Intuitive Linked Communication (ILC)

Thursday, January 26, 2023

6 a.m. Gentlemen, yesterday at our ILC meeting it was decided that I should ask you for exercises our group could do in re retrievals. That is, taking into account all you have told us over the years about the true situation, how can you help us think about the process? This is to improve our efficiency, I gather.

You are not focused.

No. Hard to concentrate on it. Hard to see the point of it, really. What we do, works. It’s – oh, I suppose the analogy would be remote viewing or anything that has been redefined for our mindset. Shamanism a la Michael Harner, for instance.

It is a process of translation, so that people in the midst of transition may learn to think of a thing in a new way, hence take seriously what they could not take seriously in the old context.

Prayer. Talking to spirits, all that.

You have moved away from the past and you are in a halfway-place to the future, so there will be difficulties of understanding. But of course you are always in a halfway-place; life never stops. Your time, though, has the shared subjectivity in a halfway-place, not merely many individual subjectivities.

Hmm. I think I understand that. The renaissance was such a bridging, as Koestler well described in The Sleepwalkers.

You’ve known it a long time, consciously, and of course everybody in a body has known it since before they entered 3D. That unconscious knowing is one source of their discontinuity with the times they were born into. We’ve said all this.

Yes, and we’ve hard it, I think. But everything is different when considered in a new context, I’ve learned that much. Tell me, this thought that just flitted through as I was writing that last sentence. Is that your prompting? I got that it is time that Dirk, in particular, begin posting in my blog.

There is that “ownership of ideas” thing again. The question is less “Where did it come from,” than, “Is it a good idea.”

Is it?

That isn’t for us to decide (ever). It is for you to feel, and reason. We can and will and often do respond with our opinion of your opinion, but really, these things are for you to decide about. That’s why you are in 3D, did we ever happen to mention it, to choose?

The idea came as a corollary to a blip I got, that Dirk’s responses to drumming questions at ILC meetings have come to be quite articulate and smooth, as have Bill’s. The thought came that perhaps it is time for Dirk and perhaps Bill (and others so inclined) to begin posting at will, converting the blog relatively seamlessly from centering on me to centering on communication with you. We’re talked about it from time to time.

And you are wondering if it is time to give people another nudge.

I am. Dirk has talked about writing books: This would be a step toward it, and he already has administrator status, so could post without any middleman. Whether Dirk or Dave or Jane or others wish to move in that direction remains to be seen. But maybe Dirk posting on an occasional basis would segue into his posting on a regular basis, and he would show the way.

The variable being, time. To do this work, it cannot be last on one’s to-do list.

The more I ponder it, though, the better I like the idea. We aren’t asking Dave’s question, but let’s pursue this a bit.

People will face the author’s proverbial three obstacles:

• I don’t have anything to say.
• I don’t have the ability to say it.
• Nobody will care anyway.

All they need to do is face the obstacles, and they will see them as illusions.

• People don’t have the urge to write without it being a concomitant of having something to say.
• “Ask, and it shall be given.” If you have something to say and you work sincerely at saying it, the ability will develop, or rather, will be recognized as being there already.
• Just as no one has the urge to write without having something to say (known to the conscious mind or not), so no such urge manifests in the absence of a potential audience.

And we have created a pretty good venue for them to practice in:

• A protected defined space with a small number of interested readers.
• A venue open to a few sentences, or a few paragraphs, or a full-length essay or series of essays.

Yes, you’d think someone had been shaping the possibility behind your backs.

Oh, we’d never think that. Okay, very funny but very encouraging too. I think I’ll send this to just the list rather than posting it.

You should stop and think first. What do you hope to accomplish by doing it that way? That is, what is the advantage of not posting on the blog what amounts to a call for papers?

The idea keeps morphing. First I thought we were going to discuss reworking our understanding of the retrieval process.

Then as a stray thought came the realization that Dirk has been silently, casually, growing in his ability to articulate in mini-essay form what is shown to him.

Then the renewed thought that he might start posting, and the hope that others in our group might, as well, and the remembrance that at one time I had hoped to set up a forum for many people to share posts, then the sense that we have already done that, and now it needs to be consciously recognized and used.

And you are wondering, should this be kept within your present group of list recipients, or put out to one and all via the blog.

And now I get, what’s the advantage in shutting out those who are not already in what could be seen as a self-selected inner circle?

That is not a self-answering question. Any course will have plus and minus aspects. A self-selected inner circle has its place in the nurturing of new ways of seeing things, or they would not continually appear as patterns. What is the pool of Monroe graduates, if not a self-selected inner circle? The balancing act is to cooperate without closing ranks against those with similar by different backgrounds.

So maybe I should post this as “A call for papers.”

You haven’t done the thinking, so far. So far, you have reacted.

As usual. All right, well, here’s my thinking.

• The forum is in existence physically. Dirk and Dave have gotten it in hand. It exists, it is administered, it has a track record going back to March, 2007, nearly 16 years.
• Till now, it has been nearly entirely conducted by me, with technical assistance from Rich Spees, and Larry Giannou before him. But I have done nearly all the writing.
• Clearly I am going away, however long the process. When I am gone, it will be far better if the forum is already a forum and not a monologue.
• I have watched Dirk learn to bring his guys through, I having had almost nothing to do with it after the initial experience. I’m getting that it is time for him and others to develop the habit of transferring understandings to writing, and this is a good halfway house between ideas and books or even essays.
• There are several others I have in mind, and doubtless some I have not yet in mind, who are poised to be contributors, but seem to lack the final ounce of self-confidence, or perhaps of motivation.
• Those reluctant to seem egotistical may be persuaded if they think of it as perhaps helping people. Certainly that worked for me!
• I’m really getting the sense that it is time, now. We can move from individual effort as it has been understood, into a new model of individual cooperative effort, both between 3D beings and, within them, between 3D and non-3D components, actively, consciously
• This requires (repays) the desacralization, the mundane-ization, if you will, of the process of passing on information received non-physically. This may aid the process.

