Intuitive Linked Communication (ILC)

Friday, December 29, 2017

I’ve lost track of where we are and what you are explicating.

Again, a logical progression makes less difference than you might suppose. Is it too much to expect that the pathless path – freedom in all directions – would be explicable in more than one way? It isn’t a treasure map, leading to one definite point, nor a radio schedule dependent upon position in time. It’s closer, much closer, to saying “The journey is the reward.” Just accompanying us along the way reorients and magnetizes, so to speak. The incidents of the journey are thus less important than the journeying.

So, today –?

Let’s talk about geography and consciousness. The fact that one may be living on Terra Firma this lifetime says nothing about where one’s strands may have lived, nor about what resonances may arise from other people’s strands (so to speak) who may be from other places. And, don’t forget, the same goes for people in other worlds relative to Earth: For them, a Terran life is the exotic factor in their heredity.

So when a psychic says, “You are originally from the Pleiades,” it may not be quite as definite as that.

Let’s say, the psychic may be speaking in a hasty shorthand, knowingly or otherwise, that assumes a singleness in the individual that is not in accordance with the model we have been painting.

I take it this is your way of saying, “Don’t overinvest in our model either.”

Well – almost. It’s a way of saying that the ways in which people have seen the world cannot be said to be absolutely wrong or even inadequate for their purposes and their time, so don’t throw out the baby with the bathwater. Different conceptual schemes divide reality into categories according to perceptions, strategies, meta-goals.

To make an analogy, the spectrum of electromagnetic radiation that extends from below infra-red to beyond ultra-violet is conventionally divided into colors by arbitrarily beginning at one range and ending at another. Even though the beginning and ending ranges are ranges and not points, still the division is arbitrary. Red, orange, yellow, do not exist per se as definite colors. You agree to see them that way. (That’s why children have to be taught their colors.) Divide that same spectrum another way, and you would experience your colors differently.

It’s easy to get that idea, but it is hard to imagine it, as a reality.

It will be less so if you think closely about the shades of blue and green toward the perceived boundary between the two. Obviously artists and scientists of light know there is no hard and fast boundary, but society in general assumes that there is, so assigns aqua, teal, cerulean, etc. to one or the other “primary” or “secondary” colors. But the designation of some colors as primary and others as secondary stems from a conceptual decision. It isn’t even as absolute as you might think in terms of “These colors may be blended to produce other colors.” The primaries are different between paint and light, say.

If we drew the lines differently, we would educate ourselves to see differently.

You would, it’s inescapable. The vibrations would be the same, but you would experience them in different units. Of course that alternate scheme would be no more correct than your present scheme, because any scheme depends upon discerning divisions, which are always going to be more or less arbitrary, like dividing a tree trunk. You might choose to see a tree trunk as logically divided into X and Y, but the trunk is (seen one way) one and indivisible, or (another) a flow of associated elements.

We have gone to a great deal of trouble to provide an alternate scheme in which the concept of the individual as a unit has been downplayed, and the concept of all the elements of humanity being interconnected is emphasized. This is because the way you draw distinctions has consequences. If you could remember from moment to moment that such divisions were necessarily somewhat arbitrary, no harm would be done. But the circumstances of 3D life in the absence or abeyance of a strong connection to a sense of non-3D reality means that such conceptual schemes come to assume a greater importance and permanence than is warranted or helpful. At another time, in civilizations with different assumptions, we might downplay the associative aspects and stress the relative individuality. It is not orthodoxy we are trying to encourage, but consciousness and in a sense consciousness is never easy within any scheme.

I get that you mean, not that it is difficult but that it doesn’t rest easy.

That’s right, though the second meaning isn’t exactly wrong. So, speaking of your extraterrestrial connections, which is the unspoken basis of today’s discussion –

Yes?

If all the universe is connected (and, we assure you, it is), and if the connections and divisions one discerns are arbitrary (which is equally true), you will find that the difference between “alien” and “family” is more a reflection of classification schemes than of “reality.” This is true among humans on earth; it is no less true among all the sentient beings on earth, and in the vast 3D world you call the universe. Obviously there exist relative divisions, relative species. To say that “All is one” is true, but only true as “All is a vast interlocking scheme of relative differences.” A moment’s thought should show you that this is true in your everyday experience. You sort by categories. You experience rhinoceros differently from daisies, even though both are made of the same building blocks. You experience races even though on close enough examination they shade off into one another.

On the one hand it seems you are saying our Sams, are not local in the sense of all its components being from one place any more than of one race or even on species. But on the other hand, I get the sense that our Sams have a center of gravity, so to speak, and that one planet, say, is more like “home” to it than others, and certainly than some generalized “all places” locale. What’s the story here?

We return to the larger topic of “vast impersonal forces.”

I don’t quite see how. Unlike sometimes, when I get a sense of coming attractions, even if I can’t yet express it, this time I don’t have any of it.

