Intuitive Linked Communication (ILC)

Monday, November 27, 2017

One reader asks a question I have often asked myself.

[Anastasia: “Since all paths and all consequences of our choices/decisions exist at all times, what determines which path/set of consequences our conscious awareness will experience? Why is our every day awareness rooted in one path/timeline and not another, since all of them exist equally, and what determines which path that is?”]

It is important to stop thinking that “the other side” is all-knowing and instantly all-knowing, at that. Yes, all information obviously exists. But your thinking is the equivalent of our saying, from the non-3D, that since the 3D includes all its geography, you should be able to be in Kansas or Siam or Alpha Centauri on command, and right away. Or, since you have the internet, all human knowledge ought to be available to you at one click, whereas, as you well know, there are practical limits to available knowledge that in a sense overrule theoretically wider limits.

You are saying, sometimes a particular bit of information is far enough from the individual or group we connect with to require a bucket-brigade to fetch it, which can take time, even though, as we all know, “on the other side there is no time.”

It is a practical limitation experienced by anybody who has ever communicated with guidance, or non-3D friends or acquaintances, or others in 3D even. It is a limitation that has caused you great anxiety.

Oh yes. At first, when I couldn’t get an answer instantly, I would worry that it was all my imagination, that there was nobody on the other end of the line, etc. But then I thought, if it is my imagination, that still wouldn’t explain why sometimes there would be a delay. Finally I came to accept it as a fact of life, and it made things easier.

But, you see, difficulty in obtaining information or conceptualizations or even ideas says nothing about whether the process is “you” or is “us.” That is why it is a meaningless distinction. As so often, you cannot quite rein in the assumptions of separation that 3D life inculcates.

I see that. By the way: “Siam”? You’ve never heard of Thailand?

Remember, we move in time as you do in space. You might look at our examples as present, past, future, as well.

Well, that’s interesting. So what is your answer to Anastasia’s, and my, question?

The answer to what seems a straight-forward question is difficult to formulate because several background conditions need to be clarified. Unconscious assumptions are perhaps the most tenacious obstacles to new understandings.

Let’s look at the subject from the other end of the microscope/telescope. How does a Sam experience its creatures’ lives? Because, remember, it isn’t really a matter of the Sam waiting for a life to terminate and return to report. It is convenient to talk about the process that way, but it is only a convenience. In truth, consciousness is as undivided by time as it is by space. You may think of yourselves as reporting home every second, just as you think of receiving guidance and feedback every second.

But undivided doesn’t mean instant.

One prime function of 3D life is specifically to slow things down. Perceived separation in time and space allows for analysis, choice and re-choice, alternations.

So, how does your Sam experience your life? Remember, a Sam experiences all its lives moment by moment, continually. It isn’t waiting for reports. It is living those lives, just as you are living them. We know that presents difficulty. “As above, so below” will offer an intuitive analogy. Your blood cells, etc., experience their own lives at their level of consciousness, at the same time that you experience the same life at your level of consciousness. Well, your Sam experiences your life in the way that you experience your constituent cells’ lives, in a combination of awareness and inattention, much as you do. And just as your attention is not limited to your blood cells, neither is a Sam’s attention limited to any one life.

I’m struck by that “combination of awareness and inattention,” as I’m sure you intended I would be.

It merely points out that any given level of consciousness concentrates on one kind of data and absorbs other kinds automatically. Nobody concentrates on everything all the time. That would amount to concentrating on nothing, ever.

So as you – and uncounted other lives Sam has created from its own essence – live your lives, it all flows through channels, you might say. The All-D world is organized. It isn’t just jello, as you were told long ago. The very nature of creation in 3D assures a chain of connection, rather than chaotic omni-connection directly to the Sam, so to speak.

That makes sense if you mean that life is like a tree diagram, with every extension leading backward to its source and forward to its own extension.

That’s the idea, yes. Not jello, not a bureaucracy. Things connect not by rule but by their nature.

But we’re only beginning the answer. This was only the first piece of information. As your hour is up, and there is much more to say, let’s resume this when you are fresh. Come back to the material before you drift out of reach of it, or we shall need to start all over again.

Thursday, November 30, 2017

The question under consideration is why, of all the possible paths in existence for each of us, are we on this one?

We said, remember, that Sam experiences all its creatures’ lives minute by minute, not in summary form afterwards. We made the analogy to your own awareness of your own subsystems with their different level and quality of consciousness. We described reality as being analogous to a decision-tree structure, wherein all relationships are automatic rather than forced; that is, things relate by the nature of what they are, rather than having to conform to some external pressure.

You now have to correct your views – painfully acquired at a different stage of inquiry – of choices, and alternate time-lines, and personal growth. This may have something of the flavor of hauling yourself up by your own bootstraps, as they say, because while believing one thing you need to entertain another thing that will at first seem to contradict it. As always in such situations, the key is to hold your beliefs loosely and see what happens. What you get at any one moment – including this one – need not be your touchstone forever.

