Intuitive Linked Communication (ILC)

Thursday, September 25, 2024

7 a.m. I think I’ll start my blog entry by quoting the results of yesterday’s drumming session in our ILC meeting. [ILC: Intuitive Linked Communication.]

“How do we nurture ILC and what does that mean?

“Rather, how do you maintain yourselves through the use of ILC, and what follows?

“The ILC meetings – its future as a technique – will take care of itself, as the times permit. But what is more important is what does it do for you, what do you do with it, as an individual – remembering that in this context “individual” means “the totality in a nutshell.” Holographically, what happens to all happens to one, and vice versa. You are never alone even when – we would almost say particularly when – you are alone in appearance and feeling.

“Tend your own fire. Keep yourself on your own inner beam. Intend the best version of yourself that you can intend – and thereby you will be doing the most effective things possible. This, regardless if it is combined with quietism or activism. The tending your own fire is the essential, and it is all you can do and all you need to do.”

But, having decided to quote the drumming result, I find I have no idea how to continue. I will assume someone – Jon? – does.

At this point you need to spend some time re-reading the material you have been bringing in, and pondering it. You will find that it pays to change your daily routine now, to change the ratio of time spent pondering and the time spent reading or doing crosswords or whatever. You are at a time when you can make a good deal of progress by working the material you once brought in.

I get a sense of rhythms, like the tides going in and out by the law of their being.

Assimilation and digestion, yes. It is one thing to bring a blank slate to each day’s sessions; it is another to bring questions. There is a time for each aspect of the process.

I have asked for others to pose questions, but haven’t had much response.

Well, this is an interesting topic, perhaps: How much value is input from your own pondering and how much is input “from left field,” as anyone else’s will necessarily be.

I’d think they’d both be of value. Mine result from digesting what I think I know. That from others serves as inspiration from an unexpected viewpoint.

Yes, but the percentage of the mixture makes a difference.

That doesn’t sound like a stop-the-presses insight. Clearly someone who works alone is going to differ from someone in a newsroom.

Anyone thinking is thinking alone. Anyone choosing input (which book to read, which program to watch, which person to associate with) is thereby creating a unique mental environment. It can’t be avoided and need not be avoided. But by the same token, anyone thinking is thinking as a part of the whole, equally inevitably.

Again, no big “aha!” We are individual and we are part of all-that-is”; of course we are going to function in a way that could be seen as either solitary or communal.

But what changes the way it appears to you?

Our point of view at the moment.

Certainly. Which means – ?

You’re going to say something about our awareness, but I don’t yet have it.

In a sense, your life is what you think of it. Or you could say, your life means what it means to you when you look at it in a certain way – and the way you look at it depends on where the momentary mental “you” is standing. And that tends to change. Are we beginning to get through to you that we’re moving to new ground?

I’m willing to take it on faith. Still don’t see where you’re going.

Tending your own fire doesn’t mean sticking your head in the sand. It does mean, extend your awareness as avatar-self into territory previously obscure and light it up

Deal with our shadow.

Yes, but the point here is that dealing with your shadow is work that concerns not only you as avatar but everyone, for it is truly said that you are members in each other. Everything you do shapes you, and you are always a part of the general equation, hence your changes affect the rest, as theirs do you. This is why people experience what is called “mass consciousness” as if it were something else, yet they experience it.

[I see in transcribing this that “Something else” may not be clear. In context it meant “something other than themselves.”]

We experience ourselves as only a tiny bit of a huge thing.

Size is a false characteristic, a misleading idea. Quality must not be confused or melded with the nature of Quality. Quantity is a 3D term. Quality is a 3D/non-3D term.

Say some more about the distinction between 3D and 3D/non-3D.

You experience it all the time. Something strictly limited to the time-space restrictions imposed may be seen as 3D-only, even though in fact nothing is disconnected. In fact, never disconnected, but in effect, they may appear so, and may be investigated so. Thus, the non-3D implications of color or sound or substance may be ignored and even unsuspected, and so may be investigated as if 3D only.

Galileo, stripping off any characteristics that could not be measured.

Roughly, yes. Different eyes would see that color and sound and substance reverberate, let’s say, in non-3D, resulting in correspondences in 3D that may be experienced but not seen.

I think you meant, experienced but not recognized, not noticed.