We are at the end of an hour, and perhaps it is convenient and useful to give people time to think about it before setting out our view.

 

Sunday, December 24, 2017

So where are we in your syllabus?

We are still in the process of tying together concepts that have become so widely disassociated in your lives as to remove the center Yeats was talking about. * [See below]

Things fall apart; the center cannot hold. That is what happens when a civilization’s central stabilizing tenets lose their ability to compel people’s belief. (We don’t mean “compel” by force; no one can compel belief, only external pretense at belief.)

Given that no “the” truth can be found by 3D minds conditioned by 3D circumstances, no society can be founded on “the” truth. Finding things that are true enough will do, must do, because that is the best that can be done. The question isn’t whether a society’s beliefs are the truth; it is whether its truths hold together.

But you aren’t saying that a society based entirely upon consistent lies and errors is more viable than one that is less consistent but closer to reality.

Way too many assumptions and definitions there. but it does remind us to go a little bit slow.

All societies may be said to be based somewhat upon errors, whether or not upon lies as well. Yet, all societies will be based upon some values, conscious or unconsciously held, so in effect every society will be based upon at least some potential truths. Nazi Germany, which is in your mind, still drew upon powerful constructive beliefs held by the German people.

And perverted them.

It did, but that isn’t the point. Beliefs in one’s duty to the state and to the society around one; willingness to sacrifice personal interests for the sake of the greater whole; pride in race and culture; defiance of fate and circumstance – all these values were there to be exploited. It is not the fault of the people that they were no match for the malevolent manipulation that called forth the dark side of those same values.

I might have argued against you, in my youth, but I have spent my adult life watching the same process turn my own country into the dark counter-figure of what it was before the coup of November, 1963.

Yes, but the issue is much deeper than you know, certainly deeper than they know who attribute motives and causes to ideology and politics. America’s sins come from the very defects of its qualities; people can only hijack what is there to be hijacked. And they can’t do that until a people’s grip on their central myth has been loosened. Until then, they may be misgoverned and cheated and lied to and manipulated, but the unifying myth will hold things together. Only when the myth decays or is shattered, as with Communist Russia or Nazi Germany, may a social order based on certain shared perceptions and beliefs be destroyed.

Yet this is still speaking on a superficial abstract level. Countries, societies, civilizations, do not fall or fundamentally transmute themselves merely from internal causes however serious. The fundamental transformation of human society won’t happen uniformly, and its effects will appear very different in different societies, for the impact of any given present moment’s circumstances always interact with that society’s past. That is what is there to be interacted with!

I have seen us at a point between two ways of seeing the world at least since reading [in the 1970s] Koestler’s The Sleepwalkers, describing the transition from the medieval mind to the mind of what is called modern times. And, there is Toynbee’s Study of History. And Bob Monroe’s description of “the gathering.”

As we say, it has taken time for the concept to broaden, deepen, and transform your conscious mindset and your underlying assumptions. The process is that of loosening the existing web of beliefs so that it may be tightened again in a new configuration.

Let’s see if I can put it into words. This ties into the globalization of culture.

Geography, linguistic differences, all the barriers that have kept human societies divided, no longer do so. There is no getting away from anybody else any more. The internet, radio, TV, a thousand forms of inadvertent cultural exchange are continually battering at the walls dividing human societies. The process shakes old certainties,. draws members of one society to aspects of other societies. So, it loosens the net of any one given civilization. Old beliefs no longer exist in isolation, and so there is a continuous below-conscious-level counter-pressure undermining them. The new global civilization will self-construct, and that will be the retightening of the net.

Not that the new society will embody “the” truth, nor that everything it will believe will be truer than everything it rejects. But it will again embody a set of truths, of values, capable of playing a constructive co-creating role with us in the non-3D world. And if you don’t realize that that means, with your own beyond-3D self, we have been wasting our time!

Societies rest upon shared beliefs about what is real, because values are chosen in light of those beliefs, and a society orders itself around those values. It rests not upon conscious choice – that would be a very fragile and tentative support – but upon conclusions that seem to follow inescapably from the accepted premises. So, if you can help a society see deeper constructive truths, you will have a far more profound (if hidden) effect than those who manipulate daily situations, overtly or covertly.

I get the feeling that what you want to say this time hasn’t yet been said clearly.

The difficulty is less in expressing truths than in expressing relationships between truths. We are trying to show you how to read negative space. As you like to quote from Kerouac.

“What can’t be said, can’t be said, and it can’t be whistled, either.” So –?

So, explorations in effect redefine negative space. This work does have an effect. It’s just that the effect is delayed. By your measurement, decades go by and nothing moves. But the transformation of civilization does not take place on human-life schedules, nor at human-life pace. Much of what appears to you to be chaos is merely counterpoint seen too close up. Each of you is working alone, yet you are working together with others and with forces that are far beyond you.

But have you made your point?