When a world, a universe, a reality – call it what you will – is created, all the uncounted either/or decisions anybody could be faced with spring into existence as possibilities. All the possibilities of the situation are implicit at the moment of creation. That doesn’t mean anybody could foresee them all, or would even care to try to do so; it means only that they exist.

I know that you are trying to say something very simple and are concerned that it not be misunderstood. The possibilities that exist are inherent in the structure of the universe. That doesn’t mean they all manifest, merely that they are all potential paths. All possible paths exist in a computer game’s programming, but only one path is manifest at any one time, and it manifests as a direct result of the player’s on-going series of choices.

You have been told that at every decision-point, one version of you takes the “heads” path and another the “tails.” This is true and yet not true, and if we can clear this up, many things will become clearer. The difficulty concerns versions. You have been thinking that every choice is taken both ways at every time, hence resulting in a probability-cloud that balances out (since for every heads taken, there will have been a tails taken). That is true over time – and here is where the difficulty is. That is why we are looking at it from the Sam’s point of view, not the creature’s.

The Sam receives continual feed from all its creatures. This one aspect of its life (that is, the aspect that amounts to its parental role) is not the only aspect there is, but we will confine ourselves to the aspect in the hope of making a clear statement. Only – remember: Your Sam lives through you, yes; but you are not its whole life. It has more things to do than monitor the health of its blood cells, so to speak.

The information the Sam receives changes every moment. Remember that. Nothing is static. All its components – its “children” – potentially interact, which in effect means that nothing is ever settled. When one piece changes, it thereby potentially causes any or all other pieces to change, in direct or indirect reaction to it. And this is considering only pieces of the one Sam, interacting! It doesn’t begin to consider interaction among Sams, nor will we at this time.

Because A over here changes, a different version of B lights up, which may interact not only with A but with undetermined others. The version of Frank’s life that lights up depends partly – maybe largely – on what happens elsewhere.

So far, so good. But we need to go a little bit slowly. You say “version” but actually what lights up may be a decision-point, and that decision-point, considered broadly, may affect many, many versions.

And from our point of view, such a decision point may be a moment of particular consciousness for us?

May cause greater consciousness for that moment, yes. You will in essence “wake up” a bit. You will be more alert, less sleepwalking your way through the action.

I get, though I don’t get the logic of it, that those lit-up choice-points – choices already having been made, and maybe more than once – represent a testing and an opportunity.

It may be easier to grasp if you consider the effects on your present life of “past-life” experiences. By experiences, we don’t mean external events, we mean how that life changed in response to decisions precipitated by those events. Given that those other lives connect with yours, and that you influence each other in this eternal present moment, anything that happens and changes any of you has the potential to change others of you. This much is clear?

I had to realize that all lives share the living present moment. Once I did, my understanding of “past lives” transformed. So, this is clear to me, at least.

Well, can you see now that your previous understanding was a little too static, too fixed? The continuing interaction and continually recurring decisions mean you are, yourself, the probability-cloud that you understood to be the sum of all either/or decisions. That way of looking at it was correct in a limited sense, but it looks different when you concentrate on the interactive nature of things.

Seems to me our ideas on the probability-cloud and all were fed to us via these conversations.

In which your consciousness was an integral factor, and in which scaffolding was constructed that, you were told, was going to be removed at some point.

To make way for more scaffolding.

We don’t know of any other way it can be.

I’m not sure that explains why any of us are on this rather than other possible timelines.

The short answer is, because you are not autistic. Your life is shaped by outside forces as well as by your choice. Once you absorb that you are parts of a much greater whole, some of the limitations and possibilities of your existence will appear in a different light.

 

Sunday, September 23, 2018

Gentlemen? Have we said what you want to say on the subject of creatures and creation?

Not quite. Of course there will always be more to be said about any subject, but even this immediate piece of the larger subject needs capping-off.

Remember, we began with the idea of all the elements of creation singing it into existence.  What we meant by that could not be well understood, though it could be intuited, without explanations. The “little bit at a time” nature of our interaction means we are frequently recapitulating what was said, which is not a bad way of proceeding, but a little slow. If you have read our discussions with attention rather than with half your mind, scanning it for things you might recognize, you will be in a somewhat different place now because of the connections that will have been made or reinforced in your mind.

It is almost too simple and fundamental to say.

• All of creation, is.
• It didn’t exactly come into being (though in a sense it did) but just is. It exists, as you exist. It is no less immortal than you, and no less changeable.
• Creation and creator are different words for different aspects of the same thing. By that, we mean, it is all in how you look at it, whether you are looking at creator or creation.

I’m getting a sense of what you mean, but if there is a clear unambiguous way to say it, I haven’t found it.

Try, anyway. Sometimes rephrasing is all that is needed. Remember, communication is a spark jumping a gap, not a laborious piling up of logic upon logic.