Dismissed as accidental, yes. Quantity per se is always a 3D measurement. Let it pass into non-3D as well and you will find you are discussing quality. Thus, in 3D you are one in seven billion, a negligible factor. Seen from non-3D as well as 3D, you are unique but you extend in ways that cannot be measured quantitatively.

Sagan and others – Asimov – always irritated me with the stupidity of us being insignificant because we were on a fourth-rate planet circling a third-rate star, or whatever it was they said. It would be like comparing Einstein unfavorably to an elephant because he was so outweighed.

But they were saying that for effect, trying to correct what they thought of as errors exaggerating human significance.

I know that. They were still irritating.

And you yourself said, a few minutes ago, that you experience yourselves as tiny.

Touche.

Either way is a somewhat valid way of seeing things. Somewhat, because limited. An argument that does not appreciate and accommodate its opposite is always going to be merely partial, hence somewhat wrong.

To return to dealing with our shadow –

This has the advantage of always being immediately to hand. You never have to go across the ocean to count the cats in Zanzibar: You always have your own intricate and infuriating and fascinating puzzle to work, which you experience as “you in the world.” And working that puzzle, as we say, is never egotism or autism. It is your proper work. Some will work it alone, some will work it through engagement with the world, but either way, working the puzzle is the real work.

Today’s theme?

Nothing wrong with “Tending your fire.”

No, I like it. Thanks as always.

 

Wednesday, September 25, 2024

8:40 a.m. Somehow the telephone thing is a sort of last straw. I cannot imagine it actually resolving, though I will go to Comcast in person in an hour or two to try again, which quite possibly will result in it getting fixed.

But there are too many unnamed unlisted things that spell doom. I do not feel like the soul, merely the avatar, and not a very powerful or autonomous avatar, at that. It is as if all I can really do is talk via ILC to whoever it is I do talk to. I have a feeling that depression instead of explosion is how I am being affected by all this upset. Depression and a feeling of helplessness and isolation and wrong-paths-chosen. (Lungs let up recently, though.)

Oh God, what am I going to do?

Just continue being you, refining away any part of “you” that you’d rather not play.

Is that even possible?

Isn’t it choosing? You are not being driven into explosion, mostly because you brought that under your conscious control.

I could do the same with depression?

Do you have any reason to think you couldn’t? It is a matter of reinterpreting a mood, into seeing it as a mood rather than reality. And you have been doing that for a while now.

Viktor Frankl again.

You recognizing that it is the key is itself a key for you. Frankl’s external life didn’t change as a result of the decision, but it did change and as it changed, his changed-resolve (call it) led him to make choices in a continuous direction, restoring and preserving his sense of being not a helpless chip floating in eddies but, say, a passenger observing the voyage. Still not under his conscious control, but his attitude toward whatever came at him altered the experience and what he could get out of it. It is not control that is the point here, but input.

I searched and searched for that final word. “Input” isn’t right, but I had to end the sentence somehow. What is the right word?

As usual, when we get stuck, we need only step around the obstacle and continue.

That’s what I’m doing, giving you a chance to step around.

We’re making a point for others who may encounter the same problem. When you can’t find the word or the concept, start again a few words or sentences back, and see what comes.

We’ve told people that before.

Repetition, remember.

The point about Frankl’s approach was that life – his life, your life, anyone’s life – is not about you controlling it, it is about you getting what you can from it. Absorbing experience, drawing conclusions, changing your mind if it seems called for. If you think you should be controlling what happens to you, and that greater mastership will result in greater control, well, that is one possible path. That is the lure that tempts people into white – and often enough into black – magic. But it also leads easily to depression or disbelief or despair, or all three.

If instead you concentrate on absorbing what happens to you – letting life drive, so to speak – you are concentrating not on manipulating the outer world, but on shaping and reshaping your inner world.

And look carefully at that! That amounts to saying, you in paying attention to the inner world, so called (the you-ness rather than the world-ness, other-ness) are taking the more direct route, though we know it will sound backwards.

No, I understand what you mean. If the outer world as we experience it is for all practical purposes our unknown self, our shadow, then in concentrating on externals we are trying to manipulate the reflection in hope of the reflection changing the original. But if we stay focused on the original, and see the external as the reflection that it is, we can know what it is telling us we need to (or anyway have the opportunity to) address.

