The Other World

[continued from previous post]

R: When I was asking you about improved human beings and we talked earlier about improved societies, I was asking about them as goals, aware that we’re a very goal-oriented culture. And yet we’re constantly being told to live in the moment, not analyzing our past or anticipating our futures.

F: We don’t think that’s the proper understanding of that statement.

R: Perhaps you would expand on that.

F: If you don’t mind. You can plan for the future and be in the present. You can review the past and be in the present. Conversely, you can be walking down the street doing nothing and not be in the present at all. The emphasis on that is to remember yourself continually. To keep your consciousness conscious. Continue reading TGU session 10-02-01 (2)

Rita Warren: All right, good evening to the gentlemen upstairs.

F: Good evening to the ladies downstairs. [chuckles]

R: I had mentioned in an earlier session, on the 11^th, that I wanted to return to the issue of disasters when there’s been loss of life on the earth, and ask, to the extent that you’re able to alter things in the 3D world, what meaning do these kinds of events have?

F: Hmm. [pause] That’s a hard question to answer, phrased that way. It’s rather like asking us what meaning does a day have. Because what you all see as all the same kind of things, putting the title of disaster or atrocity or war around them, to us are infinitely different. We’ll give you an example to show you the difficulty, and then ask you to rephrase it.

R: Okay.

F: [pause] If you have that disaster at Bhopal, where people died because of corporate indifference, and you have a disaster in New York where people died because of an act of war and, let’s see, if you have a disaster resulting, seemingly anyway, from nobody’s fault – the bridge over St. Luis Rey, if you remember that old example — if you only look at the fact that there is widespread, seemingly indiscriminate death, then you might say those three incidents are three of a kind. And we would say they’re nothing like. Continue reading TGU session 10-02-01 (1)

[continued from previous post]

R: Well, let’s see. I’m confused here. In viewing all those possible alternatives that we chose among for this particular one we’re looking at here, you’re saying that all those choices were not only potential but they in fact occurred.

F: Exactly. They exist. Not past tense, not future tense. The whole thing is one big present. At least to us.

R: It’s very difficult to perceive things from your perspective. [laughs]

F: Well, in fact, it takes a certain skill to – It’s like a homing device, you know. We have to sort of keep a bookmark on you. [they laugh] because —

R: That’s good. That’s good.

F: You don’t ever have trouble finding us only because we find you. But if we didn’t, you couldn’t.

Now, you can extend that a little farther and say, if there weren’t the inherent tie between us – if we weren’t really all one thing – it’s difficult for us to imagine that! — but if we weren’t all one thing, how could we find each other? Continue reading TGU session 09-25-01 (2)

Rita Warren: Well, I think this is our 7^th session. I was looking back today at some of the notes and thinking we have a few leftovers I should pick up on tonight. [pause] I have understood from you gentlemen upstairs that you have a great deal of information – maybe all of the information – and our job is to suggest a focus for identifying the information by asking questions.

F: You will have to pardon us if we always answer literally what you say, because we’re so aware of slippage in communications that we don’t know any better way to do. So the way you phrased your question, we would say we have access to knowledge and we probably have access to further knowledge when you want it. All we’re trying to emphasize is, we don’t ourselves know, but we can find out. That’s the way to put it. It’s one of our usual nit-picks.

R: Okay, well, how does all this information become available to you?

F: [pause] To us the process is more or less what it is to you when you’re thinking about something without needing external resources like books or conversation. So it’s as though we’re ruminating, only we’re kind of gravitating toward the information. Don’t know a better way to put that. Continue reading TGU session 09-25-01 (1)

[continued from previous post]

R: Yes. I’ve heard two things from you here. The second one I’m hearing tonight, the first one I heard before. What I heard before was that you are aware of what will be happening to us. That you have a preview, somehow. You know before we know what’s happening. And now I’m hearing you say that you actually arrange this.

F: Both of those are true, but neither one of them is the full thing. Let’s back up a little.

You remember that all possible situations have their reality. Now that should be just mind-boggling to you, because it’s just staggering complexity. It all has its reality, and the question is, which of those will you go to? And so, looked at one way, yes we know the future because they’re all there, we can see where you’re going now. But tomorrow you might go in a different direction. In other words, we can predict the future, but you may not go there! [they laugh] But that future still exists! Continue reading TGU session 09-18-01 (2)

Rita Warren: I’d like to pick up a little bit on one of the topics we were on last time. We were talking about all the disaster issues last week, and one of the things we’re hearing lots about is the idea of evil. And I wonder if you can talk some about the idea of evil as regards human behavior.

F: Big subject.

R: Well, yes.

F: All right. As usual, we have to start a long way away. Suppose you look at the whole universe as a balanced system. Let’s look at it in electrical terms, so that it has positive and negative — for the moment we’re not talking about good being positive and evil being negative, but as positive and negative. As polarity. And every polarity has to balance out. Otherwise, there’d be something left over, you know [laughs] and it couldn’t be.

Taking the universe as a unit, its various polarities all have a positive and negative end to them. And – this is a spatial analogy, but we don’t know how to avoid it – in various localized parts of the universe, there might be more negative or more positive. And certainly the negative and positive could be intermingled, they could fluctuate, they could go back and forth. Like everything else, they form fluctuating patterns. But there’s no such thing as being able to eliminate all the negative, and have even one atom of positive more than negative. It just can’t be done. Continue reading TGU session 09-18-01 (1)

[continued from previous post]

R: Okay, let me ask this. Would the events that happened in our time and space today change the energy at your level in some ways?

F: Well, you know, we’re not surprised by any of this. We know what’s going on that hasn’t happened in your area yet. We know converging probabilities to the degree that it might as well be set, okay? So, how should it change our energies?

R: Well, I guess I’m saying that there may be, on the earth level, lots of demand for your attention today.

F: But, but, you know — how many people died? When you have 15 or 20 or 30 billion at a time, then you might start taxing our facilities. After all, World War II didn’t tax us, this isn’t going to tax us. In the sense of a drain on our attention, if that’s what you mean,

R: This would be a small event, compared to the kinds of events in your —

F: In a way, you could kill everyone on the planet on the same day, and – the mission of the planet to the side, just considering that number of people –if we had to we’d react to it. (That is not likely to happen.) Continue reading TGU session 09-11-01 (2)