Uncategorized

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.

 

 

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

 

If I can find the CD-ROM to which I saved a lot of paintings, I’ll add some more.

Called this one “A Look Inside.”

“Cubes”

“Blue Notes.” I remember having an idea in mind, on this one. The shadows on each iceberg are from a different direction. In effect, a portrait over time. I sure wish the color were truer, though.

The first painting I ever did, I think, way back in 1968. A friend of my then-girlfriend (later wife) gave me an art lesson, and I had a bit of beginner’s luck.

 

Painted this for my brother Paul, many years ago. Sort of like Hemingway saying he wrote as well as he could, and sometimes better than he could.

Painted this one after my mother died in 2004, and titled it “Mom.” As so often, the color is not well represented here.

My friend Michael Langevin suggests that I post a few pix of things I have painted over the years. I hope it doesn’t result in my being accused of cyber-terrorism! 🙂

Usually I begin without more than the vaguest of ideas of what I’m going to do. Sometimes — often — I will put down one color in a few places, then wait for a feeling to well up within me as to what to do next.  If my listening is good, or if I’m lucky, or whatever the variable is, sometimes I wind up with something that I find very satisfying. I don’t usually try to represent objects; I’m painting something else. Moods, as much as anything.

Here’s one.

A little blurred, though, and I gave away the original, but it was one of my favorites. Somehow it achieved depth, motion, and balance. If I ever had a title for it, I have since forgotten it.

Here’s another, this one given away to my friend (and Hampton Roads author) Maryanne Clare. I called this one “Stepping Stones,” for reasons that would be easier to understand if the photo were better Framed this one, which i rarely do.

And a third, also (like free kittens) gone to a good home, in this case to Charles Sides’ wife Jenny Horner. I had titled this one “Hallway. ”

I’m glad Michael suggested this. This is fun!

I finally got my Amazon author page current — i think!

https://www.amazon.com/Frank-DeMarco/e/B001K8GSNE/ref=sr_ntt_srch_lnk_1?qid=1477684852&sr=1-1