Well, my sense of it is that we think creation and creator are two different things. It appears to be a subject (the creator) working on an object (the creation). You don’t think of a goldfish creating its own bowl, for instance. And yet we do express the essence of this metaphorically, when we say, for instance, that a painter “threw himself into” his painting (“painting” being used here both as noun and verb). We recognize that we as creations are ourselves creative by nature. The trouble is, putting it into words makes it seem like we are only playing with words.

It can be difficult to grasp a new concept. In that intermediate place (belief/doubt) between not-knowing and knowing, sometimes the best you can do is to find a more or less acceptable way to think the unthinkable. (That is, to think something you can’t find a logical excuse for thinking.) Poetic license, or extravagant metaphor, may be a way to do this. But, try again.

All of creation – the underlying realer world, not just this 3D/non-3D world we are familiar with through our senses – exists and always did and presumably always will exist, in whatever form.

No, bringing in the idea of time is a mistake. The ultimate reality of things is deeper than time, so, you can’t accurately say “did exist,” “will exist.” That implies it is subject to a mental condition (time) which is only a relative fact, from the ultimate point of view.

All right, well, disregarding what reality was or will be, it is. Because reality exists, all the parts of reality exist. No, it’s impossible to say it.

Not easy, anyway. Let us try again.

The point we are trying to get across is that the same mind that holds it all is the mind that

• experiences, and
• sets up the experience, and
• observes the experiencing.

So, although it is perhaps necessary for you to think of creator and creation as opposite ends of a polarity, try to understand that they are two words for the same thing. If you can once intuitively grasp what may appear to be a contradiction, you will be living a different life from then on. Everything will change. Or rather, you will change, and everything will appear before you in a different light.

It’s a very hard concept to express in such a way as not to be misinterpreted, twisted by people’s expectations of what they think you’re going to say.

Neither you nor we are the first to experience the difficulty.

And presumably if it could be overcome by clarity of expression, it would have been, repeatedly.

Why so negative? It has been overcome, repeatedly. But no conquest is permanent, and no way of looking at things is the last word to be said. You don’t need to do better than Seth, or better than Jesus or the Buddha or than thousands – millions – of others known and unknown. All that can be asked of anyone is to know as much as you are capable of knowing, and that means living it, not putting it on a stainless-steel laboratory shelf while you continue to lead a contingent half-awake life. The fact that no one statement or conversation or compilation of statements or library can provide a foolproof convincing answer to people’s perplexities is no description of futility. It means only that there is always work to be done, always a new game to be explored.

I’m getting that you have an agenda here that isn’t just clarity of exposition.

Look, clarity of exposition is one of the gifts you bring to the process. But clarity of exposition is part of communication; it is not sufficient in itself. Everything needful has been said many times, in many languages, and in many ways not dependent upon language. But it always needs re-stating, because each new moment is peopled with different minds which have different needs, different means of perception. If you merely get the point across – whatever the point may be at any given time – the rest is not up to you.

Let’s try restating the point one time more.

• You are all creators; you are all created.
• Everything around you is in the same condition, necessarily, regardless of appearances.
• The mountain that exists helps hold the world together in ways that have nothing to do with geography or geology.
• The electrons that fly around inside your computers are no less conscious than you, but it is a consciousness conditioned by its circumstances – which of course may also be said of you.
• Instead of thinking of consciousness in increments (this cat, that person, etc.), think of it as the universal field continually informing the world, and you will find it easier, perhaps, to think of a mountain expressing a certain kind of consciousness.
• All that consciousness sings together. And it doesn’t matter if you think part of the choir is singing flat, it sings.
• It sings the world into continued existence in the eternal changing now.
• So what is the point of divorcing God – or the World-Mind, or whatever name you choose to apply – from the rest of itself, by focusing on the creator aspect and correspondingly downplaying the created aspect?
• Reality is, and it’s all one thing, and guess what, that includes you.

Not to mention the people who give us fits.

Them too. And that’s enough for now.

 

Saturday, September 22, 2018

All right, friends, open for business again, if you wish to continue discussing 3D as the conscious creation of its creatures. At least, I guess you could put it that way –

That is a sufficiently unusual angle of approach to open up new territory, perhaps.

Like I don’t know the phrasing was planted! It was certainly not thought out in advance.

How much of your life is ever thought out in advance? And, when it is, how much good does it do you? So don’t worry about it (not that you do).

Let’s look at creation as created by its own creatures. What sense does that make? None at all, if you begin from your conventional view of 3D reality as primary, including such 3D conditions as sequential time, as expressed by the perpetually moving present moment. But take that away and take a look at reality “as if” the 3D is not primary but secondary.

Paul Brunton touches on this. The universe (that is, all of reality) need not – indeed, in a sense cannot –come into existence; that only seems inevitable when we look at things as if sequential moving time was an absolute.

And as you well know, it is the taking for granted that 3D conditions are absolutes that derails so many attempts at theological understanding. It is the same with science. In any field of inquiry, the most difficult and most essential thing is to become aware of your unconscious mental limitations of the field. What you take to be “common sense” or “intuitively obvious,” you need to put a cold analytical eye on. It is your unconscious postulates that will trip you up.