Remember, words are to inspire exploration by resonances they set up. They are not hammers to nail things down. Therefore it makes less difference than you might think where we stop and resume.

– – – –

* [The very well known poem by W.B. Yeats:]

THE SECOND COMING

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the Second Coming is at hand.
The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out
When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi
Troubles my sight: a waste of desert sand;
A shape with lion body and the head of a man,
A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,
Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it
Wind shadows of the indignant desert birds.

The darkness drops again but now I know
That twenty centuries of stony sleep
Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,

Slouches toward Bethlehem to be born?

Friday, December 2, 2017

Did you ever wonder how a topic and a moment of time come together?

That’s an odd way to put it.

The way of putting it stems from the way the subjects look to us.  Let’s talk about the process of communication. You may think you’ve exhausted the subject already, but not so.

We want to talk about that twist that takes place between the source and the receiver. You have become accustomed to thinking of difficulties in communication as problems of focus, but it is more complicated than that.

Let us define terms.

• You in 3D are a subset of you as you exist in full. You in All-D, your full self, is experienced by you as a 3D self and a non-3D self.
• Your full self, in turn, is a subset of a Sam, its creator, its parent. There is no interruption between a Sam and its creatures. However, bear in mind that a Sam and its creatures are not identical. By definition, a Sam is itself and whatever number of subsets it has created. Any one of those subsets is not the same as the creator and all the other subsets. So – difficult in words and logic, but the reality may be intuited – you and your Sam both are and are not

A case for four-value logic, in which a thing may be “both A and B” or “neither A nor B” as well as either “A = B” or “A not = B.”

That’s correct.

• So, you function as an autonomous individual (within the now-understood limits of the word “individual”), responsible for your own 3D existence.
• Additionally, you sometimes or continuously experience conscious communication with your non-3D component. The degree and continuity of communication defines the conditions of your mental and psychic life while in 3D.
• Additionally, you may experience something of the nature of your Sam. They may come as blinding insights, or as unshakable certainties, or as inexplicable but undoubtable realities. We won’t speak more of this, at least not at the moment, but only note that the experience does occur.

Our non-3D acting as the intermediary, I take it?

More like your non-3D portion having an expanded awareness on the one hand and a clear channel to you on the other hand. And although we don’t intend to talk about it, lest we get distracted from the main point at the moment, let us remind you that not everything the 3D consciousness happens to perceive directly concerns it. Sometimes, you overhear.

Our inexplicable dreams?

Among other manifestations.

And, like children, just because we perceive does not mean we properly understand.

Of course. So, the point here is that you in 3D do not exist in isolation, but you can’t be said to exist in firm communication, either. Sometimes there is static; sometimes there is interruption (at least, as perceived on your end). And even when the channel is clearest, without static, without interruption, you yourselves, by what you are, innocently and silently twist what you hear into your familiar patterns, like native Gaels speaking English.

Our point here is that what you may see as a regrettable deficit may equally fairly be seen as a fact of life to be accepted. Is the Irish or Jewish variant of the English language as spoken necessarily a detriment? May it not be seen as the spice of life? Similarly with each of you. Your being, your essence, which means among other things your accumulated store of assimilated experience, goes into the creation of the window into 3D that you are. So naturally the non-3D as it flows in will have an accent, so to speak. That is not a defect but a fact of life, and a spice, and even a set of clues.

And our varying views of life may be clues for each other?

They may if you are of a mind to use them that way. But that mindset – like any mindset – is in itself part of your “twist,” part of the filter through which you experience and express your life. Can you see the relevance of this to the subject of good and evil in 3D life?

Huh! I have a sense of it, but not enough that I would be able to express it clearly.

Each of you speak “3D” with an accent. The things you have been through in your existence since creation out of your Sam, plus the level of openness to input from your orienting non-3D component (that level being, itself, a product of past experience and resolutions, or, say, experience and consequent decisions), make each of you an individual unit, a different window, into 3D for the Sam and what is behind the Sam. You are a window, and a voice, and an accent.

But what it is that you experience, and express? Is it not everything that is manifest and unmanifest, within the limits of your capacity?

We, by what we are, express only what we can experience. Some experiences are closed to us, some cannot be properly interpreted, some are ambiguous, and only some are straightforward, or anyway seemingly so. And we are transceivers. We receive, but we also broadcast, and what we broadcast is as much a part of our nature as what we can receive.

And hence to an interaction with good and evil; also with virtue, vice, sins and assistance.

Think what you may, evil exists, for you. You may talk around it and say it is merely the absence of good or whatever, but the fact remains, some things will be evil in relation to your system of values. That being so, why go out of your way to prove yourself “too enlightened” to believe in evil? In practice, evil exists for each of you. You don’t all have the same lineup of suspects, you don’t have the same list of evils, but you all have a list. This isn’t error and isn’t accident. It is inevitable. That’s 3D – limitation and choice.