So your conclusion is?

This should go out on the blog, so that – among other things – people who do not yet consider themselves part of the inner circle may begin to reconsider their possibilities.

You will find that making the implicit explicit is the equivalent of Jung’s “making the unconscious conscious.” That is one function of writing, whether it is you or those of the inner (and outer!) circle.

Maybe we’ll get to Dave’s question next time. This was worth the effort. Thanks as ever.

 

Wednesday, June 20, 2018

You will note that some of your readers have gotten the point of all this, and have said so, emphatically. The same passage that strikes some as theoretical and others as mildly interesting strikes some to the core, and they wake up. But what does that mean, to wake up? Is that to imply that the rest of humanity sleeps?

I don’t see what else it could mean.

Well, say that is so, we have yet to explain what we mean by the difference between waking and sleep. It may seem obvious, but, as with so many matters, the closer you look at it, the more facets it presents, and the more potentially contradictory implications.

Gurdjieff said humans were asleep, and that no work on oneself could be done in sleep. I begin to see what you may be driving at.

Your friend Colin Wilson often used the analogy of a neon tube under insufficient power, that flickered rather than glowed, or a pot of water under insufficient heat, that couldn’t quite be brought to the boil. The image is of discontinuity. Twilight, then a momentary illumination, then twilight again, a repetitive but not regular alternation of states. Your own long quest began when you were first exposed to the idea, and you went in search of a way to connect those moments of lucidity.

His novel The Mind Parasites made me aware of the problem, but I didn’t know what to do. It is hard to pursue mental clarity and continuity when beginning from a position of flickering awareness.

And if you will – slowly, ploddingly – sketch out the situation as you experienced it, we will get where we want to go.

If you say so. It seems obvious enough.

I wanted that clarity of mind and continuity of consciousness that he had brilliantly suggested in that book. But I was not yet 24 years old, and I felt I had already missed so many opportunities! I had drifted through my college years, drifted into an early marriage, drifted into a job, all the while waiting until I should be old enough to run for Congress and emulate John F. Kennedy’s career. My internal life was mostly divorced from my external life. That is, I was waiting to begin what I felt was going to be my career, but I did nothing to bring it about.

Yes, but go even slower, allow yourself to sink deeper. Don’t skim over the surface of the subject; don’t go into Story, but feel your way through it.

I was living a pretty meaningless external life, while dreaming an entirely different internal one. I read incessantly, but what I read wasn’t aimed at anything, even vaguely. I can’t remember what kind of books I was reading. Anything by Colin Wilson, but beyond that, what? Anyway, I was leading one life externally, a different life internally.

Look at that more closely. This does not involve you alone, nor even you as an unusual case study. It is closer to you as a typical example of a not-so-widely-understood phenomenon.

My mental world and my physical world didn’t really coincide. Externally I was a young news reporter trying to do a job for which he was entirely untrained (and would receive no training), a young husband with no idea of what married life should be and no imagination to envision the emptiness of my wife’s days back when we had only one car and she had no job.

Internally I was dreaming, though I can’t quite remember any more what it was I dreamed of. I expected to be a writer and make my living by my writing, but I did nothing to connect that internal dream, or expectation, even, to reality. Similarly, my political career-to-be, I –. Oh, now I get what you’re after!

If you can hold it. Go ahead.

I never knew what it was all about, no matter what “it” we refer to. In politics, I could see results but no causes, could respond but not initiate, could relate anything to my dreamy ideas and feelings, but could not relate any of it to the core of me.

Still more carefully.

Well – I guess it was like I was trying to play a game without knowing the rules or the objective, and without insight into the other players’ motivations. I don’t know that I ever felt the reality of other people. They and the world existed, but I existed sort of next to them, not with them or among them. Is this what you’re wanting?

Let us take it from here. We would say that the nub of your problem was that although you were experiencing your life as disconnected from the world around you, really you were disconnected from your own inner motivations. You had ideas about your life. That is not the same thing as participating in it. Now you might say, “How can anybody live without participating in their life?” And we would say, “Look around you. For that matter, look within you.” That is the source of people’s sense of futility.

Take someone who has found the only thing for him or her to do :

• Picasso painting,
• Hemingway writing,
• Churchill attempting to steer society,
• Georgia O’Keefe painting,
• Jacob Riis or Lincoln Steffens trying to bring social reform

Anyone in any field who was consumed with a task not as a means to achieve fame and fortune, or even to keep body and soul together, but because they knew that this is what they were put on God’s earth to do. It doesn’t matter how messy the rest of their lives may have been, nor what else they may have spent their energies doing, nor even how successful or not they were. Examples are usually success stories because they are known, but the reality isn’t any different for those who do not become known.

When someone knows what they are in 3D to do, their life has a continuity of consciousness not between moments of time, nor between themselves as individuals and their fellows. It is continuity of connection with their deepest self. This is why they are single-minded about what they do.

That may not be as clear as you think it is.

The difference between being engaged in something and merely going through the motions has little to do with one’s relation to the external world, and, consequently, little to do with success or failure of their efforts in any particular thing. It has to do with connection.

This is what you are considering as continuity of consciousness. You quote Carl Jung to the effect that he who looks outward dreams; he who looks inward awakes. Does that really mean anything to you, or is it just words? For, you can look outward while dreaming that you are looking inward, and that is the most difficult trap to emerge from. If you dream that you are awake, what will spur you to awaken in real life?

