Intuitive Linked Communication (ILC)

Translating (from September, 2017)

Saturday, September 16, 2017

You have been told that your life as experienced is only somewhat real. This is because your life as you are experiencing it is deeper, with stronger cross-currents, than a mere conflict of compound-beings. You got the idea: Try to express it.

We see history as it affects us, so it becomes a matter of MacArthur and Wilson and Roosevelt and Hemingway and John F. Kennedy and Churchill and Robert Henri, and W.B. Yeats and so on. In other words, it becomes seen as a matter of individuals. And to us, this is reality. It combines the external world we experience (even at second-hand), and the inner world we construct or experience as we cooperate in shaping our ideas of what is going on.

But a deeper level of reality involves the same events, the same individuals, but experiences them as forces, as – I don’t know how to put it. As manifestations, I suppose.

Try not to stop there, but continue, for when you return you will not be in the same place.

In a real sense, our 3D lives may be seen at different levels of reality, and our accustomed way of seeing them is relatively superficial. Hatred and fear, in various combinations – all the deadly forces that run through us, as well as the living forces too – they could be said to live their own lives through us. If you were a playwright, you might try to express certain ideas. You would have to clothe the ideas in characters, and express them in conflict and interaction of the characters. It would be the interplay of forces that concerned you, and the interplay of the characters you had invented would be secondary.

Well, not exactly. You acquire a stake in the characters as you animate them. You should know that as you think of the Chiari brothers and others you have brought to life and then seen having that life, with its own bounds and possibilities.

 

Tuesday, September 19, 2017

[The following entry reverses my custom of putting “my” words into italics and “their” words in Roman, for ease of reading.]

All my reading of novels, history, biography, and my frequent viewings and re-viewings of films may be seen in a different way. Behind those stories of individuals are stories of conflicts of forces, of ebbs and flows of the power that flows through people for its own purposes.

Your practice has been to bend your habits in certain directions in order to compensate for tendencies that would interfere.

Okay, we’re going to have to work differently, aren’t we? Let me try to say what I just got.

The whole sequence, extending from about 1989, moved from my initial attempts at automatic writing, through communicating with The Boss[i], then a personified Evangeline, then the guys upstairs, then individuals such as David Poynter and Joseph Smallwood, then historically recognized figures like Carl Jung and others, then (more as exceptions than as part of a progression) people I had known. It was a long sequence aimed in part at changing how I went about things, correcting not only mistaken ideas but habitual traits that tended to interfere. This latest course-correction was to get me to slow down, to settle in, more than I have ever done or been able to do. There are forces that can only be heard when we are still enough.

With time and confidence and changes in interlocutors came changes in my role. Dictation became conversation. Conversation clarified into part instruction, part how-to. From the beginning, the process was never what I expected, but was peculiar to me. It was quite disconcerting to Rita in 2001, I remember. But she and I worked with the situation, and I don’t see how we could have done our work, then or subsequently, if we had tried to make what came to us fit into some preconceived box in format or content. And now, I think we’re changing gears once again. It’s like we’re edging toward Bob Monroe’s “rotes,” where non-verbal transmission of information has to be unpacked into words, which can only be done by someone familiar with 3D restrictions of thought and experience.

Those of us who are able to move among levels we are here as translators, stitching together different levels of understanding. The point I’m getting to is that what is obvious reality to one level is fantasy to another. We see it in our 3D lives and it is also “as above, so below.” It just depends upon how far you care to extend it.

So, if I say that our 3D lives are only somewhat real because we are the embodiment of forces beyond the 3D level, some people intuitively get it. Others have to wrestle with it, at first having to take on faith that I am not speaking nonsense. Others not only can’t make anything out of it, but you might say won’t. It is self-evidently nonsense, and they aren’t going to waste their time. The different levels don’t translate.

And this brings us back to this thought: Dramas are stories, and stories are doorways into other levels of meaning. But doorways are only doorways if you walk through them, and those who are not ready to go through them never even see them as such.

Sunday, May 7, 2023

6 a.m. Perhaps you have other fish to fry, but I’d be interested in more about how you and we and the times interact to choose which threads among all possible threads to follow, in the course of discussion.