We don’t know how many people will be able to follow what you just said in the way you said it, but yes, that’s the idea. All paths are good, remember, but in practice one or another particular path will be good for you. Your construction as avatar will have made you in such a way that you will naturally prefer this or that as more natural to you. (And some will choose what is less natural to them, they seeking the challenge.) So for some, close engagement with the outer world as reality; for others, engagement as symbol. Whichever you choose, you may do well or badly, efficiently or not, consistently or not. But any path per se offers opportunities.

Well, I don’t know if it is the content of your talk or the experience itself, but I do feel better. Soldiering on is something I can do.

But you don’t have to be quite so grim about it. Life also contains coffee and chocolate, you know.

Smiling. Thanks.

 

[Herein, I said  “Icon” but I should have said “Avatar,. “Avatar in the sense of avatars in computer games.]

Tuesday, September 24, 2024

8:50 a.m. I guess I’m tired of many things, my ambiguous position in 3D not least. If I think of myself, I can’t think of myself as icon, nor as the self that would include and transcend it. I’m sort of suspended between the two.

Both demigod and mortal. Yes, that is the human condition. It is why you are not at home in your lives: You know you are something more, but you can’t make that “something more” real and effective. Yet it seems you almost can, if you can only do – something.

I see you haven’t forgotten what it’s like.

You mean, “after all this time”? A little more than seven weeks?

Just making the point, somebody somewhere said you have to have been human to understand being human.

Ed Carter told you that ex-humans are regarded with some respect for having survived boot camp.

And is that what you experience?

That kind of respect? I imagine it is dependent on who you meet and what you’re doing. I haven’t seen any parades in my honor so far, if that’s what you mean.

Smiling. Reminds me of one of Mark Twain’s sketches, can’t remember which, where people in non-3D take turns pretending to be Abraham, etc., so that new arrivals can live out their prior fantasies. In any case, what are we going to talk about?

Isn’t that supposed to be your decision?

Let’s continue on this “demigod and mortal” theme, then.

It is a natural extension of the theme we have been touching, but you have not yet discussed it with your friends even by email.

I put out the invitation by posting our conversation. I can’t force people to respond.

You can encourage, however. Some people won’t think they have anything special to contribute.

I don’t know how to make it plainer than you and others have done already.

You can always second the motion.

My God, Jon, what have I been doing, for 20 years?

The difficulty goes with the territory, don’t worry about it. Remember what you tell people, advertisers know that repetition sells. There’s never any predicting which particular repetition will be the one that hits which person.

So, demigods and mortal.

Remember, going into this or any discussion, it isn’t just about the 3D/non-3D world you know, nor even about aspects of it that you may or may not come to know. It is also rooted, necessarily, in the unknowable.

In the larger reality beyond the 3D/non-3D bubble.

Right. Just as you have to be in all dimensions that exist, because nothing can exist in some dimensions and not in others, so everything in the 3D/non-3D realm is invisibly rooted in the larger reality of which it is a subset. You can see that.

I can, when I remember that the universe is all one thing, without absolute divisions.

You might think of the 3D/non-3D bubble as one dimension of the larger world around it. That introduces as much distortion as it overcomes, perhaps, but some may find it useful as a reminder that everything is part of the all-that-is, and the all-that-is is not confined to the bubble.

I get that. Seems clear enough.

It will be clear (it is not a complicated idea) except when blocked by other ideas or emotional needs. But that may be said of any concept.

But if we’re going to discuss factors invisible to us – we’re going to discuss the influencing factors that result, not the invisible ones we cannot guess. I got the second half of the sentence as an answer to the first half. Very efficient.

In dealing with such questions, combining your left-brain attention with your right-brain openness, you often receive the answers to questions as fast as the questions form. It’s a matter of no interfering filter and no deadening logical process.

So, the influencing factors: What are they?

Like the air you breathe, they are so much a part of your life, they are usually scarcely notices.

I’ll leave off comments about asthmatics not noticing the air we breathe.

That’s very loud omitting.

Smiling again. Well?

Have you ever met or heard of anyone who had his own life figured out? I don’t mean know-it-alls or true-believers. They usually are overcompensating against uncertainty and the necessity of leaving questions open. I mean, have you ever heard of anyone who claimed to know his life, and life per se?

It may be absurd. The name that comes to mind is, Jesus.

Then you might look at it and see why.

Why he knew his life?

Why that is the name that came to mind, as opposed to Gautama, say, or Lao Tse or any of the world’s acknowledged sages.

I didn’t hear you asking about wisdom, I heard, completeness. Integrity in the sense of being all one thing. Lack of self-division.

And why do you trust the stories that have come down about him?