Your connection with your non-3D component, presumably.

We don’t know what else could do it. But suppose you live in such a way as to be not in conscious connection, then what?

Then a feeling of lostness, I suppose, a feeling of marking time and losing ground.

But you often feel you are marking time even today. Would you say your internal life is what it was at 24?

No, not even close.

The difference being?

Somehow I am more here, now. It feels like I wasn’t really there, then, not fully formed. Hard to put it into words.

You had not had the experience of being consciously fully present. A child is fully present as its natural state, but with the coming of the age of reason, at year seven or so, its world divides into inner and outer in a way difficult to define but familiar to all. To return to that childhood state of non-division, consciously, is the point. And you did not experience that until your experience with mescaline in 1970 and then not again until your Gateway experience 1992.

Yes, I see that. And the penetration into reality is what has made the difference. Not that it made my life any easier, but –

Oh come! Of course it made your life easier. What you mean is, “Not that it made my life automatically without problems, and not that it made me able to function smoothly and flawlessly.”

Correction accepted. You’re right, that’s what I did mean. Life still had difficulties and I made no end of embarrassing and even painful mistakes, but from that point I had a touchstone.

 

Part two

Monday, June 18, 2018

We realize that it will become difficult to keep all of the argument in mind. At some point it may become useful to construct a skeleton, so that the essentials can be grasped visually all at the same time. Sequential exposition, instantaneous recapitulations. But for now, let’s look into the question of how it is that you can (and do) affect the world magically, not merely directly.

Certain distortions result from considering yourselves as if you were 3D-only, and to consider yourselves as “3D-only individuals interacting with 3D-only surroundings” compounds the distortion and produces a sense of helplessness in a hostile or indifferent world. Our present enterprise is about considering yourselves as All-D beings experiencing 3D limitations.

I have long been feeling for the “why” of existence, and the “how” of it.

“Ask, and you shall receive.” Any thirst deep enough will provide the means to slake it. We have suggested alternate ways of understanding tailored to your personality and essence. Your repeating these in turn provides enlightenment for those whose being is close enough to yours to respond to the same “flavor” of information. Those sufficiently different will not respond to this but will not be left unfed.

There are many ways to suggest people toward the truth, and each way must be suited to its audience. Not any truth applies to everyone. What may look like entirely contradictory descriptions may still represent steps toward truth for those at a certain position. After all, neither you nor they are going to find a “the” truth. At best you are going to find the truest truth you can relate to.

So, to continue. You as All-D beings, experiencing yourselves primarily as 3D beings, naturally experience an external world. That world, though, is external to you only insofar as you experience it as 3D-only. In reality you and it are not separate. You are all part of one another, and of us, and therefore of the “external” world. There is an external world only in the sense that reality may be experienced as it would be if 3D were all there is.

The fact is, All-D – all of  reality, not merely the stripped-down version of it that may be experienced directly by 3D senses – is not divided. All-D reality has different rules. We could equally well say, All-D reality is different essentially from 3D reality. (There is only one reality, but it seems different, depending entirely upon the vantage point from which it is considered.)

In the All-D there is no “other,” no “external world.” You affect the world directly by what you are, at least as much as by what you do. What you do may be paraphrased, “What you actually intend.” But that in turn depends upon what you are, for what you are determines what you wish, and in turn is determined by what you were, which is determined by a combination of where you began at a previous instant and what you chose at that instant.

We are the result of past decisions, which our free will exercised upon pre-existing conditions.

And thus, what you are at any given moment is as important as what you specifically will. Another way to say it: Your unconscious will (what you have made yourself to be) is as important as your conscious will (any specific immediate intent). And this is how you affect external reality by adding your vote to any issue. You as All-D beings affect other All-D beings directly, which means you can affect All-D reality directly, for the 3D trance is a result of All-D beings, in concert and in discord. How you affect it depends primarily your level of being and your intensity of application at any given moment, and how well or ill your intent fits with that of others. But that is where you affect your 3D external reality, and not (as seems to 3D eyes) directly in an “external” world.

 

Tuesday, June 19, 2018

Everything we have said to this point leads to this: The world is magic and is to be influenced by magic. You, as humans, are magic and are to be influenced by magic. Now it merely remains to show you magic when it is right in front of you.

I don’t get that you mean “magic” in any metaphorical way.

No, quite literally. Everything is alive, conscious, interconnected. Of course it is all magic; it is only the limitations of thought and feeling imposed by 3D conditions that prevent you from knowing something so obvious. But it isn’t magic in effect if the 3D trance is deep enough. The trance says “What you see is what you get,” and the philosophies hung from it argue that what can’t be measured cannot exist, and the religions argue that there are two worlds. But the world – reality – is magic. One more time: Alive, conscious, interconnected.

We often consider magic to be the interfering with the laws of nature by the application of directed will.

That is the wider world seen through a crack in the 3D trance. It is the materialist who allows for an afterlife, or ghosts, or effective witchcraft. It is the assumption of the primacy of 3D rules, only with bewildering exceptions. It is an allowing-in of contrary evidence, but only the least degree.

Now, look at what clears up, if what we are saying is true.

• Those things that fly directly in the face of common sense, that cannot be explained in terms of accepted physical laws but are fitted in, badly, to a materialist context.
• The many deep ends off which various religions drop: demons, hobgoblins of all kinds, invisible traps for the unwary, celestial wars over the fate of helpless individuals.
• Most of all, the endless contradictions in the evidence.