It won’t come as some blinding revelation. Like most of what we have to say, it is your everyday life seen from a different angle. Why should anybody expect that what we have to describe will be something never before seen or talked about? Context is all.

I do understand that. Just as yesterday, you remind us of the overarching situation and then look at something well familiar but not well understood.

Or, let’s say, not well understood in a certain context. Often it is one detail now to be seen in its surrounding form, purpose, function, and effect. A shoulder joint won’t make much sense to someone with no experience of shoulders, and how are shoulders to be understood except in the context of the body as a unit. And so on and so forth. Close examination shows everything in new light. At the same time, the thing being examined remains the thing it is. Therefore, a certain kind of mentality cannot listen to people like us. For one thing, it cannot sit still long enough to look into nuances and contexts. For another, anything it encounters reminds it of something else, and rather than following the exposition, it follows associations of kindled ideas. And of course some merely snort and say, “That’s nothing but….”

However, there are the rest of us –

So you think, but in fact it is not a difference among individuals (or even among communities), but among moods.

I get that. We may be one or another kind of mind, depending upon the subject matter.

Ys, very good. You may have infinite patience with the complications and associations and nuances in history or psychology or even metaphysics, and be totally unable to sit still before similar explorations in chemistry or politics or celestial mechanics. If we were to sketch one rule of thumb here, it would be, You aren’t as invariant as you sometimes think yourselves.

Hmm, another variable? As, you, the times, and now the subject matter?

Let’s go a little deeper. Slow down, go into the crystal.

Okay.

“The subject matter” is less invariant, too, than you might think. The same subject isn’t the same subject from one time to the next, and you know why, if you think about it.

Rather than thinking of it as a unit, thinking of it as a galaxy of connected points leads one to see that who and what we are, at any given moment, affects how we and any subject matter interact.

Or, may interact. There isn’t anything determined about it, but the opportunities differ, yes.

I remember beginning to learn of the fascinating details of structure because Nancy Dorman showed me her coloring book on the human musculature, and talked about various things, from her knowledge as massage therapist, I’d never paid attention to. I realized for the first time that the body was an interesting thing in itself, not merely an often inconvenient conveyance.

It may not have occurred to you how many avenues that exposure opened up. Your healing work had been as abstract as your care of your body, if somewhat less careless and taken for granted. After you began to pay attention, gradually you developed the habit of associating body and mind functionally, as well as conceptually.

You’re right, I hadn’t made that association. I can somewhat remember stages of my progressive realizations, and if I were to concentrate on it, probably I could reconstruct a line of pebbles: this, then this, then this.

And construct is exactly what you would be doing; choosing among potential memoires which ones you would associate, and in which order.

So, you see, just this few minutes’ work illustrates how you and we and the times and the context develop a theme in one direction that could as easily have gone in a different direction.

Let’s send it in a different direction, if only for the sake of illustrating the process.

Well, let’s go back to “So you think, but in fact it is not a difference among individuals (or even among communities), but among moods.” We could as easily say, moods are a function of the interface between conscious and unconscious mind, between yourselves as you understand yourself and yourselves as you interact with the world in ways beyond your awareness, or yourselves and what you think of as the externals of the world.

Yes, we have been there.

You see? Your initial response represents your mind in another mood.

Got me. Did you plan that?

We allowed for it. You might have responded in a different way, and might yet. So – respond again.

I suppose I might ask, what determines moods?

No, rather than approaching it abstractly (another potential reaction, you see), another personal response.

I can see at least one potential take-away: We oughtn’t to judge others, unless we are willing to include ourselves in the indictment. What we judge in others is behavior or reaction we ourselves engage in, in another mood.

Yes. And you might look at moods as delineations of difference, or let’s say as treaty provisions.

Well now, that’s interesting.

Certainly. Again, you were thinking of yourself as an individual, but if you remember that you are also a community, you see that any mental state amounts to an accommodation among peers.

An accommodation that varies with circumstance, time, and God knows what-all else.