Do I? that’s a good question. I don’t think it is because that is what I was taught as a child, because that isn’t what I was taught. Jesus was taught as God who was made flesh. In fact, what we were taught was very contradictory, though the nuns didn’t seem to notice the contradictions. Nor did we, of course, until later.

You know that some people say he never existed.

As an amateur historian, I can’t believe that. The Gospels are the written residue of two generations of oral tradition. The apostles and disciples were changed men and women. You don’t get changed by legends nor by made-up stories. And those disciples changed the world.

But so did Muhammad’s.

Doesn’t seem like the same thing, to me. but in any case, nobody questions that Muhammad lived. Again, something created followers. Something changed people, who became examples who changed people. But Muhammad’s followers were armed, and Christians – until the movement was hijacked by Roman Emperors – were not. A movement that spreads by example rather than by the sword has an important something extra.

But in any case, you believe that Jesus is something special.

Even historically you’d have to concede that.

But where do you get that he knew his life, and life per se? You were not taught that, as you say.

It struck me a long time ago, his spirit may be the connector among humans that is a sort of halfway house.

That isn’t even close to being clear. Let me cease to ask rhetorical questions, and set it out for you – reversing our usual procedure.

Okay with me.

G.K. Chesterton was closer to a conventional Christian than most popular writers. He converted to Catholicism in the 1920s, a very eccentric thing to do for a prominent Englishman. You have his book The Everlasting Man, which you might profitably reread critically. Although Chesterton’s theological approach is not yours and although he will probably disapprove of most of the way we conceptualize things, you will find great insight as a result of running his thoughts in parallel with yours. He won’t convert you, as you wouldn’t have converted him, but he will strike sparks. That’s what he always did.

You said “will probably disapprove.” Are you suggesting we bring him into the conversation?

Your own awe or reverence or whatever you would call it may stand in the way, but someone who can talk to Lincoln or Carl Jung ought to be able to hold his own with Chesterton.

We’ll need to continue this another time. “Invisible factors,” perhaps?

It would do, or something else if it struck you.

Interesting stuff. Looking forward to more. Mentioning Jesus and taking him seriously ought to set the cat among the pigeons.

“I have come to bring not peace, but the sword.”

I didn’t know you were that familiar with Christian scriptures.

And how do you know how many silent partners are chiming in as we speak?

I always forget that. Okay, till next time.

 

Monday, September 23, 2024

7:05 a.m. Okay, Jon, shall we dance? Do you have a preferred topic?

You aren’t sharing everything that happens.

Should I?

No, just put it on the record [that I don’t post everything]. If people feel left out, they know what they can do. Everyone has access, it’s just a matter of doing the work and not pre-judging the result.

Some people say they can’t.

And you don’t believe them, rightly so. But if they don’t think they can’t, they can’t until they decide they can.

I am tempted to put in my brief exchange with JFK, that was spurred by my thinking again about rewriting Eddie’s book.

There is no “should” either way.

Looking back, Friday’s session seemed to end abruptly.

I advised you to think – alone and with your friends – about your situation in 3D, limited yet remembering that the limits weren’t absolutes. And have you done the thinking?

Not thinking, but feeling, anyway. The other day there was a moment when I remembered. But I couldn’t do anything with it and I couldn’t prolong it.

Then let’s think together.

Yes, that seems to work best for me.

First, remember that nothing in your life can be chance, no matter how it goes, no matter how it feels. That is not the same as saying “preordained.” It means, everything is connected in the world, and the world at large, “out there,” is as real as you are in this context. And although you at this moment understand what this means, you should spell it out to keep it, or you will find that it becomes cryptic as you lose the key.

I take it to mean that I as a 3D person born when I was born, born where I was born, of my particular biological parentage, etc., etc., am not the real me, but a construct, a sort of icon that represents me in the 3D game. Mostly during the game we identify with our icons, but we have the ability to both identify with it and transform it. As it transforms, we continue to identify with it and we continue to transform it.

Very good. That “icon” metaphor will serve you well, going along. So you see, “you” as you appear in 3D are, like everybody else, “somewhat real.” You have a deeper reality that 3D life cannot touch, though it can influence it. And how [can it influence it]?