So let us agree to set aside the idea of beginnings and endings except in the realm of sequential time. That doesn’t mean that outside of 3D, nothing changes. It means, outside of 3D, nobody is frog-marched by a seemingly external taskmaster.

Still, it is hard to imagine the non-3D realm changing without also imagining a change-agent – that is, time passing.

Time is a different thing here. The result is not the replacement of one situation by a succeeding one, so much as the standing next to the previous situation, the next situation. They all exist; it isn’t a matter of this ceasing so that that may come into being. It would be closer to imagine 3D reality as a spotlight, with every new present-moment moving the spotlight onto a new scene. The old ones don’t cease to exist; the next ones don’t await manifestation. They’re all there in potential and in a curious state of reality that is not easily explained.

The critical thing to remember is that 3D reality is projected, from a deeper level of reality. When you absorb that fact, you see why things are just as solid as they appear to be, and yet aren’t, and you see why things may exist beyond 3D without having been projected onto 3D at any particular time.

Now, look at the true basis of the true reality. Yes, in a way it is above your pay grade. Yet it may be grasped, intuitively, if you can get interfering assumptions out of the way. Creation is not exactly the same as ultimate reality. Surely you can see that.

I was taking them to be synonymous until you said that. But I suppose “creation” implies a creator, and raw materials, and purposeful effort.

Whereas reality does not. In this case let us agree to say, reality is what is. It is everything known and unknown, knowable and unknowable. How can the ultimate last layer of reality have been created? If it was created, that means it can’t be the ultimate layer, does it not?

Makes sense to me. Yet I still have a problem with the universe having always just “been here.”

Don’t allow yourself to fall into confusion by unconsciously moving from the universe as “all 3D plus non-3D creation” to the universe as “the entirety of everything.” It’s an easy unconscious slide. Stay conscious. Ultimately – no matter how far behind the scenes you need to go, intellectually, to feel like you are at the nub of things – ultimately there can be no “created out of something else,” or you are not at ultimately.

Agreed. So, reality, whatever it really is, exists, and that’s all we know about it.

• You know that it is the master, not the servant, of time and space and events. You know that it is all one thing, non-contradictory internally. That’s worth knowing.
• And you know more than that – and this is the gist: You know that reality expresses itself (there being nothing else to express), and that, as many “dimensions” as exist, everything is in all of them.
• And you know that there is no question of creation and destruction in any ultimate sense. What is, is.

“I am who am.” I never understood God’s statement to Moses, or whoever it was. But it would make sense in this context.

So now, imagine yourself to be Reality. Everything, manifest or implicit, is a part of you. The 3D world with its time-oriented dreams and melodramas is one part of what you are, and the creatures going through all that drama are – part of you. Not, like you, or as good as you, or potentially you. You, because you are all that is.

And this brings us back to where we started today. I see it. There’s no point in thinking we are only players when we are also management, stage, and audience. You gave this to us before, sometime, in a different context, but I get it now.

That is an advantage to always circling back; the same thing from another viewpoint shows previously unseen aspects.

If we look at ourselves as players, we may be tempted to look at ourselves as pawns, or victims. If we look at ourselves as God, or World-Mind, or whatever name you choose to give to the ultimate reality we are part of, we may be tempted to hubris and psychic inflation. Only when we have it in mind that we are all both, and more, can we keep it in reasonable and usable perspective.

That’s right. But if you look back at the long trail we had to travel to get here, you will see why so few people come to the same ideas. There’s a tremendous amount of redefinition involved along the way.

 

Wednesday, September 19, 2018

I get the feeling that “singing the universe into existence” went in a direction a little different than what you had intended. Care to revisit?

What we said was necessary, but of course there is always more to be said on any subject. That’s why sometimes it matters, where a discussion goes, and sometimes it doesn’t. Now, recalibrate, and slow way down, and we shall see if you can loosen the reins of your imagination sufficiently to bring in something outside your comfort zone.

[Pause]

You are creator gods, because everything in reality is made of the same stuff.

We have told you, the very rocks that compose your 3D geology are conscious, and, indeed, are the same thing as you, only living at different speed, for different reasons, filling a different role. When you come to see this, you will have penetrated a very powerful veil of illusion: that is, that matter is something different from spirit, or, in other words, that the 3D world is “real” in an exterior sense (i.e. absolutely, differently “out there” rather than being the same as you).

It’s slippery. I get it and lose it, even now.

That is because partly it is a matter of “Which you?” You as 3D creature are clearly different from rocks and woodchucks. You as a constituent of reality conforming to material pretensions are not different from the other elements of life that are conforming to material pretensions.

I think that means, we within our 3D roles are limited in ways that make us human, as woodchucks – why are we talking about woodchucks, particularly? – are limited in ways that make them animals, and rocks in ways that make them minerals.

You will find that this idea is now clearer to you (having gotten it from us by direct intuition) than to many of your readers who can only guess at the meaning.

Why? It’s clear enough, isn’t it?