As we’re always reminding you, every subject provides links to deeper connection, depending mostly upon your willingness or otherwise to pursue it. Or, not so much pursue as allow.

Sure, I see that. “Pursue” implies we are hunting, tracking something down. “Allow” implies we are sitting quietly, waiting to see what timid or stealthy animals emerge from the underbrush. Or, to change analogies, “allow” implies that we at most steer our canoe in its downriver course, moving toward whatever draws our attention.

So you see,  thinking that your mental flow is under your control, or is not under your control, or is partly and intermittently under your control, are three very different ideas, leading to perception of different kinds of possibilities. As usual, any simple answer would be simple at the expense of accuracy.

Always an education, and frequently an entertainment, talking to you guys. Our thanks as always.

 

Sunday, January 14, 2018

Very well, my friends. Yesterday I got that we might do a session apiece on the seven deadly sins and the four cardinal virtues as they appear from your viewpoint. I can’t wait to see what we get. First off, you agree that sin is missing the mark – an error of judgment or execution, rather than an offense that is going to be prosecuted in some after-death court of law?

Let’s start a little slower. You can’t just invalidate major threads of human thought with a wave of your hand. At least, it isn’t wise to do so.

I assumed that it would be common ground between us, or among us, I suppose I should say, given how many of you there may be on the line. (And how many of me, come to think of it.)

It is and it isn’t. Let’s put it this way: We share one way of looking at things, but we remember that there are other ways. It isn’t as if anyone ever comes to a “the” truth. You know this, it’s just in another context.

You are saying it is all viewpoints.

Viewpoint, and the result of viewpoint. If you look at things from one viewing-post (as, in practice, everyone must, that viewing-post being their life in all its far-flung ramifications), everything you build upon that view proceeds from it. If you are an Englishman in the South Seas in 1775, that’s the outlook you will have. It’s obvious. You can’t expect that you’re going to have the viewpoint of a Phoenician or a Tibetan Lama. You are who you are, and you see things from that platform’s vantage point, in perspective from that spot in space-time.

A complicating factor is that this is only this simple as long as we ignore the fact that that the “you” in the South Seas in the 1700s is internally connected to so many other lives living elsewhere and elsewhen. Those extensions will alter his perspective unpredictably.

• No matter how unconscious that 3D personality may be of how widely he extends, he will be unconsciously affected.
• No matter how psychically aware he may be, he will still be mostly unconscious of his full scope, necessarily (as you and all your readers and friends), because you can’t pour a quart of water into a pint container.

All we’re saying here is that people are stranger and more unpredictable than their evident surroundings would lead you to expect them to be if a current 3D incarnation were as isolated as it appears.

Sure. We all have these cross-currents within us, from God knows who and God knows where.

That’s right. However, within that context, the fact remains that you are each shaped by your circumstances, as you should be, given that 3D reality is to be a crucible. It isn’t complicated but it is easily overlooked, like the air you breathe. Search for the truth, but remember, it is going to be your truth, not any nonexistent “the” truth.

Nonexistent? I don’t see how that can be.

We mean, the world is way more complex and interrelated for anyone in 3D to comprehend, no matter how aware, how extended. Thus any truths you come to will be only partial truths, as your lives are only partial lives when seen from a wider deeper perspective.

Do search, do sift and weigh and come as close to your truth as you can. This is not only not a waste of time, it is intrinsic to your existence in your particular piece of 3D time-space. Who is going to give a true report of the world from your point of view if you do not? (You understand, we mean, a report to the larger All-D world, a report in the form of what you make yourself by living.)

Only, do not confuse that very useful quest and result with an imagined pursuit or acquisition of truths greater than you can comprehend. You will find it quite enough to absorb the truth of your own 3D life you live; don’t march off to a pretended siege of Babylon. (We trust that you and your readers take for granted that this is aimed at one and all, not just you, Frank.)