Because our reactions to what happen to us lead us to change. I hadn’t quite put that together. I am a certain way: My icon is, I mean. Things happen via the world. The icon reacts, either automatically or consciously, and every such interaction presents the possibility of change. But it is a matter of the icon’s choice, because change is a matter of what we will, not what is forced upon us. Yes, if we allow ourselves to be shaped by events, in effect we are shaped by something outside ourselves (outside our icon’s self). But in fact really this means only that we chose not to choose.

There you go. So you see – once again, but you keep forgetting it – the way you think is via pen and paper. Others may think via other ways. But everybody can think productively on these things. The question is, will they?

It’ striking. A lot of progress in a few minutes.

Now, not to beat a dead horse, but that is the value of intuitive linked communication as opposed to passive reception of messages, much less trance channeling. ILC is designed – was given to you – to help you think. It involves the left brain with the right brain, or, you could as easily say, it lets you put words to intuition, or, it lets your 3D component communicate consciously with your non-3D component. Or, it lets your icon talk to the shades of other icons. When you get good enough at it, it will restore people’s ability to talk icon to icon abstractly rather than by using the senses. In other words, telepathy.

Now, this is good progress, but think some more, alone and with friends.

I’m feeing impelled to record the brief conversation I had.

As I said, no reason you have to, no reason you shouldn’t. Up to you.

It feels like I’m being nudged, though, and also like I’m reluctant for the usual reasons.

Then think about that. In fact, that’s a good rule of thumb: When you notice something going on “within” you, think about it. Feel for it, examine. If you learn nothing, what have you lost? But maybe you will learn something.

Yes, I see that. I suppose the nudge may come from more “me” and the resistance from the icon. (I can see how useful that metaphor may become.)

You generally defer to your upper self, except when the icon’s emotional resistances are too great. Others might defer to the self’s impulses only very occasionally. It is a matter of style, as much as anything.

Interesting. All right, I’ll think about all this. Maybe I’ll call the one “Thinking.” Thanks, Jon, and till next time.

 

Saturday, September 21, 2024

6:45 a.m. Jon, talk to me about us all being partial yet (holographically) the whole, and what that can mean in practice. I know you told us to think about it, but this is how I do my thinking.

It isn’t, really. You do your thinking like a fisherman casting his line and hoping for the best. He may choose his time and place carefully, but he’s still left hoping for the best. In a way it is the difference between fishing and farming. The fisherman’s prey is invisible to him; the farmer’s is in a controllable environment, and he is as much nourisher as, finally, consumer.

So logic is a form of careful examination, and intuition is more like prospecting blind.

All of this is too abstract to be useful. Conversations provide you with a sort of structure, without depriving you of freedom of association.

So that thinking that everybody could do this if they would set their mind to it is wrong?

Let’s say it is more theoretically true than practical. They could. They aren’t likely to unless their mental makeup is something like yours.

Our ILC groups haven’t had any trouble doing it.

1. How do you know?
2. Group-mind energy provides an assist.
3. It is a self-selected group.

Still –

I’m certainly not saying what you do is unique, I’m saying it is very closely suited to how you perceive and interact with the 3D. Others will be different, able to do things you can’t do and unable to do some things that are easy for you. It is always that way, for everybody. Now, about what I said last time, you might quote it, rather than paraphrase.

“Your struggle … is to broaden the amount that can be experienced by you without breaking the bounds of the separated you that your birth created.”

By your struggle, I meant neither that it is everybody’s nor that it is uniquely yours. I meant, those whose being incorporates an urge to grow rather than to maintain. Obviously, there are lots of you, and equally obviously, not everybody.

Then what is the purpose for those who are here to maintain?

One question at a time. We are a long way from getting into this one. That split – I remember it well! So will you. It is not an incidental feature in our lives, it is the bedrock, if a fault-line can be a bedrock.

I just realized, our ILC discussion ought to be guided by someone, steered to address these things, and that person should not be me.

That is a good model, a group considering these ideas in a directed manner (that is, as if following an updated syllabus) so that the insights build upon each other and generate new ones. Such a group endeavor should not be led by the person primarily bringing in the initial information. This protects him and protects the group from haring off into dead ends, because no one’s 3D judgment is infallible. It also protects the 3D communicator from temptations offered by the ego-level self.

Maybe a communicator, or more than one, and a facilitator of discussion, and a recorder?

Perhaps also a summarizer. But any group would have to find its own natural way of functioning.

This sounds like a next step, a new development.

How long do you want to stay in third grade? Granted, you now know how to get 100 in every test, but at some point you’ll get restless.