All these problems stem from attempting to understand All-D reality from an assumption, implicit or explicit, that 3D reality is the known quantity. The problem can’t be solved at the level it is posed. It resolves only when seen from a higher understanding. Reality is All-D rather than 3D-only; it is experienced by humans as 3D-only until they learn to experience with their whole being, rather than with only their 3D senses.

From the more unified point of view, you see that

• Of course the wellsprings of the 3D part of the world are not limited to 3D causes and manifestations.
• Of course events transpire in 3D only after they are precipitated from All-D conditions.
• Of course – in short – the world and all its workings is magical in nature.
• And of course that can only mean that you are magical in nature, unless you are somehow different from everything else in the All-D world!

It doesn’t feel like it, perhaps, or feels like it only now and then, or only as an exception to the rules. But “what it feels like” amounts to “as it is interpreted to me by my particular mixture of sensory and non-sensory apprehension.” Not a reliable guide! The result may be sensory disorientation and non-sensory nonsense.

When Jesus said that someone with even a miniscule amount of faith could tell a mountain to move and the mountain would move, he was expressing something that totally contradicted sensory experience. If he was not speaking metaphorically, and not speaking nonsense, what was he pointing to?

I get that “faith” isn’t quite the right word.

It could be, but so much depends upon what the reader understands by the word. It did not mean “faith in me,” nor even, quite, “faith in what I am saying.” More like, “attunement to reality, perception of what the laws of nature really are.” The “laws of nature” in this case means the laws of All-D nature, not merely the laws of a special case such as 3D-only.

If you really see how things are, you see, you will be able to perform incredible feats of magic. Not that the ability to do magic is the point. It isn’t. The point is that seeing clearly shows you the real nature of yourself and the world and the larger world beyond the 3D trance. Everything Jesus said and did aimed at providing a wake-up call for those ready to respond to it. “He who has ears, let him hear.”

Instead, they made him a god. Easier to deal with that way.

That isn’t quite fair. Those who were ready to wake up, did wake up. Those who somewhat woke up changed their attitudes and their behavior (“See how these Christians love one another”) but they continued to regard 3D as self-evident and separate from the “spiritual” or “celestial” or “afterlife” reality that would only be experienced after death. They interpreted the words of Jesus as if he had been giving laws rather than helpful instruction; lived in fear of punishment and hope of salvation – that is, they lived in expectation of an external judgment – rather than in joyful, even playful, freedom. They experienced a new birth of freedom, but only within a 3D context. What they did experience and to some degree transmit was enough to transform the world. But perhaps it was only a halfway-house understanding, after all.

But what about you? You are at the end of 2,000 years of that message being passed down, even if often enough in distorted form. Can you say that your mental and emotional world has been liberated by that message, or have you, too, not mostly missed it? Reality is magic, and magic may be defined as the ability to affect your surroundings to reshape them in conformity with your will. But that definition contains a whole host of terms themselves requiring definition.

We almost despair of making our point and having it heard. For, you will read what we say and maybe assent and maybe assent with reservations, but you will not apply your assent. You will not realize – make real – your greater freedom. And if you do not apply what we have given you, it is just an outpouring of words, nothing more.

I suppose some concrete practical down-to-earth suggestions would help.

That, they would not. This is not a theory to be explored, or an equation to be solved, or even a working hypothesis to be lived. It is an insight, or it is nothing. We have already made the only practical suggestion necessary, and we have made it many times. Concentrate on waking up. Jesus said unless you become like a little child, you can’t enter into heaven. He said the kingdom of heaven is right here, right now, not somewhere else or somewhen else. Those two statements give you all you need.

If we have ears to hear.

Well, can you deny it? It is the parable about sowing seed on fertile or rocky ground: The harvest depends not upon the seed, but upon the receptivity of the soil it falls on.

 

Part one

Saturday June 16, 2018

Let us look at the different ways humans – that is, citizens of the All-D experiencing a span of consciousness limited to 3D perceptions in 3D conditions – interact with what we are calling the weather.

You could look at it in three ways:

1. External events are the weather,
2. External events are affected by the weather,
3. External events are produced by the weather (via our reactions to it).
4. External events are the weather you live in. First, you must remember and grasp (not merely accept) that there is no “external” as such. External may mean “seemingly unconnected to one’s direct being,” but that is about as far as the meaning can be stretched. You are of the same substance as the rest of the universe; it’s all one thing. We are all one thing. There is no “disconnected” any more than there is an “elsewhere” or an “other.” All distinctions are approximations, not exact descriptions of relationship or – still less – lack of relationship.

Now, to say that “all is one” is not to say that all the parts are experienced as one. Your own experience every day tells you otherwise. How could any two things interact if there were no relative separation into units? Anything may be seen as individual or connected; sometimes it is useful to think one way, sometimes the other way. But, extremes are never true except as one end of a polarity. Ultraviolet light may be separated out of white, but it does not exist as an absolute, only as part of the spectrum.

We may be over-stressing the connectedness of everything, but we doubt it. The concept is easily agreed upon but only applied now and again, because sensory evidence argues otherwise.

So, external events seem exterior; seem to be disconnected from interior events: that is, your inner world. To that extent, exterior events may be said to be the weather you exist in. Your inner life is affected by events, and you cannot control them. If you don’t like the election results, or disapprove of a war, or wish you had clean air and water, or grieve over the continued existence of suffering in the world, or even want this or that external influence on your life to go away, well – too bad. External life exists and you must live your life within its confines.