No. We just said it isn’t clear enough. Restate it even if it seems repetitious to you.

If you say so. I got that we are all the same thing in the realm superior to the 3D/non-3D split, and it is only within 3D (and its non-3D extension) that differences between animal, vegetable, mineral, human manifest. That is, we aren’t essentially human-only. Rocks aren’t essentially mineral only. Fish, amoebae, virii, seawater, whatever, are not their physical 3D manifestations only. We are all part of the same thing. Differences are at a more superficial level.

That still won’t be clear, you’ll find.

That’s because people will slap “nothing but” labels on it. It’s “nothing but” pantheism or panentheism, or whatever.

And in applying labels they will thereby prevent themselves from really feeling the distinction. Perhaps. If so, that is not your affair. People can only hear what they have ears to hear – and if there is a cosmic hearing aid, we don’t know who is manufacturing it.

Very funny. But, I know the feeling, first hand. When I look back at my life, I see many truths that were presented to me that I could not see. I could not give them fair consideration. There was not enough common ground between the assumptions behind them and the assumptions I incorporated in my view of the world.

Talk a little about your experience of crystals.

That’s a good example of the process of opening up to a new understanding, as a matter of fact.

Yes, that’s why we suggested it. And, as usual, you phrasing things while in this ILC state will have certain advantages over our doing it. It will be more fluent, will require less to overcome, though the difference in effort may be imperceptible to you.

I do admire how you continually mingle content and process in these talks.

Okay, crystals. My entry into the New Age world was sort of sideways. I didn’t grow up in Southern California, so to speak. Although I had certain inclinations toward the mystical life, I was raised Catholic, and did not lay down that viewpoint when I left the church, so much as accepted it and rebelled against certain things – hell, God the policeman, the Church’s rules – and never even thought about the fact that I accepted and continued to accept the underlying truth of the fact that the spiritual world existed and was fundamental.

No, you are forgetting.

So I was.

[Because the rest is mostly me and not them, I am going to print it in Roman rather than italic, as that is easier to read in large doses.]

[Me:] After I consciously left the church – a process that occurred between the ages of 17 and 19 – the mental world I lived in accepted the world of matter as obviously real and (I don’t know that I ever thought of this) I searched for evidence that this obviously-real material world was not as meaningless as it appeared. Thus, I was more than open to reading of Edgar Cayce, and I probably would have been open to Seth. (It was too early for Jane Roberts and for Bob Monroe, as we are talking here of the last half of the 1960s, before either of them had published.)

So, I read Jess Stearn’s Edgar Cayce, the Sleeping Prophet, and Thomas Sugrue’s There is a River, and they kept a hope alive that the 3D world wasn’t the closed-off thing it appeared to be. But I was still thinking of it as primarily real, I was only looking for an extra-sensory escape hatch, or periscope, or something.

I think lots of people went through this in those days. Lots of people escaped or tried to escape their Christian or Jewish background by going to the relatively neutral refuge of Hinduism or, more commonly, Buddhism. We knew that materialism couldn’t be true; we knew it wasn’t enough. But we didn’t know what was true, and didn’t have any idea how to find it.

As I said, I came to the New Age movement sideways. I made a living and read history and waited for my glorious future or unroll itself. Such anomalous experiences as I had, I set aside in my mind or held for future explanation. Then came the Shirley MacLaine workshop, and teaming up with Bob Friedman a couple of year later, and Kelly Neff (Quattrin, then), and the Monroe Institute’s Gateway program, and I was living in a different world, but though it had points of congruence with what Monroe called the psychic underground, it had important differences too. I didn’t entirely fit in.

God, this is taking a long time. Anyway, when I discovered crystals, I did so from a mindset that centered on life as it appears, so on the one hand I experienced their energy (“or am I just making this up?”) and on the other, I had to try to fit it in with the idea that rocks were, quite obviously, dead inert matter, as opposed to the lords of creation, namely us. So experiencing the energy of crystals had to be pigeon-holed into the idea that they were somehow batteries, or – much later – were programmable. The physical world’s classification system still first, you see.

Okay, now I see it differently, only we’ve burned up so much time – do we have enough for you to continue?

Finish with crystals.

Well, I guess the point is this. As long as we think that the “obvious” divisions of the world are real and fundamental, it is going to be difficult or impossible for us to really see behind the curtain. If we see crystals as matter that happens to have certain properties that can be used to enhance or anyway interact with human psyches, we will see things one way. When we come to see that everything, no matter how “dead” or inert, is made of the same conscious living presence that we are, then the divisions are still real but they are no longer fundamental. They no longer present an obstacle to be overcome, merely an appearance to be understood.

And I better appreciate your difficulties in making clear statements that will not be misunderstood.

It can’t be done. But you do the best you can.

 

Tuesday, September 18, 2018

I guess maybe I won’t bother to talk to anybody – or, is that not only a mistake but an indicator of lessened internal pressure? Binge-reading, and not feeling like making the effort –.

Guys, what do you say? More specifically, Bertram and Joseph.