Well, we’ll see if anyone rises to the bait. What you’re saying sounds right to me – but then, it would, which is why the communicator shouldn’t try to run the show.

Only, if the members of the group don’t rise to the bait, don’t try to push the river. One’s opportunities do not depend upon the acquiescence or cooperation of others. That is, if one door remains closed because no one opens it, there will be other opportunities in other directions. We’ve told you, there is always a Plan B, we always present new options after any decision you make.

You say “we” and I get the sense that we are suddenly segued away from Jon.

I’m here. But it isn’t as solitary or differentiated as 3D continually leads you to assume.

I knew that. I had forgotten.

So, as we were saying, anyone who experiences the struggle within themselves (and where else could it be experienced?) between what they experience themselves to be and what they intuit themselves to be, never forget it. In a sense, they have been partially awakened and are unlikely to go back to sleep.

“Sleep” here being believing in the 3D illusion, taking it unquestioningly as real.

Yes. What we are calling “maintainers” do not experience that self-division. (They may be self-divided along other issues.) it is the transcenders, call them, who can’t let it alone. Let them center on whatever they choose to – family, career, some profession or craft, some avocation, whatever – they cannot escape that nagging unsleeping sense that they are more than they appear, not only to others but to themselves. It is an uncomfortable feeling, knowing you don’t really know who you are.

Boy, that’s the truth!

Everything we’re talking about is the truth.

Very funny.

Not a joke. It’s an important point. Not everything said is going to resonate, but the things that do not resonate for this person or that are nonetheless still true, and should be regarded as a gift that has not yet unfolded for them. It shouldn’t be shrugged off as eccentricity.

Which is one more reason to be careful to avoid eccentricity, I get it.

No, there are dangers in the direction of avoiding eccentricity too. If all these years you had confined yourself to relating only the things that were respectable or comfortable or – God help us – that you knew to be true, how far could you have gotten? It is one of the purposes of group study to find the wheat and discard the chaff. But that is a delicate process, easily misused to reduce messages to what is most comfortable.

So, as usual, it is up to us to steer a middle course.

Any course will have complementary dangers, just as any line will have a left and a right not-line beside it, that defines it. It isn’t anything perilous, it is just the nature of boundaries.

So what has today’s theme been? How to organize a group to investigate better?

In a way. But more, it is how to get the distinction in your mind between ways of perceiving and associating. What is appropriate to a fisherman is not appropriate to a rancher, and neither one is appropriate to a farmer. Whatever particular talents you may have will have come with a particular best way to employ them, and it is well for you to find that best way.

I get that this isn’t where the discussion was intended to go..

All paths are good. Given sincere intent and perseverance, greater perspective is always available.

So, the theme?

Call it “Investigating,” if you wish. But some other title may come to you.

Thanks as usual, Jon – and unnamed lurking others. Till next time.

 

Change

Friday, September 20, 2024

7:30 a.m. Okay, Jon. After a false start 90 minutes ago, let’s try. Shall we pursue “What do you want to do?”

Earlier you listed the things you are keeping your cool about. Quite a list. Congratulations, and – Surprise! Maybe all this work has led to real changes, unbeknown to yourself.

Maybe. I’m always prepared to get an unpleasant surprise telling me I’m not as well off as I think I am.

But that is good too. Convictions held without reservation may be a matter of protesting too much; often are. The point is, if all this communication and thought and pondering and readjusting doesn’t lead to real change in the “you” that manifests, what good is it?

Well, I suppose it might have merit in and of itself. I mean, it’s worthwhile learning things, isn’t it?

Is it? Not always. Sometimes knowledge can retard awakening. You have heard that “A little learning is a dangerous thing.” One meaning of that very true phrase is that it can overbalance your larger purpose, by taking on unwarranted importance. That is, it can warp your judgment by insisting too strongly on one viewpoint over all others, thus trapping you in one perspective rather than allowing you to look around from different angles.

I’d think our non-3D components would guard us from that.

They may wish to guard you from that. They may murmur or shout advice – but will you listen? It is always the choice to be made by the 3D personality. That’s what it is there for. Not much point in creating someone to choose, and then disabling their choice.

Well, even if we make wrong choices, I’d think that would be an expected part of the overall pattern.

It is. But we’re talking about what is useful to the 3D being you experience as “you.” Plenty of 3D beings get stuck in one perspective; there’s nothing wrong with it, and in fact one man’s “stuck” is another man’s “ensconced,” or “home.” But for you, a fixed immovable perspective would be not a stabilizing factor but a crippling, an imprisonment.