2. External events are affected by the weather. They have their own logic. If you have not already built the pyramid, you cannot look at it, nor write on the walls, nor tear it down. If you are in the middle of World War II, your next moment obviously will begin from – the middle of World War II. There are no magical discontinuities in events. You do not experience in external life (as you do in dreams, perhaps) a building suddenly appearing or suddenly disappearing. Things happen in the context of the stream of events that produced them.
3. External events are produced by your reaction to previous external events. Certainly as a description of the 3D world as experienced commonly, this is a truism. That’s what you do! Events produce an effect upon you, and you react, and your reaction helps set up the next set of external circumstances. Billions of humans react to the events of the moment, and that’s how pyramids get built, or get torn down. That’s just common experience.

However, when you look a little more closely, you see that this applies on an inner as well as an outer level, and accounts for psychic influencing of external events. This third definition is the main point here, the primary interaction of inner and outer worlds, of subjective and objective reality.

When people first escape from the 3D trance, they face a lack of theoretical structure for what they nonetheless feel is true. This is the bird emerging from the egg. The 3D aspect is confused at the change in situation. The non-3D aspect knows full well what is required. Birds, unlike humans, do not suffer from an interruption of sure connection between 3D and non-3D, so you don’t see birds pausing while trying to get out of the shell, wondering, “What’s the point of all this? Why should I have to go through this? Why am I not somewhere else or something else or some-how else?” Birds don’t suffer 3D-only consciousness any more than they suffer envy that they are not jaguars or otters or humans.

But the human’s situation is different. As a baby, yes, as a young child, usually the connection is uninterrupted, and so the baby can rely on what are called instincts. It breathes; it sucks; it systematically and enthusiastically exercises the various functions of the body as it conducts its pre-flight tests. But as a slightly older child, or a teen, or an adult, the connection is broken, usually by those with whom the new individual interacts (who have themselves been shaped by their society) insisting that sure connection is illusion or even illness.

To those no longer in conscious touch with their non-3D components, the world is internal or external, inner or outer. When people first begin to realize that the 3D trance is only a strained attention on this rather than on this and that, they are tempted to go off the deep end. They are tempted – you should know! – to build theoretical structures to support their new experiences, and perceptions, and such structures cannot hope to be as sophisticated and elaborated as those that have been constructed previously over many thousands of years. Religions, philosophies, shamanic practices, all are available, all would serve somewhat to express the new experiences and perceptions. But, only somewhat. New wine requires new containers. We are talking now about magical interaction with the external world.

Sunday, June 17, 2018

You said, “We are talking now about magical interaction with the external world.”

Yes, in the context, remember, of two other aspects of external reality as you experience it. It is the fact that external events have these three aspects, rather than any one of them, that confuses the issue. Anyone seeing clearly only one aspect, or even any two aspects, will have a firm but incomplete idea of the nature of reality, and this will lead him or her to draw incorrect conclusions excluding certain aspects of what is real.

You mean, I think, they will become materialists, or spiritualists, or whatever, as a result of not seeing how the other aspects can be equally true.

That’s right. They will have lost beginner’s mind, in that respect, and so certain doors will be closed to them. They will be pushing on doors that open toward them. So, as we discuss magical interaction with the world, keep in mind that the other modes of interaction remain true. They don’t go away merely because this one is also true.

And that is analogous to the levels of control over our health that you once sketched out.

Yes. Don’t go into it in any detail, but give the general idea in a sentence or two.

Our level of control over our health depends upon the ground-rules of the world we live in – and that depends upon the level of integration of 3D resources. I put it into Imagine Yourself Well as a table of five levels of interaction, ranging from no effective access to the miraculous abilities of someone on Jesus’ level. That is a concrete example of what you’re talking about here.

Yes it is. And the central point is: Your interaction with the external world is not under your total control (obviously), but it is potentially qualitatively different depending upon your effective level of integration with your non-3D components. Some people live in a constricted, determined environment; others live in a world of magical potential. Same world. Some people’s every wish is frustrated; others get what they really want, as if by automatic pilot. Same reality. And, even more importantly, some people at a high level of integration nonetheless do not get things they very much want, and no one, even at the highest level, the most magical and miraculous level, gets everything they want.

The highest levels of integration produce miracles, not merely experience them, and even these levels do not get everything they want. This is just common sense, but it tends to get lost as one explores these rarified realms of speculation. In other words, it is an aspect of reality that gets lost when one discovers the truth of other aspects. We don’t want you to be among those who lose sight of it, or you won’t go any farther than established thought has gone long ago.

The world is larger than any of its parts. Dion Fortune’s group – and Hitler’s, for that matter – had certain ways it wanted the world to be, but for all their magical abilities, they had to fight for them; they could not merely will them into existence, nor did their going into battle assure their success.

Again, this is only what your experience of the world tells you every moment, only you must integrate what you know in one part of your mind with what you know in another. External reality is as real as internal reality, even though neither is quite as simple as they may appear. They may either one be ill-defined; they do not thereby go out of existence. They must be taken into account, or your mental construction (deduction) of the world will be seriously distorted.

Yes, you magically affect externals. No, externals are not under your sole control. Really, we can see that the first statement might not be obvious, but we should have thought the second would be. Only long experience says otherwise. But let us spend a moment on the question of how and how far and under what conditions your individual selves affect external reality magically.

How. Remember, it is an All-D individual affecting an All-D world, and cannot be otherwise. Although you may be entirely unaware of your non-3D component, still it is there. Although you may be entirely unaware of the world’s 3D component, still it is there. The difference in your level of integration determines the difference in your conscious control of the situation, not the nature of it. Your full being is only partly in 3D; to treat 3D affairs as if only the 3D mattered is to – well, find an analogy.

Someone thinking that the physical radio set produced the message rather than reproduced it.

