What would you give…

to be able to read a never-before-published novel by Ernest Hemingway?

Another Joseph Cirelli painting

My brother sends me a photo of one of Grandpop’s paintings that I don’t remember ever seeing before.

I have photos of at least three others, still waiting for me to locate them among the phosphors and electronics in my life.

Steiner on karma



John Wolf on sharing process and practice

Sharing Process and Practice

by John Dorsey Wolf

One of the things which Frank has done through his work that I am very grateful for is sensitizing us to the process of receiving this material. We are all different but some aspects, such as “the useless questions”, apply to most of us.

After corresponding with Frank about the difficulties of my last posting, he thought it would be helpful to share the nature of the process I went through, “warts and all”.

For reference that posting is “On Power and Consequences” at: http://ofmyownknowledge.com/2016/12/18/john-wolf-on-power-and-consequences/

Continue reading John Wolf on sharing process and practice

Rita on explanations, belief, and truth

This excerpt from Rita’s World Vol. II may be of interest. From Tuesday, May 12, 2015

Explanations, belief, and truth

7 a.m. So, Rita, a simple question. Why should anyone pay attention to anything you say—or, from their perspective, anything I report you as having said? Why should anyone believe any of it?

They shouldn’t. It isn’t a matter of belief or disbelief. And nothing I have to say in answer to this question is anything very different from what you have been saying for years. Since we cannot know, we can only provisionally believe, and there is no resolution to it. So, to seek belief as a goal is sort of pointless. The question is not, “What can you make yourself believe?” but “What explanation explains and what explanation do I resonate to?”

The Church went wrong (and churches continue to go wrong) when they set out to reassure themselves of their own correctness by measuring how many people could be persuaded (then, eventually, coerced) to believe the same things. It is the mark of truth that people gravitate to it, or toward it anyway, when they encounter it. It is also the mark of truth that it is broader than any mind or set of beliefs can fully encompass; hence, it always appears different to different types of people. But truth cannot be contained. Hence, does not exist within containers. Hence, cannot be fixed, but is fluid.

And for those whose psychology inclines them to need a fixed unchanging truth?

They will find that aspect of truth, as those needing nuance will find the ever-shifting aspect of truth. The thing to remember is that truth is larger, broader, deeper, more nuanced, more unchanging, than a human mind. Reality is larger than our view of it, as fishbowls are always wider than the space they enclose and give form to.



New YouTube interview

The interviews page on this blog has a new interview by Michael Langevin on post-election perspectives.

New perspectives

Years ago when I was still a book publisher, I met Hank Wesselman at INATS (International New Age Trade Show) while he was signing copies of his first book, Spiritwalker. I read it with interest, read the succeeding two volumes of the resultant trilogy, and in 2009 with my friend Dirk Dunning, did Hank’s Visionseeker workshop in Oregon.

I am still far more skeptical of “science” than Hank is, but I found his volumes fascinating, in that they are first-hand experiences of communication via non-physical methods.

Now, responding to a prompting out of nowhere I can identify, I am rereading the trilogy, and finding that my experiences in recording the Rita’s World books make Hank’s books read very differently. There’s nothing like first-hand experience to do that! Thus, I read the following sentence, and, in the light of my long dialogues, saw immediately that this is just simple truth:

“Kahunas believed that everything in the everyday world has an ordinary aspect `here’ and a nonordinary aspect in the spirit realms.” [Spiritwalker, p. 115]

It’s so simple. If reality is x dimensions, we are in all of them. There’s no other way it can be: If you are in any, you are in all. (Try being in height and depth but not in length, sometime, if you doubt it.) Therefore of course everything is going to have a 3D and a non-3D aspect. Simple, once you get the concepts.

But I’m still rereading the books with interest.