Looking back, I see you said, “Sometimes knowledge can retard awakening.” I realize, I don’t actually know what that means.

In a sense, each person is potentially everybody. “All is one,” remember. Potentially there is no limit to how far a 3D being can expand its awareness. Practically, of course, there are always limits. But potentially, theoretically, no.

Now, it isn’t in everybody’s game plan to expand consciousness, any more than it is in everybody’s game plan to become a forest ranger or a safecracker. People come into their roles pointed toward a certain kind of life.

“Pointed,” I think you mean, not by someone else nor by that happens to them, but by what they are.

Those three things are less separate than they seem to you, but yes, by what they were created to be by the influences the astrology of their birth permitted, and by their own previous soul-experiences, and by the state of play they find on the board as they enter the continuing melodrama (soap opera) called history.

Some are hell-bent – heaven-bent? – on learning and becoming, on self-transcending, you could say. Others are bent on maintaining themselves as is, despite circumstances. And most are somewhere in the middle. We will confine this to those who want to expand.

But bear in mind, the universe needs all these various ways of being. It is in the nature of things for every moment, every situation, to be a combination of stability and change. Nothing lasts forever, but neither does everything change at once. So don’t in the back of your mind think the universe is secretly particularly pleased with your particular preference (or predicament). You have a valid and important part to play, but so do those representing opposite or tangential qualities.

So what does it mean, to say there is no theoretical limit to how much any given 3D facet may expand to become? Am I saying there are no hard and fixed boundaries? Or do I mean, you are already everything, and it is a matter of realizing it and embodying it?

Both, I imagine.

We have to keep going back to the few over-arching principles that guide this kind of exploration. All Is One. As Above, So Below. When you really sense as well as believe, that there are no fixed boundaries in life, your opportunities proliferate, naturally. And here’s the thing, which you’ve heard many times: it isn’t a matter of changing what you are (which would be impossible) but of changing what aspects you manifest, in what proportions, for what purposes.

Since all is one, you are everything, as is everyone else. And since 3D slows down and separates, you get to experience being separated-from-allness. Your struggle – or exercise, or game, or however you wish to think of it – is to broaden the amount that can be experienced by you without breaking the bounds of the separated-you that your birth created.

That’s very interesting.

It should be. Contained in it is why life is unsatisfying, why it is exciting, why it is interesting and boring and infuriating and inspiring. It’s all wrapped up in that one fact, that you who are all must experience yourself as partial, but can change the dimensions and even the coloration of that partial self.

A lot to think about.

End this here, and by all means, do the thinking, both alone and with your friends, and we can go farther accordingly. Remember, this is not to be memorized and kept separate, but absorbed, tested, lived.

Many thanks. I guess the unrecorded couple of pages from 6 a.m. can stay unrecorded. This is a little short, but plenty meaty. Till next time.

 

Thursday, September 19, 2024

6:15 a.m. Ken Kesey said somewhere that his father said the trouble with Ken was that he was always trying to unscrew the inscrutable. Seems to me that’s my disease too. I am not much interested in straightforward problems. I wind up wondering how a cat’s markings were determined. I know about camouflage and all that, but that’s why. How? How is it determined for any given animal what colors, what patterns? Yes, sure, DNA, but that’s like saying “heredity” or (my favorite) “randomness.” There must be a “how” to it, just as there must be a specific if very evanescent “how” to each ripple and pattern of ripples in a boat’s wake, and I wonder what it is, how it is done, and I know I’ll never get the answer, because – other than generalities – I doubt anybody knows or can know. We would have to be able to perceive so quickly, see relationships so deeply, I think it is beyond our ability. Maybe our mechanical and electronic enhancements of the senses can do it, the way microscopes have extended our understanding, but I don’t know.

Jon, I suspect you know more what I am groping for here than I do. You may be prodding the thought, for all I know.

You need to connect this thought to your life history. It will show you what you have been doing, and that will tell you what you’ve been looking for.

As usual, I get a vague sense of it.

You weren’t interested in science classes and labs because it seemed to you they were just laving you repeat what had already been discovered.

I wasn’t smart enough to realize what everybody else would have found obvious, that the labs were trying to teach technique, to give us a feel for it. Stupid of me.

Not stupid. You were never stupid. Disconnected.