Good enough. Not bad, in fact. The transmission over the airwaves is invisible to one who places his faith only in what he can see. The radio exists, the program is experienced, so obviously it would be superstition to assume that the radio program can have been produced elsewhere and transmitted without wires. A valuable analogy if not over-stretched.

But let us defer further consideration of how, so that we may dispose of how far, and under what conditions, if possible.

How far. The limitation is partly within the individual and partly inherent in the time the individual lives in. One’s level of integration clearly determines one’s ability to command one’s innate resources, but even here, individuals vary widely. Two people each in full communication with their non-3D components will not be identical. They will each be their full selves, but that full self will be different. Obvious, isn’t it, once pointed out? You came to 3D to express your difference, to see out of your own private window and make your unique contribution. And, at the same time, the canvas upon which one paints one’s life is not self-created, but in existence before one makes an entrance.

As to “under what conditions,” remember, again, that you are All-D creatures affecting an All-D world. External reality could be looked at, for this purpose, as the entirety of all the affected All-D creatures, taken together. Again, a common-sense understanding, though here somewhat unusually defined. External reality isn’t some animate or inanimate “thing”; it is the product of so many individual All-D reactions and interactions to what is presented.

We will resume with more on the “how” of individual integration with the external world, next time.

 

Thursday, June 14, 2018

It occurred to me to look at the 3D world from outside rather than under the impression that it is its own raison d’etre.

Looking at the 3D world as if from outside may assist us to find a helpful image. We had come up with the image of a light show, remember, with all the lights continually flashing, changing color, forming new patterns, as individual minds fluctuated. We would like to find an image of that sort, and tie it in with the concept of the vast impersonal forces affecting the light show. In other words, the light show changing not so much in terms of interactions among its own components, but of interactions of the entire show with forces from outside it.

You’re seeking to integrate larger and larger aspects of reality, in other words.

It is always a two-part process, now building up from individual building-blocks, then looking from a higher synthesis to see how the blocks interrelate to form a system. The world can never be understood merely by adding to an inventory of parts; nor by sweeping generalizations that cannot be illustrated. So, first one way, then the other. We don’t know any other way to proceed.

That’s what an image does, then. It summarized previous understandings.

The world cannot be captured in words, in sequential processing. An image is closer to a gestalt.

Does this imply that what cannot be summarized in an image or metaphor has not yet been properly understood?

That’s a pretty flat statement. We’d want to think before signing off on it. While we wait for the proper clarifying image to suggest itself, let us return to the question of the weather you exist in and the non-3D elements of the situation. After all, considering the 3D as if it were a world unto itself is only somewhat true.

We tend to think that this is the world, and we’re of realizing that we extend into the non-3D.

Nothing wrong with that; one’s surroundings always loom largest, whether in space or time. “Here, now,” is what 3D is all about! But it is truer to life to say that the non-3D is primary and vastly more extensive, and the 3D secondary and only a local phenomenon. It is even truer to say that the All-D is all-encompassing reality, and both non-3D and 3D are specialized expressions. Neither the 3D nor the non-3D is an entity that can exist.. Each is only an abstraction.

Ah, got it! We constructed “non-3D” as scaffolding to help us see that the “3D” we commonly experience is incomplete. The non-3D means all the aspects of reality that are not obvious in 3D.

All that do not obviously manifest, yes. So this is a reminder that the reality of things is neither material, as 3D appears to be, nor only non-material, as non-3D was defined to be, but, always, All-D. Reality is never in pieces. Do not confuse the scaffolding with the stonework.

What we have been telling you to clarify relationships also, inadvertently and necessarily, distorted larger relationships by ignoring them. This couldn’t be helped. If we could say everything at once, we would, gladly, but saying “All is one” is useful only to move people out of a sense of things as separate. Once you see that everything is connected, “All is well” does not necessarily bring you any farther in practical understanding. So, rather than soaring over the landscape, we plod. Then we soar again to give you a sense of the terrain from the air. Then we plod so that your feet will feel the changes in elevation, the roughness of the path, the view from ground level. This repetitive alternation may seem frustratingly slow, but it is the only way we know.

People have the idea that if they could find the proper guide and reach enlightenment (whatever that means to them) they could then begin to live. But that is a confusion of ideas. It assumes that enlightenment is a “there,” rather than a way of being while one travels.

So, we are always saying, “Now, how your new viewpoint reinterprets what you used to perceive.” Not so much “used to think,” as “used to perceive.” Your world changes as you see it differently, and you see it differently as it changes. As so often, a reciprocating process.

When you begin from the thought that reality by definition involves all dimensions and not only some of them, then what you have learned, have experienced, have seen with new eyes opens yet new vistas. Spending time in an older framework was not time wasted. It is what allows you to move on from a higher base camp.

• You see that the 3D world is a subset of the entire world.
• Then you see that the separation is only for the process of analysis, and must be reunited to take account of the larger reality.
• Now you begin to see that neither 3D nor non-3D exists as such, but only as abstractions.

And I think you’re about to say, “And the very concept of dimensions is only an abstraction, something unreal but useful for the purposes of analysis.” I have had this thought more than once.

This will be a stumbling-block for some, because their senses tell them that height, depth, width obviously exist and compose the substance of the 3D world.

But they don’t, of course. They are merely ways of describing orientation in space.

Yes, but go slowly now. The spatial dimensions are similar to the temporal dimension in this respect: They are measured, hence are assumed to be real, as if they were objects rather than relationships.

Time is measured in seconds, minutes, hours, in the same way we measure inches, feet, yards. In both cases, the measuring medium could be looked at as merely a measurement of relationship. You can’t box up a dozen dimensions, whether height or minutes. They don’t exist; they measure.

