came here for yourself, years ago.” PG:  “He has been in your good hands since.  Thank you, dear friend.” MS:  “Dear JG.  Is it time for you to stay here now?” JG:  “Will you be safe, healthy, young again if I stay now?” MS:  “Sad/sorry to miss you, but happy to know that I have a life to re-new here now.”  “Yes, Please feel free to stay here now.  I feel and will be refreshed by this awareness of your love for me, and of PG’s comradeship.” MS:  “PG, he is still the man you remember, and, maybe a little riper in some ways.” PG:  “Bless you, MS, for all your care, comforting, reassuring, loving that I have eavesdropped on for so long.” JG:  “MS, no adequate words to share with you at this time.”  “I’m home again.  I wish you a long happy healthy life beginning now.  ‘Live Long, and Prosper!”   MS:  “DW, is it okay to return home, to go back down now?” DW:  “When you are ready, we can go.  There is a nice soothing little park partway down where we can rest and review.” MS:  “PG and JG, we go with love now.  Thanks for everything.” 3:46 pm EST start down and End Segment. [36 minutes at Focus 27]	MS is the partner of JG, who is nearly ready to transition.   ‘DW’ is acting as Guide for this act.                             JG has been here before, both in NDEs and as he came with his ex-wife PG, when she transitioned                                           PG, JG’s ex-wife has been waiting for them   PG and MS have both loved JG                       JG is  staying in Soul form saying farewell to MS
	January 24, 2022   [18 days later] 6:15 pm EST DW:  “Is the soul that was embodied in JG during the 2010s available for a quick conversation?” JG:  “Yes, still here, DW.  Feeling poorly and napping a lot, but still here.  Did you call last week?”  I think I remember a party we were both at about a week ago.” DW:  “Yes, I did.  I believe that PG dropped by to say hello and welcome.  Do you remember anything like that?” JG:  “Vaguely, foggily.” DW:  “Okay, I was just checking to make sure you are still available and still here. Thanks.” PG:  You are most welcome.  C U soon.” 6:23 pm EST End segment [8 minutes at Focus 27]           March 23, 2022    [Two months later] 10:49 EDT DW:  “Hi, JG.  Back again.  It’s good to see you here in this form, young strong, vibrant,  enriched and enlivened by all those experiences in this embodiment.” JG:  “Always optiimistic!  Always sunny.  Thanks, good friend.” DW:  “It has been a great, constant, pleasure to know you for these last few years. DW:  “How’s it going now, this very moment?” JG:  “Glad you’re here.  Can we have another party now? DW:  “Wonderful invitation.  Let’s go!” And they do…. Entrance to Bosch’s Tunnel to Heaven, PG, JG with MS, WOWG, WOMG, DW PG:  “Welcome back, dear friends.  We have been hoping to resume our visit. JG:  “Thanks, I didn’t really want to do this so soon.  So good to feel young again, free again, healthy again, in the company of such wondrous souls.” MS:  “Wonderful souls, indeed!”  “So are we all.” JG:  “MS, it is not easy to leave you at this time.  We need a special word, perhaps ‘Aloha’, to say thanks, until we meet again.” MS:  “I understand, dear Jack.”  “My life has been so much richer with your love, closeness, energy, vitality.”  “Of course I will always treasure these past few years – you made me feel bigger, more loving, more loved, and part of a wonderful unit.” DW:  “Friends, let me leave you to your celebrations.  I know there are many other souls waiting to join you now.”  “MS, do you want to go back down now?” MS:  “Not really.  But it’s Jack’s welcoming celebration now.” MS:  “I will treasure this moment, and these past few years, until we meet again.” JG and PG:  “DW and MS, as we Vulcans say, ‘Live Long and Prosper!” DW and MS begin a slow gradual return to ‘normal waking consciousness’, carrying warm memories of other-worlds love and visions of what is termed ‘Heaven’. Maybe stopping for a while in a Park-like green rest area. 11:18 End segment. [29 minutes at Focus 27]   March 24, 2022   5:28 pm EDT DW:  “Is the soul embodied in JG available for conversation at this time?” JG:  “Just barely, old friend.  They’ve got me wired up, with oxygen.  Still here but raring to go.” JG:  “This is not a way to live.”  “Can you do anyting to get me out of here?” DW:  “Is the soul of Maury Hanson available for conversation at this time?” MH:  “Hi, guys.  JG, you’re in a fix, aren’t you?” JG:  “Yes, Maury.  Can you help?  As an old medical man, probably not.  I understand.  As a loving soul?”  “I would appreciate whatever you or another Guide might do to help.” Guide6:  “DW, this is not my line at this time.  But, perhaps the Project can use some of that wonderful experience that JG earned during this more recent embodiment.”  “Okay, JG.  Come with me.” Guide6:  “JG, I will recommend you to join the project team as soon as you are comfortable here.” JG:  “Bless you all.” JG:  “And may God bless all those who loved me and whom I loved during this embodiment that we re ending now.” 5:41 pm End Segment. [13 minutes at Focus 27] 5:18 pm EDT:  ‘Rita’, the soul that was embodied as Rita Warren until 2008:   “JG, you needed, asked for, and were granted your request.  Welcome here.  May I join you in the celebration welcoming you back?” JG:  “Have we loved before?” ‘Rita’:  “Of course. We’ve been in soul form for a long time.”     5:55 pm EDT End Segment [Total of 37 minutes at Focus 27, in two segments]   April 27, 2022    A month later 11:48 pm EDT DW:  Guide6 “  perhaps the Project can use some of that wonderful experience that JG earned during this more recent embodiment.”  “Okay, JG.  Come with me.” Guide6:  “JG, I will recommend you to join the project team as soon as you are comfortable here.” JG:  “Bless you all.”         Guide6 and JG gently leave the boundary of DW’s physical body. JG soul leaving DW physical boundary 220427 11:57 pm EDT End Segment [9 minutes at Focus 27]	May refer to events on pages 1 and 2.            DW is very confused that JG is still here in body.