Holding the note, as it was phrased a while ago, is not the same thing as saying “holding oneself in a state of continual tension.” Indeed, that isn’t even desirable, isn’t even possible, and so such an attempt or expectation can lead only to disappointment, regret, guilt – all unnecessary.

Then, what does it mean? (And, as usual, don’t think I can’t detect a planted question, but I’m glad for it.)

Your whole life (anyone’s, that is) could be considered the singing of a note, the uttering of a single thought, the expression of a single complicated idea. You express the particular subdivision of the entirety that your qualities make you, by what you are and what you do and what you think, as Yeats said.

“The mystical life is the center of all that I do and all that I think and all that I write.”

Which amounts to what we just said. Only, we are speaking not of your concern or unconcern with any one aspect of life, but of life in its fullness. That means 3D life, non-3D life, life beyond any one sliver of a present moment, life beyond any perceived boundaries of individual existence.

• You – anybody, everybody – are only a tiny bit of the whole;
• At the same time (think holographically) you have within you You do; everyone does.
• And in a different way, or let’s say to different effect, any and every combination of individuals has its own chord, let’s call it, different from, yet composed of, the notes it comprises.

I’ll need to remind people that the guys said some years ago that the three of us – Joseph the Egyptian, Bertram, and I – are somehow holding a note, each in our respective societies yet presumably together somehow beyond our communities.

You will notice, in summarizing what you were told, your new understanding said more than you were actually given at the time. Nothing wrong with that – quite the contrary – but worth noting. As you grow, your later self incorporates material retrospectively, so to speak.

Now, think of what this is getting at.

• Each individual may be regarded as a separate note.
• Each combination of individuals – and think how many combinations of individuals there can be – may be regarded as a separate chord.
• All those notes, all those chords, may be combined in different ways.

In effect, you – we – are always singing the world into continued existence.

That sounds right, yet I realize, I don’t really know what it means.

We don’t see how you could expect to. Let’s put it this way. Consider the variations that can be produced in 3D using a musical scale. Only a few notes, and those notes produced, in effect, as subdivisions of the one unity of sound. (Don’t worry that particular bone; you more or less know what we mean by it.) Now, if all the musicians in the world were playing all the music in the world – past, present, future – all at the same time (or non-time, or eternal time, however you want to think of it) – a couple of things would follow:

• Individual fragments would necessarily be unable to hear most of it, most of the time, for sheer volume and discord. In your relative deafness is the possibility of your perceiving any
• This relative deafness could be considered to be like a radio that can hear only one station. That one tune would be reality, because it would be a case not of “Which tune do you hear” but of “Do you hear it or not?”
• Radios that could be tuned to different stations would have new possibilities. The possibilities always existed in potential, but until the retuning, they did not exist in reality.
• Naturally, those with only one station would regard those who claimed (or even by their eccentricities demonstrated) an ability to hear other music as deceiving and/or self-deceiving.
• Those able to hear more than one set of music at the same time perhaps would be driven mad, or would adjust, or even thrive – but would in no case inhabit the same mental world as those who heard only one.

Now, we won’t beat the analogy to death, but there it is. You may extend it a little.

You aren’t so much talking about us hearing tunes, as notes.

Yes, and that is an important distinction, do you see why?

A tune can be played only one way. I mean, it may be interpreted differently, but the same notes are going to be in the same order.

So is your life more like a jukebox in which you choose a tune (if indeed you do choose), or like a jazz trio in which you are playing, improvising as you go along? It’s music either way.

Music isn’t my strong point; I don’t know much about it. Can we change metaphors?

No, let’s stick to this for the moment, because we aren’t talking about music, exactly, but about essential vibration. Your life, your essence, is, in effect, a note not that you sing (that is, consciously choose to express), but that you are. There is a difference.

But we can change that note, I gather, by our choices.

You can, but not as easily as by changing ideas or by changing what you do (that is, how you express). Do you see?

I suppose the note we are born as (to put it that way) is the predestination part of our lives and the note we may become is the free will aspect.

Is the result of  the free will aspect.

Now, the musical analogy breaks down – as does the harmony! – if you think of it only as any given individual changing notes in midstream. In pre-designed music, the result would be chaotic.

But wouldn’t that be jazz, improving as you go?

Well – yes and no. As we say, the analogy breaks down. Let’s just say that life is about finding as many tunes, harmonies, dissonances as exist; it isn’t about merely finding which ones are pleasant to the ear, even the non-3D ear.

[They meant “life is about…” not from the viewpoint of 3D individuals, but more in the sense of “what is the meaning of life” from life’s point of view. It was clear to me as I got it, but it didn’t get into words.]

You – everyone past present and future from your point of view – express what you are, singly (one 3D life) and multiply (the interaction of your 3D lives) and multiply in another direction (your various associations such as Bertram and Joseph and Frank). It is contradictory but true that you express as individuals and as multiples of individuals and as multiples of that, ad infinitum. Do you see what this amounts to?

