The Interface: Combinations

Publish on Comments(0)

The final question of Dirk’s latest series, then.

[6.0) It seems apparent that certain sets of strengths of various emotions in varying combinations – valence, arousal, and intensity in psychological terms – lead to certain “strengths” and “advantages”, and other “weaknesses” and “disadvantages”.  Is this a reasonable view? What can you tell us about this?]

As usual, things will look different when seen from different angles. You could say that the emotions cause things or that they result from things. Rather than choose one view or the other, it is productive to look at it both ways, so that the problems presented by seeing it one way will be countered by the problems of seeing it another way.

If you take the emotions to be a part of the 3D individual’s character as is commonly done, then yes, you could say that they bring in their wake certain consequences, and may be judged in terms of the character they are part of. But a moment’s thought should produce dissatisfaction with that analysis. If, as we have been saying, emotions are the effect produced by the friction of inner and outer worlds, how can an effect be considered to be a cause at the same time? We don’t mean that an effect cannot then become a cause; obviously it can and does: That is the basis of any system employing feedback. That is a quite different thing from lifting oneself by pulling up on one’s bootstraps.

Yet, if you take the emotion to be the natural effect of the 3D individual in its surroundings, could you now say that in effect they are part of that personality? If – well, we’re looking for an analogy and not finding one, but perhaps it is clear?

How about this? If a person never fits into his surroundings comfortably, and is never going to, because of what he is and what his surroundings are, can’t we say his nature is quarrelsome, or petulant, or miserable, or however it takes him?

You have the idea of it. We are not sure the underlying idea will be clear to any on the strength of the words alone.

I think you’re simply saying, when our situation is such that it inherently causes persistent results, those results may be said to be a part of our character. To say that wouldn’t be accurate in one sense, but would be an acceptable shorthand for a different way of seeing it.

Good enough, yes. And since we have to remember to include one’s second-tier response to life – that is, how one chooses to respond to life – you can see that both aspects, both ways of seeing, are in fact accurate enough for descriptive purposes, if not necessarily for analytical ones.

So now let’s back up and summarize all this series of questions. We have said:

  • The strength and combinations of emotions in any given lifetime result from the fit or misfit of a soul in its larger (unconscious to it) “external” world.
  • The emotions as they manifest are not chosen by the individual, but are chosen, in effect, by the process of putting a certain mixture of characteristics in a certain time-space-location.
  • The individual cannot choose where it begins – what it begins as – but can and does choose what it will become, by its choices throughout its lifetime, creating second- and then cumulatively third-tier effects.

Perhaps the most important thing we have said is that you in 3D are not primarily reasonable beings proceeding from thoughts. You sometimes like to see yourselves that way, but you aren’t, any more than an animal instinctively defending its offspring at peril of its own life. That isn’t reasonable, and it is essential; in other words, it is more fundamental than reason.

Your lives are based in emotion, not in thought. This does not mean you run amok with feelings. It doesn’t mean your emotional base is violently volatile or immovably quiescent or anything between. It means, only, that as has been said, “Feelings are the language of the soul.” It is in feelings that you connect to your larger self, to the outside world, to each other.

This would be obvious if not for one thing that confuses analysis. Feelings may be, and often are, invisible to the 3D mind. Thus you may be motivated by feelings you are not aware of having.

I think we should make explicit the difference between what you just said and what Dirk has reported. [That is, the absence in his life of certain emotions.]

Yes, although it seems to us that we have already done so, many times.

Conceptually, maybe?

We shall see:

  • Consider the entire range of possible emotions to be an artist’s palette. Call this the complete spectrum.
  • Consider the emotions produced by a person’s 3D experience to be, in effect, a limited palette. No one experiences all Certainly people do not experience them equally. [I take this to mean, we each experience them in different ratios.]
  • Consider the partial palette you employ in your life (or, shall we say, that you seem to be furnished with in your life) to be a subset of the complete spectrum. There is no reason a priori to assume that the spectrum experienced cannot be added to or subtracted from during a lifetime. People change.
  • Another way to classify yourselves would be between experienced and potential or latent emotions. What you have not experienced will be invisible to you. However, looked at more closely, latent emotions reveal themselves to be parts of the complete spectrum that have not manifested, so what advantage is there in deciding that they are or are not parts of one’s emotional makeup?

That seems clear. And a change in environment could produce changes in emotions experienced, I imagine.

Certainly. As could a change in the conscious self. Change either end of the conscious/”external” relationship, and the laminal layer will be affected.

Thus, when Dirk asserts that he does not experience certain emotions, he is correct so long as he silently adds, “at least, not so far.” When others insist that he must have experienced them but not recognized the fact, or suppressed knowledge of it, they are on shakier ground, but need not be considered right or wrong. Sometimes, in 3D, you do suppress or not recognize emotions playing out in life. But sometimes one person’s life does not produce the emotions others would have expected it to, because of reasons not observable by them.

In short, as you always say, “Don’t judge others’ lives, you never have the data.”