The same values that lead you to see certain things as evil lead you to see other things as good. (These need not be opposites; they may be quite unrelated to one another. An evil – cruelty, say – may coexist with a good that is not its opposite — nurturance, perhaps.)

From these values spring rules or guidelines to maximize your goods and minimize your evils. Habits and choices may help you, and you call them virtues, or they may obstruct, and you call them vices.

And as we have said many times, the seven deadly sins are not so much prohibitions as warning signs: “These are some ways of missing the mark. They lead in the wrong direction.”

That’s right. Like any generalized statement, different parts will apply to different individuals. What is an endless struggle for one will not even disturb another – but that other will have demons of his or her own to contend with.

 

Tuesday, December 19, 2017

I wonder, sometimes: Do these topics arise because of the things that have been happening in my life, or are there things triggered so that the subjects may arise.

This could be an interesting topic, if we can find the right analogy. The short, but too cryptic, answer is that what looks like an either/or is actually a restatement from a different point of view. But – how to explain the fact?

A book falls off a shelf in front of Bruce Moen and leads him onto a lifelong quest: Was that lifelong quest dependent upon that specific incident and his receptivity to it?

I would assume not. Life finds a way. If one incident didn’t do it, another would.

Can you see that what you just said could be paraphrased as, “The result pulls the causes, until the causes come into manifestation”?

Phrasing that, I could feel the pull from [the word] “existence” to “manifestation.”

Oh yes. Very different nuances. The one would imply that the causes only came into existence when they manifested in 3D reality; the other implies that the causes always existed as potential, needing only a chance to manifest.

I get that “potential” wasn’t quite the right word.

No, because it has the nuance, still, of “not existing until.” A better word wouldn’t have that silent nuance.

Always “existed within the template,” maybe?

Except that to some this will seem like mere playing with words, it will do.

The two ways of stating things amount to the same thing. They only look different if you assume that you are either pulling yourself off the ground by pulling on your shoestrings, or that you are responding to events as best you can and are thus sort of shaping your life, sort of being shaped by it. In either case you are leaving out of the equation the draw from the vastly larger parts of yourselves.

“You are not alone” means more than “you are not an orphan”; it also means, you are not an independent agent at your level of being, any more than one of your blood cells, or tissues, or organs, or appendages like the hand that is writing this is independent. They function as if independent within the sphere of their responsibilities – but that is the only way their independence has any reality or makes any sense.

To say, “My hand is writing this” is a useful misstatement of a clumsier way of seeing it which would be something like, “The fingers and thumb in cooperation with the rest of the body,” etc. Too involved to be saying, every time to discuss your writing words on a page, but true even when your attention is on the words or even the process. In the same way, your lives as “independent” 3D individuals, even when you remember that the individuals are actually communities.

All right, clear enough. And as you say, we know it but we don’t always remember it.

Not only that: You haven’t yet extended that knowing to larger spheres. In trying to understand “afterlife” concepts, you still tend to center those concepts on the individuals you perceive yourselves to be, even when you conceive of yourselves as more than one lifetime. The idea that you, your viewpoint, will be dominant in your larger being is true only in the sense that you are there from one point of view.

I am getting that you are meaning to say, the larger being is like a diamond with many facets. Looking into the heart of the diamond through any one facet would be like experiencing one life through one lifetime; it would be like seeing one particular connection as the important one when in fact it is the one that is accessible to us – which is a very different statement.

Bearing in mind, as always, the limitations of analogy, yes, that will do. You in 3D have one entry to your larger beings. After you leave 3D you will remain as other people’s possible entry to communication with your larger being, in the way you, Frank, communicated with Hemingway and got not Hemingway as he existed in all his facets (no one could do that for anyone) but Hemingway as he existed in the facets accessible to you and as he extended into his larger self. Someone communicating with someone else is always facet to facet, and is always higher self to higher self via those facets.

So, don’t expect to be in charge of our own destiny.

Would you want to be? Is it reasonable for a finger to have a destiny independent of the hand of which it is a necessary and valuable part as an instrument cooperating with others to express a higher will? And likewise, the hand is not independent, nor the arm. So why expect that you as a functioning individual can or should operate in a vacuum, as if your being was the center of the universe? In a sense, yes: You are the center for yourself, and should be because in 3D awareness you must be. But as above, so below. Your life makes no sense in isolation because there is no “isolation” of 3D from other levels of being.

I thought we were going to go farther into the question of good and evil, partly because of the video on J.R.R. Tolkien and C.S. Lewis I saw last night, but we didn’t.

Didn’t, and did. No part of your life may be well understood while other parts are firmly mis-understood. “To understand A,” etc. You would never get to understand good and evil, life and death, purpose and drift, love and hatred, while holding firmly incorrect views about other aspects of your life. So, like the flickering universe you are a part of, your life consists of perpetually changing colors (so to speak) as you continually readjust your ideas and experiences of yourselves. You aren’t and weren’t and never will be a finished product. In a continually changing, interacting, self-referential universe, how could you be?