I guess it amounts to saying, as we keep coming back to, that the universe has no absolute boundaries, and that individuality is only one aspect of a fundamental unity.

That, and that multiplicity is not disaster or the result of disaster, but an essential characteristic of reality, not to be deplored, not to be despised.

There’s more, but it will have to wait for another time.

 

This past week, I was at The Monroe Institute, doing a course called Conscious Coherence. This came in the course of an exercise on Thursday morning.

Thursday, April 6, 2023

[Doing a TMI exercise sitting at a desk writing, rather than lying down in a CHEC unit.]

9:45 a.m. So the idea of the exercise is, look over the week, see what surfaces. This tape is to be very intense  apparently. I was thinking I should reread my notes here, but maybe not. Guys?

[They had me draw a diagram.]

One way to think of 3D experience, a lot of pinpoints interacting.

Another way, lines of force and attraction and repulsion, interacting.

Same structure, different interpretations.

[Then another diagram, below the first, showing a core between magnets, that is, in a magnetic field, and they said. “only, many pairs of magnets, surrounding.”

Yes, I remember these diagrams from years ago.

Then apply them in a new way. Rather than still thinking of yourself as a unit, think of each part of you individually responding to such influences.

A tremendous amount of cross-currents, counter-pulls, instability, there.

That is the 3D condition. That is what you live, the difficulty and the challenge of it.

It’s a working-out of a way to coexist among conflicting influences.

Conflicting, ever-changing influences, yes.

So conflict is always within ourselves.

Well, a little slower.

Proceed.

External influences precipitate certain strains by pulling various elements in various directions. To the extent that you anneal various elements, you produce larger elements that then react as if units. Greater coherence in effect is possible, in the same circumstances.

But the external strains always have internal effects – and put quote marks around external and internal, of course, because that is only a way of seeing it.

[Then a drawing represent a central core of connected but varied elements, co-existing in fields created by pairs of plus or minus elements, not in one plane but in all planes.]

So “you” are not a unit being affected by external forces, even if the forces are “merely” force-fields. Instead, you are more like a chemical element (this is only analogy) with X number of protons, neutrons, electrons, each of which individually and each of which as a class (electrons, neutrons, protons) and each of which as subgroups, formed from whatever causes, are pulled differently by whatever “external” force-fields they are caught up in.

You can create or encourage certain kinds of subgroupings, by living your values, expressing your essence. A life spent radiating kindness will differ from the same life if it had expressed cruelty, or had alternated.

So what is coherence? It is not the welding-together of all your constituent elements into an inflexible unit. Rather it is like a murmuration of birds or fishes. The individual parts are still individual but they are in voluntary graceful cooperation with direction from a higher level.

[Murmuration may be defined as a large group of birds flying together, changing direction together, acting as one, rather than as many followers, one leader.]

There is advantage to being able to express and respond to and even join in with chaos. There is advantage to participating in a murmuration. The key is flexibility, not adhering to any one position, because you are faced with variation in the external world, and so need to be able to roughly mirror it.

You don’t mean “mirror chaos” by joining in with it, I imagine, so what do you mean?

In a way, that is what we do mean, but conscious mirroring is not the same thing as surrendering to a non-individual collective. It is, instead, a surfing of a wave, using discordances and cross-currents as well as correspondences and harmonies. Everything in life is part of each moment. There are no extra parts, no parts missing, no errors in construction. So when you are among chaos, the way to deal with it is not by rejection but by engagement.

But what do we mean, engagement? You know full well.

Yes, I suppose I do. We are in it and of it and not separate from it, but we remain ourselves, remain aware of our selves, our separateness, our identity.

Yes, separate and non-separate. A part of everything and individual. Living certain values but recognizing that these values are true for you, not for one and all. Every person combines different values to form, in effect, a community of one.

So – coherence?

Think of coherence as flexibility, allowing the tree to bend with the wind rather than being broken by it. Or think of it as a dynamic rather than static core within yourself. Every individual is a community of elements learning to function as an individual. Coherence is an aid to the process.

I’m getting that it is an attitude of approach.

Yes. If you are coherent, you are ready for whatever life brings you next. Not in a feet-planted way, not in fearful or aggressive anticipation, but of calm awareness, confident that nothing happens by chance, hence that anything that happens now happens now for a reason, or it would happen at a different now.

It is Emerson again: “Lowly faithful, banish fear.”

It is indeed. Nobody knows what tomorrow brings, and why should you care? You live your lives one moment of “now” at a time. Where is the need for fear?

Yet, things can make us fearful, or angry, or whatever.

Of course, and then the question is, how do you process your first-time reaction? Do you ratify chaos, or do you use experience to modify understanding? What ultimately counts in life is not your first-tier reaction (the immediate effect on you) but the second-tier reaction, what you decide about it. You may be surprised into fear or anger, and it is as well to shrug and say, “That’s just the kind of thing that happens in 3D.” but it is your second-tier reaction – your considered decision as to how you want to be, what values you want to uphold – that counts. Your life is your community learning to live as an individual. You do that by making innumerable decisions.