So, when we come to look at sin and virtue, our viewpoint will be limited (will be focused) by yours. Any transmission comes via a 3D person acting as middleman, and his essence is integrally involved. How else could it be? A trance medium may be entirely unconscious of the messages being delivered – but listen to that word “unconscious.” Who the medium is, is still indivisible from the process. If his or her conscious mind is not involved, nonetheless his or her un-conscious mind will be because it must be. Who Edgar Cayce was, who Jane Roberts was, beyond the level of their consciousness, had to be part of the equation. Their participation was not limited to willingness and vocal cords.

Sure, I see that. Maybe that is why Seth used to refer to his channel as Rubert rather than as Jane, to remind Rob and the readers that there were more relationships and more on-going factors than met the eye.

So let this session serve as reminder that we are going for the deepest truths that can be brought forth, but that the depth has practical limits. It is so difficult to be confident that people will employ a rheostat rather than an on/off switch, will say “As true as I can find,” rather than either “there is no truth to find” or “it’s true because I know it is.” Of the two, it’s hard to say which is the greater pitfall. The one leads to irresponsible nihilism; the other leads to Psychic’s Disease or to irresponsible certainty. That doesn’t mean the task is impossible, only that it can be difficult, and has hazards.

So, after all these preliminaries, we can begin – a short beginning in the time left – and we will proceed when and how you wish, after that. As you intuited, Frank, it wasn’t exactly your ideas, though of course the whole idea of ownership of ideas is a little – well, strange. You own an idea insofar as you provide it a home, or let’s say as you recognize a kinship. But you do not originate one, any more than you give birth to a beloved kitten or puppy.

Pet ideas, I like that. Better than pet rocks, even.

And what makes you think that 3D individuals are not, in a sense, the pets of the ideas?

In the sense that people may be said to be owned by their cats or dogs?

If you were to look at the subject from the viewpoint of vast impersonal forces interacting with 3D structures, you’d see it as the ideas seeking and finding vessels to contain and express something of the idea’s essence.

Very interesting thought. (So it must have been mine! J)

 

Friday, May 6, 2023

5:40 a.m. A few days ago, I was reading a history book with interest, and made a note to ask sometime why I am so interested in history. After all, history is as ephemeral as everything else in 3D. I suppose everybody is interested in something, but still I find it curious. And I suspect you will broaden the scope of my inquiry. Feel free.

As you say, everybody is interested in something, or in some combination of somethings. For some, it is some aspect of the tangible physical 3D world; for others, some abstraction; for still others, perhaps abstractions about tangibles. Even if your fascination is in finding the day’s food and shelter, your attention will be on something.

That sounds like merely playing with the idea.

No, it’s deeper than it looks. But you first need to remember the conditions of your life: compression in time and space; expression of relationship to other Strands; your personal subjectivity as it relates to the shared subjectivity. All well, no accidents, no spare parts, no missing parts. If you can’t subscribe to this vision of life, or if you can’t keep it in your awareness, you will slip back to thinking of orphans in a world of chance. If your mental makeup cannot abide a vision of meaning, then of course what you will be seeing will be meaninglessness.

We know this isn’t where you thought this would go, but it is our job, you might say, to choose among possible threads in a discussion, and go this way rather than that way. Your thoughts and ideas aren’t really decided by default, so much as by your and our innate biases, as they interact with what the times will allow to manifest.

That will be an interesting topic in itself.

We haven’t left your proposed topic, merely broadened it. Slow down as best you can, and let’s look at things.

BTW I seem to be functioning differently since last month’s course at TMI.

Yes, your radio is better tuned, less static.

So to look at this. Each of you is a reporter of the world as it is. It takes all reports to make a comprehensive sitrep. And by situation report, we mean non-3D as well as 3D, and we mean the interaction of the two as well as either separately. Well, how are such reports compiled except in the experiences of those who are living them?

I’m not sure I am entirely following. Part of what you’re saying, you said years ago, but another part seems to say, between the lines, that something – perhaps another higher level of being – wants to experience our lives second-hand. Not just our lives in 3D, but (since they are not really separable) in 3D and no-3D together.

This is not something to obsess over, and it certainly isn’t a new thought in the world. Life wants to know what it is experiencing. Or, say, God, or the gods, or the All That Is requires and enjoys self-awareness. Each of you and each of us and groups of you and groups of us and all of us together provide that many-focuses awareness.