 

Tuesday, December 12, 2017

Looking back to our session of Dec. 7, I see your summary of what needs to be explained, to explain why we are on any given timeline, regardless whether we think we would have chosen it.

• What is a decision, and who makes it.
• How a decision actually affects timelines.
• Why decisions are possible, why and how they are made.
• How all this is affected by, and affects, other layers of consciousness.

So – ?

That was an analysis of what had to be explained, not a syllabus. The factors don’t need to be spelled out one by one. The trick is for you to make the connections, which can only be done individually, and not by rote. Rote is for memorizing tools you can use. A leap into comprehension is the way those tools produce results.

Just looking at the list now, I feel more ready to understand than I did before.

Much of the mental construction has been done not by your 3D mind but by the part of your extensive mind you are not conscious of. (It isn’t unconscious of you; you are unconscious of it.)

And some of that construction work requires time? Which is why we don’t get it right away?

You think: Why should it require time? Another throwback to your old assumption, “on the other side, there is no time.” That statement is true in a way, but to understand “in a way,” so much more reorienting is required that perhaps we should say, it isn’t true for you at this time, from this place.

Like our discussion of reincarnation. Either a yes or a no would be equally misleading because some of our assumptions about it are wrong.

Some of your unconscious assumptions, yes. That is always what makes these teachings so difficult. But, as we make the unconscious conscious, things clarify.

In writing that sentence, I see the confusion in the way we use “unconscious” for two different meanings.

As we said, you really need a different word to represent the parts of your mind that are, themselves, very conscious, only inaccessible to the bright narrow spotlight you experience as 3D consciousness.

Jung’s “shadow.”

Minus so many things people have hung onto the concept, it would almost serve.

What if we began to speak of conscious and shadow-conscious, instead of conscious and unconscious?

We had to stop and consider that – as you experienced. It has its pros and cons. Like anything you seek to capture in words, what you gain in one direction, you are likely to lose in another. One aspect will become more precisely seen, and others will blur. At the risk of over-emphasizing the distance between two ends of an unbroken continuity, let’s think about using these terms:

• 3D-mind non-3D mind, to distinguish between you as you experience yourselves and us – TGU, Rita, Nathaniel, your past lives, etc.
• 3D-awareness non-3D-awareness to distinguish between your conscious mind and your so-called unconscious mind.

So, when new connections are offered, either by study or by “external” input, the work of doing that associating is done by your non-3D-aware minds.

That isn’t going to work, is it? Sounds like you’re saying not-aware-of-3D  mind, which is the opposite of what you mean.

Perhaps not shadow but shadowed.

­Our 3D-minds v. shadowed-minds?

Or even shadow-minds. It might work better. In fact, it has another advantage in that it shades off into the group mind of which individual minds are a part.

Which would leave you saying, new connections are made not by our 3D minds but by our shadow-minds. I don’t know. another possibility just flitted in, and flitted right out. Let me see if I can retrieve it. [Pause.] Well, I can’t, at least at the moment. And we’ve burned 40 minutes so far and haven’t really gotten anywhere.

Analysis, re-arrangement, pondering, is all work, all worthwhile.

Leaves me less to type, anyway. So, from here, where do we go today?

We might as well continue on the subject we strayed onto. (Yes, strayed. It wasn’t planned, and it wasn’t accident either. Every crossroads leads to different places, and every point along the way is, in effect, a crossroads.) You focus on a given thought or subject. That’s your conscious mind working.

Our flashlight. (I remembered what zipped by earlier.)

Your conscious 3D-mind – your flashlight – connects seamlessly to your non-3D mind, what we once called like starglow, an immense, omni-connected background presence in your life.

And! I just got it! It isn’t actually that your consciousness is dim, so much as that our vision in 3D is blinded by the intensity of our flashlight consciousness.

Now tie this in to the thoughts that came in recent sessions.

The physical horizons and the time-bounded horizons, and us always at the middle, but the time horizon continually moving us along.

Your flashlight beam illumines intensely within its range; beyond that is the effective horizon.

And you – and our non-3D awareness – are how we “see” beyond our horizons.

Not so much a new thought as a new phrasing of a familiar thought, that will bring in its wake different associations.

So, to return to our starting-point: As information passes from starglow to flashlight-area, it is essential that you be able to receive it, that you not be blinded by the glare of 3D-awareness.

So, slow down, meditate, experience, turn off the association-machine, etc. Just as religious and philosophical and self-development systems have always advised.

In studying any system, you will be obliged to separate practice from theory, perception from rules. If you look at any explanations – including these – as external indicators of a not-necessarily-experienced internal reality, you will not stray so far or so often into error.

Trusting your gut-instinct. Following your intuition. Listening to the small still voice. Hushing the monkey-mind. All ways of advising a practice, despite their different tacked-on explanation or ideology.