And coherence assists us to remember who and what we want to be.

Also, in a way, who and what you already are, in potential.

Thanks for all this. More, or do I sit quietly for the rest of the exercise?

We’re always available, you know that. It’s up to you.

I’m tempted to read this to the group, but I don’t know.

You will know. Trust the moment.

Okay. Our thanks as always.

[In the event, I did not read it to the group in debrief, but only to a self-selected group, later. And now to you.]

 

Thursday, July 26, 2018

Very well, humans as prisms, and as the results of prisms.

Let’s look at humans as the elementary light that has been so many times recombined. This may turn out to be easy to say, or difficult. Let’s find out.

The point we made is that any given 3D compound-being is made up of numerous strands that henceforth function together as a unit, and may, acting as a unit, enter another compound-being as one of its threads. However, any such being is not a unit in the way that people in 3D experience themselves to be units. And this is the slippery concept that may elude people. Usually does elude people, so that they wind up thinking things are one way or the other, not conceiving that they may be one way and the other.

The sense that I am getting is that we are at once finished products and sub-assemblies for further products. And, come to think of it, we are also the raw material. So, three aspects: Original material, sub-assembled material, input to further development.

Yes, only don’t let yourself be fooled by unconscious assumptions into thinking you are or ever could be only one or even two of three, rather than, always, all three.

As so often, it is a new clarity that seems like it ought to have been obvious all the while. We are the original material, or substance, or pattern, or energy, whatever we should call it to avoid misleading associations. We are also what we have made of it in our particular part of creation, and we are the result of past construction and part of future constructions.

Only, call it “play” as well as “construction,” and you will get rid of the grimmer overtones of your conceptualization.

Hence, we are individual only in a manner of speaking, just as you have said from the beginning. We are individual only as long as one puts limits on how far to look, how much to include. And, just as you have always said, we are all one; we are all units; we are all communities.

Now perhaps you can see more clearly how perceived divisions among humans, animals, vegetables, minerals (not to mention unbound forms such as other parts of the energy spectrum perceived and unperceived, and other parts of reality beyond that, usually lumped only in magical realms) can only be provisional, never absolute. Things retain their original “is”-ness.

The units within reality are only units because of the way we slice things.

Well, in the broadest sense of “we” that may be more or less said to be true. But in ordinary terms, such divisions are more or less fixed to your perception and you may (or may not) be able to transcend them momentarily, but you can’t really go beyond them or reshuffle the deck.

Laying out the cards is beyond our pay grade.

Depending upon how one defines “our,” yes. The point at the moment is this:

• You are you (the current 3D assembly reading or writing this), and
• You are you (the collection of strands functioning together that comprise that assembly), and
• You are you (the indefinitely large number of constituents of each strand, and the constituents of each of those constituents, ad infinitum.

Hence you are vastly more than you commonly experience yourselves to be, and have access to anything any part of you has experienced, which in effect is without limits.

This turned out to be easier to express than we had feared. The main thing is that, once created, nothing ceases to exist. But neither do the things it was made from cease to exist, either in their new form as part of the newly created unit, nor in their original form before that creation, which itself was the result of prior creation, and on and on backward until you come to the original creation which also is beyond your pay grade, as you say, only is still within your memory, potentially.

It is?

Potentially. The major obstacle in all such recapture is your own filters that prevent you from thinking certain things, or from seeing them in any way that seems self-evidently nonsensical to you.

But these can be overcome.

That’s the purpose of the process of becoming awake, to see clearly.

Huh!

Think of yourselves – our-selves, we remind you, for it isn’t as if we were divine and you human – think of yourselves as the eyes and also the creative hands of reality.

All that complication, all that play of elements, all that drama – do you think any of it is wasted, or meaningless, or tragic? Do you think, as some do, “God sleeps,” or “Life is a useless passion,” or “Man is only a collection of a few cents’ worth of chemicals”?

Given your own indifference to – ignorance of – past tragedy, how important do you think first-tier effects are today? And, if you think, “They’re happening now! Of course they’re important!” – then, how about those of 10 years ago, or 20, or 50, or 100, or 1,000, or 10,000? Anything that ever happened, happened in the now. Where else could it have happened? But if you are not all torn up by the Rape of Nanking or the sacking of Rome or the worldwide destruction in past floods or other cataclysms – What distinguishes any of them from your own dramas, except that you are here, now? Two years from now, you will see it differently. Which point of view is “right”? Today’s? That of 2020? That of 3020?

Be careful in your reactions, here. We do not say, “Be indifferent to suffering.” We say, “If you wish to be awake, you must see things clearly and not through accustomed filters.” If you allow drama to persuade you that your 3D reality is real in any absolute sense, how are you going to remember that it is only relatively real, that the players are only relatively units, that your life is only relatively what it seems to be?

All right, so we have expressed what we set out to express. We never claimed this was going to be another book. We had some redefining we wanted to do. This is enough for now.