Souls, soul loss, shamanism and TGU

 

A friend (though we have never met) asked me, out of his shamanistic experiences, about the soul. I answered with a little help from my friends, and asked his permission to reprint the correspondence here, which he graciously gave.

Dear Jim.

 > I’ve been thinking about soul.  In one of your fairly recent “knowledge” blogs, the Guys defined soul: the local manager, recording every moment.  Add an endowment at birth, and I buy that, building our soul through experience. 

There is also a nuance that you probably see but just in case I will mention: The soul is a particular gathering of threads – many more threads than we can ever possibly express (wherein inheres our freedom of choice) – that shapes itself by its choices throughout a lifetime. That shape – that habit-of-being, perhaps we can call it – remains when it returns to the other side, and thus remains as a resource for the other side to see this world through. I am sure it has other uses – oh yes, let me try again, letting them come through as cleanly as I can: Continue reading Souls, soul loss, shamanism and TGU

A Working Model Of Minds On The Other Side 1 thru 5

This material was originally posted in five parts, from July 2 thru 6. For your convenience, I am reposting it as one long post.

Saturday, June 30, 2007
Nearly 10 a.m. awoke thinking of something worth recording here, but too many things between awakening and picking up the pen. That’s why I often do my morning’s work before I shower and shave.

So — if one of you splendid gentlemen will deign to get on the line and remind me — or set some other rabbit running — I’d be obliged as usual.

I had a stray thought that I put on the blog this morning — I used to think that what a person made of his mind — the things he learned, the connections he made — were lost when he died. It made everything seem so pointless. Realizing that the pattern of mind created by that effort survives and is there to be used recasts it in a different light entirely.

There is much more, obvious to me but probably not to others (because of just the kind of work I have been doing, it occurs to me!) and would need to be spelled out.

It’s hard to find the organizing principle that will let me spell it out, who and how this network is used. So, friends — David, if no other is more appropriate –

We appreciate the difficulty — perhaps now you will appreciate ours, over the years!

A drawing?

That’s right. We’ll try, anyway. Right-brain pattern appreciation, remember, because words can explain and amplify and clarify but alone they can only mislead. Continue reading A Working Model Of Minds On The Other Side 1 thru 5

Retrieval at Gettysburg

[This was written in October, 2005, but seems as timely now as then.]

My friend Jim and I went to Gettysburg intending to help retrieve soldiers who may have died in the battle and remained fixed on earth. (Some souls who get killed may not realize that they are dead. Others may know that they are dead but may be essentially imprisoned by their beliefs about the afterlife, for instance thinking that they must lie in the grave waiting for the last trumpet and Judgment Day.) Drawing on our own experience at retrievals, we figured that we could help. We didn’t at first realize that as usual we were being employed – blunt instruments! – for greater purposes.

For those who came in late …. Continue reading Retrieval at Gettysburg

TGU session 11-13-01 (2)

[Continuing from yesterday’s post]

R: Okay. Changing the topic. We’ve talked about all sorts of phenomena like fairies and elves and werewolves and so on as phenomena that have been part of our cultural observations over the years, and one of the additional concepts, even more powerful, is that of Satan. And we have satanic cults operating. I guess you could say we have god cults operating, too, as churches.

F: Mm-hmm. And the symmetry is not accidental.

R: So we have issues like God versus the dark angels in the last chapter of the Bible. And I wonder if you could comment some on these concepts.

F: Well, we’ve given you probably all the clues you need, actually. If you go back to the concept of all pluses or all minuses are impossible, that is to say, an imbalance is impossible, that there have to be as many pluses as minuses. What is Satan and what is God, after all, but the localized congregation of pluses on one side and minuses on another side? Now, in so saying, we’re not talking about God meaning the ultimate source of life or what is above creation, because you don’t have any first-hand knowledge of that anyway. Neither do we. But in terms of good versus evil, that really says it all.

Now, we need to say this carefully. It could happen that as your pluses congregate, your minuses congregate, and you wind up with a more and more clear-cut antagonism, civil war down the middle. However, it could happen that one side will congregate whereas the others remain diffuse. The totals are always going to balance, but some could be real intensely gathered and others, not as intense, cover a more widespread space. And some could congregate at some times, and others at other times. So that things could get worse and worse and worse from one point of view because the only way they could get worse and worse and worse from one is that the opposite ones are congregated at other times. Continue reading TGU session 11-13-01 (2)

TGU session 11-13-01 (1)

November 13, 2001

R: This is our 14th session. We still have some questions around the concept of the amoeba. We want to make sure that our understanding is as complete as we can get it.