Hold to “As above, so below,” for a better feel for this. Just as you in your life represent all humanity (and beyond-humanity) in your daily life, so does “all of us seen as a unit” represent our experience. Life is, life chooses, life experiences, life savors, life chooses again. What this amounts to ultimately, how can you know? How can we know? But do you need to know everything in order to know something?

I sort of used to think so.

Yes, past tense.

Well, I learned. Just as I don’t direct the politics of Burma, and am not responsible for fixing streets in San Diego, and do not keep the books sorted in the local library, so I don’t need to run the world, nor understand it, to live in it. And a good thing, too.

So OT1H you are free to interest yourself in whatever attracts you, and OTOH that clause doesn’t really make sense: It says, you are free to be attracted to whatever attracts you.

Hmm – meaning, what we are determines what will draw us?

Well, did you ever feel you might equally well have spent your life studying biology or chemistry or sociology or woodworking or traffic management?

I see your point. I suppose we could look at formal schooling as spreading a vast buffet, from which we pick what attracts us. And another way to say that is, it spreads a vast buffet, and some thing or things shine for us.

Or, also, you shine for the things.

That’s a different way to see it. I suppose so.

If you think in terms of systems rather than assuming that individual decisions are the only things that count, you get a better handle on complex situations.

And I suppose all manner of generalizations apply, like young girls being attracted to horses, or boys being attracted to cars. (Of course, I am aware, these examples may no longer be representative. They were when I was a boy.)

We do not intend to tell you why you were drawn by any given thing in life. Those who discover their one big thing are fortunate and usually happy. Those who never discover one big thing may be just as happy, depending upon what they do with the world they find themselves in. and, ultimately, those who live unhappy lives will find that they were happy in a different way, but there’s no point in going into that, as it will merely raise people’s defenses and segue into political discussion that will provide heat but not light. For those who can think of these things quietly, and as Newton’s little child, it may prove to be a valuable thought.

Newton said the way he learned anything was to sit with a new observation and observe it with the mind of a little child, which I take to mean, without presuming to tell it what it meant, but instead being open to follow thought  wherever it might lead. Only, it may not have been Newton. I kind of think it was Einstein, not that it matters.

To conclude with your question, we’d say this. Pursue anything you are inclined to pursue, and see where it leads. The closer in touch you are with your instincts – your non-3D guidance – the more interest you will find in life. In this, consider Hemingway, intensely sensual, intensely intuitive. He did not find life boring.

But even those who find life boring are sending their own sitrep.

Yes, they are, and so are you all. The report is on the world as you find it; it is not (and is not meant to be) the world  as abstractly defined.

Sometime, merely as a matter of interest, you might discuss how our changing our focus of attention from one interest to another changes the general situation.

Perhaps. As is our wont, we will try to keep it practical, if we do.

Our thanks as always.

 

Sunday, November 24, 2019

I got a sense overnight how our minds use bits and pieces of various things and associate them by something they have in common other than, different from, our daytime logic. So if I am watching a lot of “Doc Martin” and “45 rpm” and reading this or that, and writing this or that, it may find bits from the same emotional string, so to speak, and play with the underlying string along the lines of whatever it ostensibly deals with. Thus our dreams may be so strange: They don’t follow daytime logic, but another logic. I should look into Robert Graves and see if this is what he meant by solar mind, lunar mind.

That thought leads to a sense of how very much “on our own” we are in this culture. No communally accepted belief-system such as the ancient Egyptians had, so we each go looking in our first- and second-hand experience, trying to find out what is real, what isn’t. That’s all I have been doing, all this time.

Comment?

Only that Robert Graves’ thought may not be so easy to pull out of the matrix of his work, and you already have the basic idea. Don’t forget, you are not dependent upon asking someone else (someone “external”) but can ask us, that is, use your intuition, and follow where it leads. Your own discoveries may only overlap, rather than duplicate, those of another, so too much scholarship may actually hinder the formulation of new and authentic insights.

Interesting thought.

