The Other World

From an altered-state session with the guys upstairs, Rita Warren asking the questions, on February 26, 2005: 

R: All right, now the practical implications of what we’ve been talking about. When I’m asking questions of you through Frank, is there some stance he can take that will make it easier for him to feel like he’s not getting a blank from you and therefore is just speaking from his own limited perspective. Is there some way he can think about this that will enable him to make those distinctions.

F: Sure, and that’s happening now. It is a matter of changing –

 Let’s look at it this way. It is a form of changing self-definition to say – and we’re not describing these in the order that they occurred, or in the order that they necessarily need to occur, but just one after another: Continue reading Overcoming obstacles in talking to the other side

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

[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)

November 13, 2001

R: This is our 14^th 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)