It might be better to say, “They don’t exist as such; they are inferred from relationships in time and space.”

So if dimensions are abstractions, they cannot be barriers or destinations. We don’t move to the 4th, 5th, 6th, etc. dimension. There isn’t any place to move to. It would be like moving to seconds or minutes.

However, that doesn’t render the metaphor invalid or even, necessarily, misleading. It only reminds you that a metaphor is a metaphor and not a road map.

 

Friday, June 15, 2018

You suggested that we begin with a description of how life in 3D looks from an All-D perspective.

In a way, you might say that this is what we have been doing all along.

I see that. A double translation – 3D into All-D perspective and then back to us.

Except that you are in both “places,” always. If we could once get across how this is, most of the translation errors would go away automatically.

But let us look at 3D life as a thing only partially seen, partially understood, because strictly speaking the 3D world is only a subset of the All-D world. The 3D world you experience could never exist by itself, as neither could you exist as bodies that had width and height but no depth. It isn’t that it wouldn’t be likely, or hard to imagine: It is that it would not be possible. It is an error in translation, an error in perception.

The 3D world that you experience is part of the world. It is a special set of conditions supported by the framework of the rest of the All-D. Clearly anything understood in isolation is going to be understood differently, depending upon where the boundaries are drawn. This should not be a difficult thought. Everything is understood in isolation, and everything is understood in relation to the boundaries drawn around it.

So that any subject is defined in advance by how we choose to think of it. “This belongs to this subject of examination, this does not,” and so we define a subject into existence and then think that the limits we put on it in advance are the natural and inevitable limits.

Of course. When Galileo decided to study only the observable properties of objects, he defined away in advance certain attributes that he decided could not be of interest because they could not be measured. This decision made possible a science of celestial mechanics – but it shaped, rather than revealed, that science. If celestial mechanics had been required to include properties such as color, it would have come to very different results. We are not saying this could have been (or even should have been) done, only that definitions affect what is to be examined in powerful and often unnoticed ways. That process has resulted in the powerful but one-sided civilization that is in its terminal flourishing state in the world.

The Western worldview that began with the Renaissance and the Protestant Revolution resulted in creating a global civilization, first by empire, then by trade and technology. The non-Western world is currently enchanted with the new possibilities, so it looks like that world-view is not only triumphant, but still gaining strength. But it is gaining strength in the way the Roman Empire expanded, not as an outgrowth of strength but of an unhealthy hypertrophy of certain traits at the expense of more human possibilities which will reassert themselves, even if it requires the overthrow of the empire and the institution of an age of feudalism. This is all analogy, but not a far-fetched one.

Correct, only remember that these processes require time. Meanwhile, your whole lives are to be lived. So let us continue with our larger, but scarcely irrelevant, field of inquiry.

You incarnate into the 3D world. You live, you make choices as to how and what you wish to be. Then, you die, you reunite your 3D-limited consciousness with the unlimited consciousness of your Sam. You have thus added a new bit of awareness to your Sam’s total. Then you enter another life, perhaps as one strand of many. Regardless how prominent or non-prominent a part you play in this new intelligence, this new soul in formation, you play some part. Therefore by definition your previous experiences play a part in that new soul’s repertoire. Then that soul returns, and is used as a thread in another existence, and so on. You see our point? What was experienced continues. It doesn’t necessarily dominate, or even emerge now and then, but it is always there, always flavoring the soup.

When John F. Kennedy won the presidential election of 1960, massive consequences followed. The hundreds of millions of people affected by the New Frontier idea, and by the assassination of the president and by the long consequences of that action, would have been affected quite differently if the 1960 election had gone the other way. Can the alteration of so many hundreds of million souls be of no consequence to the library of souls that is your Sam, and all the other affected Sams? Yet it can hardly be said that the external events in and of themselves matter, except in so far as they affect people.

Depending upon where you set your boundaries for this investigation, that sentence will seem tautological, or nonsensical, or arguable. Surely, an external event matters in itself, if only because it is the bridge between external circumstances. But that doesn’t mean it matters because what happens externally matters in and of itself. Instead it – external reality – matters because of the changes it produces in the souls living in that event. In a sense, external events are the weather you live in.

 

Saturday, January 21, 2023

7:20 a.m. All right, guys, a little help?

Your thought – “your” thought! – that you are thinking to explain too much, is valid. Much of it has been explained in other books, and you don’t need to be saying it all again. This time, concentrate on life more abundantly: that is, the promise and the problem and the way forward. You are expressing a point of view, it doesn’t have to be perfect.

My point of view?

Let’s say, ours. We have poured out, as best we could. You have absorbed, as best you could. Now you need to translate, as best you can. How could such a three-part process not be personal? To make a comparison that may illumine by its very audacity, would Islam be the same if it had come rom someone other than Muhammad? Would Jungian or Freudian or Adlerian psychology have come into the world in some abstract way, unconnected from the humans who translated?

This is precisely the inflated view that I have feared and resisted from the beginning.

It is not. To illustrate anything, we use historical examples, because that is your alphabet, your dictionary. As Newton might have understood via mathematics, or Upton Sinclair via observation, or the Webbs via statistics, so you see through the lens of story. But that means that we must use examples that are known to history. We cannot use your friend Louis, for example, because the example would need as much explanation to others as what we were using it to explain.

We are not comparing you to Muhammad, nor your task to creating or revealing the elements of Islam. But we are comparing the process through which non-3D understanding must enter 3D terms. It always comes through an individual, and grows from that one small seed. Therefore, no new way of seeing things could ever be free from viewpoint, from personal bias. This is a part of the reason why ideas become contended over: Equally serious people see the truth of it and the individual peculiarity of it, and of course different people slice it in different ways.