And of course you know that in place of the certainties of a coherent world-view, your time has the chaotic potential inherent in a  lack of one coherent, over-arching, pervasive world-view. Each condition has its advantages and disadvantages.

Now as to our indicated topic —

Bearing in mind that we are using what you as an individual know (because that is always what we have to work with, no matter who is on the 3D end), remember that we have used your remembered remnants of Christian theology to illustrate the realities that that theology tried to express in its own time. Thus, the seven deadly sins. Regardless what the churches thought, regardless how generations of the faithful regarded them, we find them useful not to bring you to a religion even as an ideology, but to demonstrate a relationship between errors and effects.

Which is precisely what the churches were doing, I assume.

Yes, only at some point obedience became more important than the underlying logic of why they were seen as deadly sins.

We have gone through that logic, showing how they are seven ways of mistaking your position in 3D life and the greater life beyond the 3D, and mistaking who and what you are. Now let us look at them as seven specific channelings of the one sin of seeing and using others as things rather than as persons.

Why is treating people as things evil?

Is it not obvious once stated?

It feels obvious, but that isn’t the same as having the reasoning behind it.

In a way, lunar mind, solar mind. You know things you cannot prove or demonstrate. You feel things you don’t realize you know.

You as a human being:

• are an extension into 3D from the larger world that surrounds it.
• live in non-3D as well as in 3D, and are in continual if not necessarily conscious connection to it.
• consist of uncounted connections to non-3D filaments shared with other humans.
• are tied to all others in ways seen and (mostly) unseen from before you are born to after you die to 3D.

To treat another human as a thing is to treat a part of yourself as dead.

Sin, remember, is defined as “missing the mark.” Basically it is error. Error unconsciously persisted in is error compounded. Error persisted in despite the knowledge that it is error is worse than error compounded, it is a wrong turning chosen.

Sometimes sin is merely or mostly error; sometimes it is the deliberate choice to do evil.

Now let’s not get lost in abstract theoretical discussion of evil. You know evil when you see it, even if no two people’s definitions match. It is not about definition but about knowing. We repeat, you know evil when you see it, even though you may mistake for evil something that is merely undesirable or repugnant or forbidden. The fact that you may mistakenly judge something to be evil does not mean evil does not exist. This should by now be obvious.

Well, in considering what happens when people are treated as things, there are two aspects to look at: what it does to the subject and what it does to the person made object.

It dehumanizes the person being considered as an object.

Clearly. But suppose that person never becomes aware of being treated as an object?

Is that possible?

Of course it is. Are you aware of most of what goes on around you? Our point is that the damage is done, seen or unseen. Think of the physical trauma that persists beyond lifetimes and into new lifetimes! All this acts as a drag on that person  and everyone that person connects to and interacts with. Considered in non-3D as well as 3D, the results are incalculable, literally. And this is without respect to the deadening that occurred in the one doing the damage.

Jesus! What price sociopaths?

Precisely. Now, you may argue all you want in terms of how to define evil. Still, evil exists. And if putting drag on the entire human race rather than aiding self and others does not count as evil, we don’t know a better example.

Have you said what you want to say about the evil of treating a person as a thing?

What we have to say on the subject is implied in what we did say. Some time investigating it, pondering it, reflecting over it with your lunar mind, so to speak, will prove productive.

 

“Excerpt from Lab Journal”

 