 

Horizons, veils, and direct feed (from December, 2017)

[For this one stretch of time, I was dealing not with a more or less unidentified group what I call “the guys,” but with an individual I named Nathaniel.]

Sunday, December 10, 2017

My little meditation yesterday produced four things I jotted down, and would like to pursue at least a bit.

I’ve been thinking that the world isn’t split moment-by-moment by each person’s decisions, but pre-exists with all possible paths existing.

Maybe there aren’t really many physical worlds at the same time,  a la the many-worlds theory of quantum physicists, or as I have thought the guys were saying. Maybe all versions exist in potential, but only one at a time, and the endless caroming of decisions continually changes it – not just going forward, but changing the past, as Seth said. Things continually go out of existence, and continually come into existence. If the world is a light-show continually being altered by millions of decisions, the lights are continually changing. No two moments of the show can ever be the same, since so many decisions are involved. Damn it, the idea is clear in my mind, but I can’t get it into unambiguous description.

[Nathaniel:] Which is exactly our situation, even with the most skillful 3D assistance.

The second insight was that the ever-changing present moment that we live in is the center of a horizon, and it doesn’t matter what moment of our life we are in, we are bounded by that time horizon in the way that we are bounded by distance horizons spatially.

[N:] You may choose to look at that inescapable bubble as a prison without walls, or as life-support allowing you to live in an environment that otherwise would be too alien for you to survive.

The third thought was that what John Tettemer was doing in the Swiss Alps in 1915 or 1916 and that I was doing yesterday is perhaps the same thing. Rather than trying to think about a theme, he was allowing himself to hold the theme in mind and observe what surfaced, not judging it, but paying attention, feeling his way toward it. This was a big leap for a trained intellectual. It went against all his training. As he more or less said, he had spent his whole life accepting other people’s logic and premises, until then. Now he was receiving direct feed and instead of manipulating it to match his pre-existing ideas, he was honoring it, following where it led. Big step for an intellectual, requiring not only the courage but the ability to set aside his acquired intellectual prejudices against the process and the result.

And note, the bias that he had to overcome was primarily not creedal, scriptural, theological, but intellectual. It wasn’t his Catholicism that had to be overcome, but his Aristotelian training. Only when he experienced that life is greater and deeper than philosophy did he enter into a wider world.

The fourth thought that I recorded was merely that the word I am looking for may be “obsessed” in a special sense of the word. In this sense, it is that a way of s—

Well, that’s interesting.

[Nathaniel:] And only clear in connection with the thought about the veil, you see.

Yes. A certain way of seeing the world is in effect a veil through which we see. The world is seen only through that veil, and unless we are able to remove it, we cannot really change our views. Of course, the fact that we remove one veil doesn’t mean there are no others. I doubt we ever see the world pure, because we never see it purely. But direct feed is probably the only way to see beyond the veil.

You still don’t have the word you want, but note that feeling for it, intending toward it, is one way of focusing on the underlying idea that is actually the thing you are looking for.

Perhaps you can spell that out for us?

There is a way of enchanting someone that is not benevolent. Fairy tales are full of stories about enchantment. Why do you suppose that is?

A form of hypnotism like Richard Bach’s story I edited, Hypnotizing Maria?

Yes. But we need to say this carefully, lest you or your readers go off half-cocked. This isn’t a conspiracy theory, nor a reason for panic or despondency.

Your view of the real world is always affected by the present moment you are living in. If you don’t think so, keep a journal and look back a few years.

You don’t need to tell me.

Actually, we do, in a way. You are used to thinking that you change over time. That’s certainly true. But what does it mean? You can’t say it’s continual growth. You certainly can’t say it is logical growth. You can’t say it is meaningless change, either, unless you can believe in chance and disconnection. You don’t grow or change according to some system or some cumulative process. We know it looks that way, but that isn’t it. You grow – even “grow” is misleading; let’s say different versions of you emerge – in response to, in interaction with, the world around you. but, what does that mean? The external unconnected-to-you world that common sense posits? Hardly.

We’re at another point where I feel that there’s a whole log-jam of information waiting for the right peavey.

That’s showing off.

Yeah, it is, a little, but why else do crossword puzzles, if not to pick up useless information? It’s a pretty accurate metaphor, though. I can’t help you by putting it into my own words, because I don’t have the sense of where you’re going with it.

You’re going to have to associate several factors.

• The quality of the present moment always surrounds you like a bubble.
• Everything changes, continually.
• Everything persists; nothing is lost except from the perspective of a limited present-moment, ever-changing-and-passing-away.
• You are not in the bubble alone and isolated and disconnected; you continue to exist in the dimensions beyond 3D; you are always a part of your larger being; you always share strands with your fellow beings.

Add these facts together, and see what you get.