Yes, that’s a better word. Never reasoning from A to B, let alone farther. Trying to intuit what needed to be reasoned to.

Yes, but let’s concentrate on what is to be learned. You weren’t interested in science as exploration for a couple of reasons that you never reasoned out, but took for granted.

Typically.

One, it was all disconnected into specialties and you wanted unity. Two, it was all superficial (to you) because it meant looking more and more closely at manifestations instead of investigating underlying meaning.

That’s a funny way to look at it, but it does seem accurate.

What you wanted, and didn’t know you wanted, was a metaphysical science, such as characterized the 1400s and 1500s and 1600s. and at the same time, you couldn’t take anybody’s word for what it all meant.

What it meant? More like, how it really functioned. What held it all together at the center, not all these peripheries.

And all that was impractical, of course. Who could do that? And, how could it be done scientifically?

Clear, even obvious, as you say it. I didn’t know it.

You didn’t analyze your impulses, values, motivations.

Didn’t reflect on my self. Rita first made me aware of that, in her intro to The Sphere and the Hologram manuscript.

Now, you see, what you wanted was beyond the grasp of anybody in 3D. You wanted the principles the universe runs along, and you wanted all the specific manifestations down to how is a specific cat’s markings determined. BTW that last question amounts to asking, How is randomness built into order. You will remember your initial fascination with chaos theory.

So then, why was I so made up as to want that? I mean, “why” in two senses of the question: What good would it do anybody, and how did it happen that I was the specimen?

Just that kind of question shows why you could have become a scientist, and also couldn’t have become a scientist. Your reach exceeds your grasp, which can be good, but can be futile.

As I think about it, I see that I should have studied psychology. That interested me in a way that examination of rocks or biology or physics, etc., did not.

You would have chafed at the limits of the study. If you could have survived within those limits, you might have thrived. But was it really psychology that drew you, or wisdom?

All right, very true. Jung, not Freud or Adler. Jung at his most exploratory, not Jung as everyday practitioner.

The science that was native to you didn’t exist in organized form in the time you were born into. Prior ages didn’t have a lot of the data and experience that would have allowed them more sophisticated concepts, and contemporary psychology was too timid, or anyway cautious.

Ah – because there were things I knew but couldn’t know how I knew.

There you go. Pursue it.

We’re back to 100% intuition as a preference. I guess some things leaked into my 3D mind from what I used to call Upstairs, and I couldn’t doubt them and couldn’t justify them. So, there I was outside the herd I would have liked to be a part of.

Not quite so stark. Let’s just say you were a little more on the edge than you sometimes wanted to be, but weren’t comfortable closer in.

Catch-22.

Just the way things were. You think it happened by coincidence?

I’m getting that life has been using my eccentricity to show less eccentric people a way to approach greater intuitive input on an on-going basis.

Or you could look at it that it is demonstrating to you that one may preserve an intuitive link without being so eccentric. Or – I would suggest – both. It isn’t like there is a right or wrong position. Life can use everything and anything, and usually does.

Can you, from non-3D, see the lines of cause and effect that I have always felt I ought to be able to see? Why specific markings on an animal, why this chain of consequences and not that?

You mean, since I have access to anything, do I have access to everything?

That isn’t what I mean. I’m asking, merely, since your perceptions are no longer bounded by time and space constraints, are underlying forces and interactions clear now?

There is a problem here that you are not considering. How do you use that combined telescope/microscope of your analogy both ways at once? A conspection and a microscopic analysis taken together would give you a better understanding, but that understanding is a construct, not a direct perception. Not that the construct is necessarily wrong or even fuzzy, but by nature it is not a perception. It isn’t much different from the laws and consequences 3D scientists deduce.

If I were to ask you how a specific cat’s markings were produced, could you tell me?

If I could tell  you, could you hear me, or understand me? if I had to go into quantum mechanics to describe the variables, could you, would you, follow me? You’d have to have a stronger interest than a mild curiosity.

And at the end it’s all mind-stuff anyway.

Well, it is, but you would be asking about the specific manifestation of mind-stuff in the 3D/non-3D system. Nothing wrong with that.

Not sure what this session has centered on, if anything.

There is a blurred area between physics and metaphysics, and we looked at one way it can manifest.

Namely me, as Daisy Mae used to say.

Specifically you, but everybody will see themselves either as analogy or by contrast. It’s not such a bad way to work.

And call it — ?

“Exploring the world,” maybe.

Maybe. All right, thanks and next time.