Time	Perceptions	Inferences
	Dedicate session to Higher Self and appropriate Lower Selves of DW  and any others who may appear, including SHKSPR, 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
	April 30, 2023 3:51 pm EDT DW:  “Is the eternal soul that was embodied in the Actor and Playwright William Shakespeare available for conversation at this time?” SHKSPR:  “Let me look around and see if he is on stage at this time.” DW:  “Did you find him?” SHKSPR:  “He’s rubbing his eyes, just waking up, I guess.”  “Who is calling and what do you want with him at this time?” DW:  “Sir, I call from what is now the United States of America, across the seas from England, in the year of our Lord 2023.”  “I don’t know if you can contact me or not but would like to see if we can converse on a soul-to-soul basis.  Does that help?” SHKSPR:  “Are you sure you are real?” DW:  “Yes, in my ‘3-D’ physical universe at this time, I am real.”  “Can we talk?” SHKSPR:  “Let’s find out.  We have heard of a ‘DW’ rummaging around up here recently.  Are you the same soul?” DW:  “Probably.  I don’t know anyone else who is rummaging around in your area right now.” SHKSPR:  “Okay, how do you do it?” DW:  “Some new gifts of God have recently made it possible to converse at a Soul level, across time and geographic space.”  “Now, I think I was alerted to call you because of a musical play a century ago by Richard Rodgers and Lorenz Hart, loosely based on what we now know as your Comedy of Errors.”  “Mr. Rodgers and I have been conversing in this manner for about an earth year now.  Does that help?” SHKSPR:  “Answers some questions and raises others.”  “You know, the world has changed enormously since my last embodiment.  Many more humans alive, much more command over their lives, much larger geographic areas inhabited by men and women now than in my time.” DW:  “Yes.  I realize that it must be quite a shock to look at my world through your soul eyes.” SHKSPR:  “Well put.”  “You are right.” SHKSPR:  “Can we adjourn now and resume after I have had some time to learn more about this process, and YOU, DW.” 4:12 pm EDT DW:  End Segment [21 minutes at Focus 27]   April 30, 2023 8:56 pm EDT DW:  “Hello, SHKSPR, are you ready to continue this conversation?” SHKSPR:  “Yes, but first you must realize how different your “real” world is from the one in which I lived four centuries ago.”  “For example, in MY “real” world there was no television, no radio, no telephone, no automobiles or trucks.  We players travelled from place to place bringing news (sometimes not reliably), history, examples from the past [the Greek and Roman plays and documents).  To a large extent, we created the news and entertainment of the times.” DW:  “I begin to see the enormous changes that face you, SHKSPR, in this attempted communication.”  “Thank you for setting the stage for me (as it were).” DW:  “With that base in mind, let me ask if you can describe the sources of your creations?” SHKSPR: “Oh, my.  The ideas just came to me.” DW:  “Were the speeches complete in the language(s) of your day? Or perhaps telepathic in nature awaiting words for you to fill out.”  “I ask because some ideas seem to come from angels or Wise Old Men and Women who are sent from the Lord.” SHKSPR: “Interesting questions.  DW, I need some time to adjust to the frame of reference you are using at this time.  I need another break.” 9:15 pm End Segment [19 minutes at Focus 27]   May 3, 2023 4:45 pm EDT SHKSPR:  “DW, your world is incredible.  So different from that in which I lived, wrote, acted, and directed.” DW:  “I think I understand.  Are the human characteristics different?” SHKSPR:  “Haven’t checked that much yet.  But, I think not.  Please take a look at my King Lear.  I think those characters are still alive and well in your world.” 4:48 pm EDT End Segment. [3 minutes in Focus 27]

 

Friday, May 5, 2023

5:50 a.m. Thinking about Jon and Martha being dissatisfied with their non-3D components, wondering how there could be a mismatch between 3D and non-3D. Seems to me, we would reflect each other. Guys?

They are right in thinking, “We’re not perfect, they’re not perfect.” Though they are not factoring in the difference in terrain. Some things are possible in 3D and not in non-3D, and vice versa, as we have long told you. But that is far from the full story, for remember, 3D and non-3D interpenetrate. They are polarities, not separate nor separable realms. Heaven is all around you, just as Wordsworth described the world of infancy: It doesn’t move, you move, psychologically. But this is not a complaint nor an indictment, merely an explanation that you aren’t ever alone and aren’t really playing an away game, though we well know it feels that way. (We ought to know, having heard it so often from your end.)

Here are some things to consider:

• We are a community just as you are.
• Our conditions allow us more inter-consciousness than yours allow you.
• Nevertheless, don’t ascribe uniformity of opinion or viewpoint or motive or values to us, any more than to yourselves. Why should there be?
• The operative factors in our relationship are many:
  1. The cosmic “weather”
  2. Your level of functioning at any given moment.
  3. What is going on “elsewhere” or “elsewhen” as it affects you, and as it affects us, and as it affects the relationship between you and us.
• Larger, often opaque “orders from headquarters” – meaning, the directives from higher levels of being.