I will think about it – muse on it, like yesterday – later. What I get right away is that the only way to see beyond the distorting veils is direct feed from other parts of ourselves, and I suppose from non-3D helpers who may not be directly a part of us (or may), but are anyway in resonance with us.

Rather, you are in resonance, temporary or permanent, with them. But, yes.

 

Monday, December 4, 2017

Still pursuing the question, why are we on this timeline. I don’t really have it in my head. I trust you have something to tell us today.

The key is to stop considering the subject as if the key to it were 3D-you. It isn’t. The key is connectivity. Once you alter your viewpoint to consider yourself and your own awareness as only a small part of the picture, things straighten out. Thinking of yourselves as autonomous units causes the disorientation.

We continue to come back to one key: “As above, so below.” You are beginning to see how many things this rule of thumb illustrates, but we encourage you to apply it continually, creatively, in exploring, because the universe is coherent, structured, predictable, once you have the approach. In this case, the fact is that the being under discussion may always be considered both as part of a higher community and as the higher self of a community of beings at a lower level of organization.

Once you adopt this point of view, you realize that considering any individual as if it were a totally free agent, able to do whatever it wished, unconstrained by circumstances beyond its own will, is a misunderstanding. Nothing exists in a state of disconnection, either of lostness or of absolute freedom. It can’t possibly be the case that, in a universe without absolute divisions, there could be any absolute separation of anything, no matter how large, no matter how small – and in saying “large” and “small” we refer not so much to physical dimensions as to any and all ways of looking at things. Surely this is obvious, once stated?

Well, if this is so – and we assure you, it is – it should also be clear that nothing can be understood without understanding the context within which it exists. That context is an indivisible part of the thing being considered.

If set out to analyze anything, you are going to have to examine it in isolation. But the better you understand its context, the better you understand it. Looking at a ball bearing in itself will tell you nothing of a particular use for the ball bearing in a machine, for instance.

So if that much is clear, extrapolate. You can’t tell much about a blood cell if you examine only the blood cell (in however much detail) without having in mind its function in a circulatory system. A red blood cell is a unit, and like everything in the universe has consciousness particular to itself, but it is unlikely to comprehend itself as a tiny transient part of a vastly larger function that is comprehensible only on a larger scale. The blood cell’s nature, function, purpose, is only discernible in the context of the higher being whose purpose it serves.

Now, does this mean the cell is being “used” in the sense of being manipulated? Obviously not. You cannot argue that a subsystem is abused or cheated by functioning as it is designed to function. If your blood cell were to achieve “freedom” and isolation from the body it served, what good would that do the cell? It would be of no use; its existence would be literally meaningless and in fact absurd.

You’d wind up with a bunch of little Sartres, exclaiming, “Blood cells are a useless passion.”

Of course you would. And at the other extreme, blood cells who imagined that they would be judged by the higher being that they intuited serving would be likely to set up rules for their behavior – as if those rules were not innate and unalterable in the nature of things.

Using blood cells as example does make our own position clear by analogy.

It always will. Do you want to understand something in your life? Find the appropriate analogy at a lower level or higher level, and extrapolate. Not that this won’t steer you wrong sometimes, but that is a function of fallibility, not of an inadequate guide.

Do we need to consider the “freewill” aspect of the blood cell’s situation? I think the context shows us pretty clearly the determining limits of its existence.

The “free will or no free will” debate at your level is meaningless because it assumes an impossible isolation. Tell of your experience with the microscope.

My friend Jim Meissner had a dark-field microscope, which allowed us to examine living blood cells, not only dead cells. A drop of blood on the slide was a fascinating array of mutually interacting creatures, red and white cells. You could see the occasional white cell devour things, for instance.

The white cells appeared to choose, to be attracted in certain directions and then choose how to react. Free will? External direction? The white cell cannot choose to be in a different drop of blood; to a degree it cannot choose whether to react or how to react to the sensed presence of its natural prey. And yet, within these limits, it can, does, and in fact must choose its exact movements, even its larger strategies, so to speak.

Taking a jump here, because this popped into my mind as I was writing that – disobedience?

Continue the analogy. A white cell has its own nature. It lives in an environment it could never escape (and why would it? What would it do, outside the blood stream it was fashioned to play a key role in?) It follows instinct (or, call it the higher self’s purpose) and is fulfilled. But if the white cell turns upon its fellows and begins to rend the cells around it, it ceases to follow its nature and ceases to function as part of a balanced system. There isn’t much point in accusing the cell of moral failing, but in effect it becomes a rogue element.

The same thing happens at your level, and you may if you wish amuse yourselves trying to determine if criminal elements are so because they were born that way or society mis-shaped them or they deliberately said, “Evil, be thou my good.” The fact remains that elements of any system that begin to function as if they themselves were all that mattered become an obstacle to the system and a problem to themselves. However, this doesn’t mean they are an inexplicable error in the system’s design. Any manifestation that is so persistent and that analogously appears in other systems must be considered a part of the system.