So, the Catholic position of group understanding of revelation, and the Protestant position of individual discernment.

Both, yes. And of course both Catholic and Protestant organizations contain both positions, to varying degrees at various times.

Only, we aren’t trying to start a religion.

Oh, it could be seen that way. Every new understanding is the underpinning of a new religion. But in the sense you mean, yes, of course we aren’t. What we hope to do is to instill a little specific yeast into the dough of the worldview that is emerging in your nascent global culture. And, lest that worry you, we remind you that millions of other injections of yeast are taking place all the time. It isn’t like it’s all that important that any one specific vision “succeed,” whatever that would mean. It is merely that some versions of the truth are more accessible to certain groups than are others. A phrasing that is appropriate to 21^st century America is not necessarily equally relevant to 21^st century Peru, say, or Ghana, or Italy, or China. Every place, every culture, every time, will have its own expression of truth available to it, just as Emerson said.

[Emerson, February, 1855: Munroe seriously asked what I believed of Jesus and prophets. I said, as so often, that it seemed to me an impiety to be listening to one and another, when the pure Heaven was pouring itself into each of us, on the simple condition of obedience. To listen to any second-hand gospel is perdition of the First Gospel. Jesus was Jesus because he refused to listen to another, and listened at home.]

We repeat: our point of view, yours and ours. Every thing within you, every active Strand, every emotional response to conflict, every story absorbed, fiction or non-fiction, every mental construction – it all made you you, as it all makes anyone. That’s what we have to work with; that’s what you have to offer.

I recognize, but want to make clear, that in saying “have to work with, have to offer,” you aren’t saying “must” but are saying “what is available.”

Correct. And of course what is true for you is true for everyone, only not everyone writes.

We don’t all write, but we can’t help living.

Precisely. It is in living that you write on the Akashic record, put it that way. Your input into the development of the shared subjectivity comes not primarily from what you do but from what you choose to uphold. Actions are the manifestation in 3D of decisions arrived at (consciously and subconsciously and unconsciously) by a non-3D intelligence functioning within 3D constraints. Actions are not negligible, but they are secondary to the mind itself. The 3D world, remember, is not things in space; it is an expression of mind. Which is more important, Caesar’s day to day life, or his legacy? Which is more important, his specific actions or the trend of his vision? This will not be clear to one and all, but for those to whom it is clear, it will perhaps open the way.

So, to speak specifically to your task.

• You want to keep it practical. Therefore, bring in “the way things are” only as need be. Don’t go explaining everything just because you have a clear view of it. Leave some work for others who have a slightly different center of gravity.
• Keep it focused on human life as experienced here and now. The ancient Egyptians spoke to their own time. Use them as illustration if appropriate, but not otherwise.

I’m hearing, make more flat statements as background, rather than trying to explain, justify, convince.

People will absorb that for which they have receptors, nothing else, regardless how it is packaged. Take this as a relief.

Well, it will be, if I can do it. But I have always had a hard time with people’s flat statements.

You can only do your best, and trust.

• Sketch the human situation and leave it for people to weigh it. Concentrate on revisioning things people are overlooking.

Envision a great weary sigh. We are writing a religious book, when you come down to it.

Should you have ever doubted it? If religion is not about life and the meaning of life and how to live, what is it about? Certainly not rules.

People would say it is exactly about rules!

That is because they would confuse the essence with the manifestation of it. Or, to put it more plainly, they confuse truth with attempts to organize truth in society. The latter is no more a possibility for you than it is a desire. You really can’t create anything useful if you worry how it may later be misused. People misuse fire! They misuse water! They’d misuse the very dirt under their feet if they could do so. That doesn’t mean those things shouldn’t exist. It means merely that they too may be used to help people grow up by living their 3D experiences, choosing.

So here is one way you would structure it:

• A sketch of the condition you find yourselves in, interpreted by what you have learned over the years: the constriction into one time/space, etc.
• Possibilities arising from this way of seeing life. Old obstacles dissolving, new bridges appearing.
• Methods of deepening awareness, including
  • Removing obstacles
  • Developing abilities
  • Clarifying vision

That is one way, not (by far) the only way, and not necessarily the way best suited to you. The point remains: Keep it practical, focused, limited, hopeful.

I have been thinking this would go out to the blog. Now I am not so sure.

Your choice, always.

Thanks for all of it. Till next time.

Friday, January 20, 2023

8:05 a.m. Working on indexing July, 2021, I got that if I can get the internal logic of it better – by continually reexamining and refining categories – I could write it as a series of essays, themed. Thus, communication, etc., which, I see, is the same idea I wrote down less than an hour ago, only redirected toward the book, not the blog.

In the end, it will boil down to a few central ideas that have been there right along

• The 3D and non-3D aspects of one world
• The world as dream rather than things in space
• Humans as communities choosing what they are to be
• The nature of our awareness, our potential, and our problems.
• Helpful things to do, to achieve life more abundantly

Really, it is all contained herein. And – is this a back-door structuring for me? (For when I began that paragraph, I was thinking it was me and only gradually realized it was also them.)

It is a suggestion, responding to your desire, put it that way.

I think I’ll ask my friends what they think, see if anybody makes specific suggestions for additions or changes.

A very good idea, for only your readers can give you “external” feedback, and of course each of them can give you things we cannot.

Because I wouldn’t notice yours?

Let’s say, because the forces that would produce an impulse in someone to contribute an idea would be the product of their own long development, no less than of the times. It is a way of triangulating.

I hadn’t thought I’d post today, but this will be worth doing. Thanks.