That’s a lot, and includes many statements I don’t understand (not that that’s anything new!) I presume you intend to expand upon them.

Yes, but it is valuable to provide a clear statement of inter-relationship of factors first, that you can come back to after we have made the meaning clearer. And it will be better yet if we can compress these statements into symbols or images that may be more easily remembered, once understood.

Okay.

You are right that there can be no accidents in a 3D/non-3D relationship, any more than within 3D. They are right that it would be a mistake to imply an impossible perfection here, any more than in 3D. But – both statements being right, what do we see?

We get that no-3D mirrors our 3D existence, necessarily.

Yes, that. And beyond that?

It implies a mutual influencing.

Certainly. And more of a peer-to-peer relationship than people sometimes think. And beyond that?

I suppose we draw to us mirrors of what we are, some of which is beyond our range of consciousness.

Yes, of course. We are not mirrors of yourselves as you know yourselves, but of yourselves as you are. This is that Carl Jung quote, you see.

“Until you make the unconscious conscious, it will rule your life, and you will call it fate.” Not sure I quite see the application.

Won’t your guidance from non-3D seem to change composition, as your knowledge of who you are changes? As you alter the balance of forces within you (by deciding which things to encourage and which to discourage), won’t it seem to you that what you meet from “the world” alters? And isn’t your non-3D guidance part of “the world” in this sense?

“The world” as seemingly external, beyond our control.

Yes. The shared subjectivity is not only you, but it is somewhat you.

I think you mean, what we experience of it changes as our internal balance changes.

Yes.

So let me go back and number those bullets for ease of reference. Expand upon them?

Points one and two should be evident. We – guidance in all forms – are not a monolith, not an unchanging opinion, not even an unchanging standard, any more than you in 3D are, and why should you expect us to be?

Therefore – point three – we mediate disagreements among ourselves just as you do, only without the circumstances of 3D life. No secrets on this side. No unconscious motivations. No hidden warping effects of trauma. Thus, no corrosive fears and hatreds. But still, a form of politics, you might say, a working-out of a common position from various initial positions among elements. And therefore, often enough, minority views. You experience mixed feelings, indecision among factors, changes of mind, regrets, resolves: Where do you think they come from, or, let’s say, how do you think they can come into manifestation, but from non-3D disagreement?

Maybe, instead of “disagreement,” competing opinions and values?

Fine, it is the same thing.

Skipping over point four, for the moment, point five should remind you that there is no isolation in the world, no freelance gunslingers riding into a lawless town. The non-3D is hierarchies of consciousness no less than the 3D, and we are as much subject to the laws of higher nature as you are. This is a big theme for another time, but we mention it here lest it be overlooked.

So then to the fourth point:

1. The cosmic weather. We have lightly touched on this as an ongoing constraint on communication between 3D and non-3D. Some 3D times allow certain energy patterns to manifest more easily than do other times. You know this in practice, only factor it in, in this context.
2. Where you are mentally, emotionally, physically, spiritually, fluctuates under various influences within yourselves, not merely under “external” influences. Again, you know this; live it in this context. Do you think a mental life lived in lust or rage will enable the same things as one lived in charity or tolerance?
3. Other places, other times. Difficult for you to factor in, because mostly invisible to you save in effects, but as a small example, remember that Joe Smallwood’s life changed because you changed it. At the same time, David Pryor’s life shaped you, changed, you, was changed by you, etc. Similarly all what you call “past lives” may influence you at any time, usually beneath your level of consciousness and theirs.

I get an image of mutually reciprocating accommodation. We adjust to each other in our sleep, not noticing.

A reasonable way to think about it.

So, there are a few considerations. The most important is that you and we are part of one thing, bound to each other for mutual assistance, even if that often requires mutual tolerance.

Something between a family and a marriage.

Close enough. Remember, difficult situations are difficult more in the fact of inter-relation than in the nature of the others in the relationship. We know it doesn’t seem that way.

Thanks for all this, as always.