Trickster, again.

That’s right. And we will resume from here. Bear it in mind: connectivity.

 

Thursday, December 7, 2017

A major stumbling-block is that you tend to think of the system – any system you analyze – as if it were more static than it is. View it in motion, and things change. Relationships and consequences clarify. So, if you look at 3D life, or “the afterlife,” or “past life reviews,” or past lives themselves – or anything – they look one way if considered as a one-time event, another way if seen as continuing process.

Isolation in space, isolation in time, always distorts the reality you examine. It may be necessary to examine a thing in isolation, but it distorts. So, once you’ve looked at it closely, look at it again in broader context – in time (that is, in repeated sequence), no less than in space (that is, extension).

That is easier to assent to in principle than to comprehend in practice.

Still, it is worth bearing in mind. It will help you understand anything better.

So, in this question of particular timelines. We need to sketch out several things needing to be sketched out in turn.

• What is a decision, and who makes it, for one.
• What a decision actually does; that is, how it affects timelines.
• Why decisions are possible, why they are made, for another.
• How they are made.
• And, not least, how all this is affected by, and affects, other layers of consciousness.

That’s a lot to accomplish, but it seemed better to set out the problem so you would have some idea where we’re headed. How long it takes us to survey the field is of much less concern.

I get that orienting us somehow makes the task easier on your end.

If only in that it reduces anxiety, certainly. Perhaps anxiety isn’t the correct word, but something akin to it, anyway.

I’m not insulted. I get it. It’s easier to trust that you know how to get where you want to go if there is a road map, and it’s easier to believe in the road map’s existence if you cite some landmarks.

So, what is a decision, and who makes it? Probably it won’t astonish you to hear that it makes a difference where you view the situation from. Look at it first from a 3D individual’s point of view, then from the All-D self, then from the larger being of which the 3D being is a part, and watch things change appearance.

• you in 3D are living your life. There comes a moment of choice, large or small. Depending on the magnitude of the apparent immediate importance of the choice, you pay no attention or little attention or really focused attention. Then that decision leads to the next, continually. This process may be paraphrased by saying the choices are made in varying degrees of a mixture of predisposition and deliberate conscious weighing of options.  In the nature of things, most choices, even quite important ones, are made more or less by pre-existing disposition; that is, by habit, by accustomed inclination.

In other words, mostly we don’t do much deciding at all.

Considering yourselves as conscious, aware, individuals, that’s right. Mostly you run along the rails your life has set down for you. And this is not only not a problem, it’s how things have to be (considered as a system), if you think of it. To consciously decide every little detail of your life would be exhausting, like having to concentrate to tie your shoes or write your name or sip your coffee. That’s what habit is, after all, Colin Wilson’s robot that helps you live your life.

• But now look at it a little more deeply. Consider how your day-to-day drifting looks to your All-D self. Its view of your life is wider, longer, in greater depth, in fuller potential extent. Whereas you in 3D mostly do not see your life in perspective (being overshadowed by the perpetually moving present moment), the All-D self always sees it in perspective, even though the perspective is perpetually in motion.

Your All-D self does pay attention to all the little things you can’t be bothered with consciously. It, your wrongly named “unconscious” self, pays attention. It sees future consequences; it keeps in mind past pre-existing conditions. It knows when a step to the right or to the left will make a difference in your life, and it also knows which way you tend to move when it makes no particular difference. You might say that your larger-than-only-3D awareness is always making your decisions for you according to past demonstrated predilections unless you overrule (or confirm) its judgment by 3D-oriented willpower.

• Now look at it from your Sam’s field of view. Sam continually balances input from all its lives. Therefore in effect it has preferences, moment to moment, that your All-D self picks up.

Why “therefore”?

“As above, so below.” Envision your daily life, balancing input. Sam reacts, as you do in your sphere, with preferences for greater or less change, in this or that direction, of this or that level of intensity. It isn’t just one-way feed. Sam is not sitting at the City Desk reading reports and doing nothing. Like a City Desk editor, he reacts to what he reads; he makes decisions, and issues instructions and queries. Don’t carry the illustration too far, but it may help correct the unconscious idea you have (people have) that Sam just sits there reading reports, and doesn’t interfere.

Seems to me that is how Sam’s function has been portrayed to us.

No, it is that only part of the relationship has been sketched, till now. Sequential exposition is a painfully long process.

Now there you have three different levels entering into any potential decision.

• You in 3D mostly don’t decide consciously.
• You as part of your All-D self decide continuously, but mostly by default – “steady on course, straight ahead.”
• And Sam intervenes only at important moments, like you in 3D in a sense, only the moments are likely to be different, and the factors entering into the decision are likely to be very different, and Sam’s preferences have to be expressed via your All-D self, which has to get your 3D attention or acquiescence for at least non-interference.

And that’s enough for the moment.