F: We’ll be glad to ask you questions if you like.

R: [chuckles] Frank noted, the other day, that maybe everyone he’s ever been close to was part of his amoeba. Is that a possibility?

F: Well of course, you know, we’ve been listening to your conversation, by definition. You and your readers are going to have very different ideas, and we want to express things in a way that will have the least chance of being misunderstood, which is difficult.

Yes, you could conceivably have all the inhabitants of the earth in one amoeba. We never meant to imply one amoeba to one person or one amoeba to a few people. But at the same time – it isn’t the case but it could be the case. As far as we know, there’s no theoretical limit to the number of space-time lives one amoeba could generate. You mustn’t think of us as being bound in bodies the way you are. Even the elastic ones.

At the same time, — [pause] we’ll back up a little more. Continue reading TGU session 11-13-01 (1)

TGU session 11-06-01 (2)

[continued from yesterday’s post]

R: Okay, I’ve been wanting to ask some more about duality. Our physical world seems to be wrapped in duality, and I have sometimes felt from your answers that duality seems to exist on the other side as well, but I’m not clear about that.

F: Oh, I think you’re very clear about that. It’s always a mistake to assume that the other side, as it looks to you, is perfect, or completed. When creation split things into duality, in order to create something, it didn’t only happen on the material realm. If you’ll look at your bible, you have the good and the bad angels, or at any rate the angels that fought. Well, that’s a duality well beyond the physical. And don’t get your hopes up, once you go over to the other side it’s not all over. [chuckles]

R: I though it was all going to be love, because love has no opposite!

F: Uh huh.

R: [pause] You don’t want to respond to that?

F: Oh, well, we will if you want! It didn’t sound like a question!

R: [laughs]

F: Well, why isn’t that true for where you are?

R: Well that is true—

F: All right.

R: — but there are a couple of concepts that seem like they don’t have a dual aspect. Love is one of them. Continue reading TGU session 11-06-01 (2)

TGU session 11-06-01 (1)

November 6, 2001

[Rita had given me, as a gag gift, a “laughing bag” – a sort of soft misshapen pyramid with a smiling face on it which, squeezed, gives off maniacal laughter. Her label on the box said “to your amoeba from my amoeba.” TGU had said, playfully, that they didn’t think it was a very good image of them.]

R: I’m going to go back to where we started, which is this criticism of the image that was presented tonight in a yellow triangular form. The response seemed to be that it wasn’t a very good picture of you! And the fact is that I was thinking of it as not a very good picture of the amoebas, but still, a move in that direction.

F: Well, this is a very productive – Keep going.

R: And so I’m back to asking again, aware as I read our notes that I’m sometimes not very clear where we end up about whether the amoebas are something  predominately on that side, with a little life popping out of it now and then to be lived on this side, or whether the amoebas are operating primarily from this side. I’m confused.

F: It’s not a meaningful distinction. What you could think that would be more meaningful is that you, as an individual, are part of an amoeba that extends well beyond your one physical life and your one physical time and space slice, wherever you happen to be at the moment. That larger being may have other life forms in the physical or it may not, and by definition it exists outside of time and space with one or more extensions of itself in time and space. Of course, there are also amoebas that don’t extend into time-space, but we’re not talking about them at the moment. So the question about whether it’s primarily there or primarily here is a misunderstanding, really. There isn’t any “there” there. The point is that you and we are parts of the same thing, and we exist within the amoeba. Now, remember we only invented that term as a convenience.

R: Yes, I’m aware of that, and yet it seems to be individualized.

F: Remember as well, though, that from the beginning we’ve told you that we on our side are individual but not individual. We are one thing, but not one thing. That is, we are monads. We could be looked at as cells comprising one tissue, or we could be looked at as individuals cooperating closely. It’s not at all the hard and fast division that it appears to be, to you, because you’re living in time-slices. Continue reading TGU session 11-06-01 (1)