Well, it’s the truth.

Anything else?

The consideration of outlying conditions. Psychopaths, for instance.

Yes?

As you can imagine, the range of relationships between an individual’s 3D awareness and its surroundings extends from empath to sociopath. That is, from one whose psychic boundaries are nearly nonexistent to one who lives at the opposite pole of unawareness.

I never happened to think of it that way. Empaths and sociopaths are unaware of boundaries between self and other, the one because it fully participates, the other because it is aware of nothing but self.

That isn’t a definitive statement, but it is a suggestive one. And most people function between the two poles of acceptance and rejection of others. No matter the individual’s makeup, the complete spectrum of emotions is potentially available, but not necessarily available in practice. Second- and third-tier decisions have as much to do with whether a given part of the spectrum is available.

Our thanks as always, and now we will wait for further questions, or for you to begin something else, or time out for a vacation. Till next time, then.

Categories: Intuitive Linked Communication (ILC)

Jane Peranteau’s question

Publish on Comments(0)

Thursday, December 3, 2020

7:05 a.m. Perhaps it is time to get to work again. I see that Louise Calio had emailed me a while ago, asking if Jane Peranteau’s question had ever been addressed. Jane had asked if we in 3D affected the vast impersonal forces in any way beyond how we expressed them in our lives. “In other words, you could say they hone us. Do we hone them? Or is it just about honing us?”

It’s an excellent question, and I might as well start by saying, “Beats me. If we do, I don’t know how. If we don’t, I don’t know why not.” So what say you, friends?

Welcome back. And don’t go feeling guilty or even puzzled by the hiatus. Not everything that expresses in 3D life results from 3D decisions or lack of decision, from 3D action or inaction. And this is part of our response to the question you are finally able to ask us to address.

You will remember, All is one; As above, so below; and Each of you in 3D is a unique window serving as conduit of Spirit which exists ell above 3D influence or manipulation. Holding in mind these givens, look again at the question. What’s the answer?

I don’t know. Is it “Which you?”

That’s part of it, yes. Can you express it a little more fully?

I guess in this context the question is almost meaningless, in that it slides between definitions. Or, doesn’t slide between them, as much as assume one and forget the other.

Yes. Continue.

The question as posed sort of asks if we in our 3D lives affect the vast impersonal forces. If we were separate from the rest of us – the non-3D, and the larger beings from whom we are created as quasi-separate beings, and all the rest of us via the network of interrelations in 3D and non-3D – the answer would probably be, “No, of course we don’t.” But we are not separate. Our 3D decisions help shape our larger being, because they shape us (who are a part of that larger being) via third-tier consequences. I don’t know if that changes the answer to a yes, but clearly it affects the question.

Yes it does. Here’s an analogy to consider. If a life-experience of some kind changes someone, does it change that persona’s children by how it changes the person? Dos it change its friends, associates, enemies, neighbors, parents even?

I don’t see that the question can be answered yes or no. It’s a maybe.

Of course it is. Being changed, someone may or may not change those around it. If so, then yes. If no, then no. If sometimes, or potentially, or slightly or greatly, then that. But you can’t say “yes” or “no” per se.

But it seems to me that in saying maybe, we are implicitly saying “Yes” to at least one sense of Jane’s question. That is, potentially we can affect the vast impersonal forces.

No, that isn’t a valid understanding. We have yet to make it clear. Not even indirectly will you affect those forces. But you may affect how they are experienced – that is, how they manifest. But this is not what you are thinking.

I’m not really thinking anything very clearly. But I was thinking we had gotten somewhere for a moment.

We did, only you went a step too far, too soon. Recalibrate.

Okay.

I see it’s a form of pressing for clarity which, itself, reduces clarity.

There is a right way and a wrong way to do anything. A technique that is appropriate sometimes is not, other times.

So, then?

Let’s return to “you can’t say yes or no per se,” drawing a different set of conclusions. Rather than thinking this demonstrates something directly, let’s look at the nature of things. Does your life change the world? Does it change reality? Does it weigh in the scales in any meaningful way?

Surely you can see that the answer is, “It depends upon the scale you examine the subject in.” Day to day among your family and friends. Long-term among them. Day to day in your world at large, and long-term among them. This is four states right there, at only the most superficial examination of the situation. It doesn’t even begin to address your inner world and its consequences. It doesn’t consider you as part of a network of lives any of which may be affected.

All right, I see that.

Well, it’s the old “focusing the microscope (or telescope)” analogy. What you see depends on what your focal length allows you to see. There isn’t any one answer to all situations, only a “one answer” to a specific way of looking at things.

You’re saying (I think) that our question is ether too broad or too narrow to answer.

We’re saying this is the answer: that it depends on your meaning, which as usual depends on a lot of unconscious or semi-conscious assumptions.

Looking at this, I get that it answers part of Jane’s question. It says, it depends on which “you” we’re thinking of. But doesn’t that still support the conclusion I jumped to earlier, that potentially we can affect the forces?

We see the slippage here. Our qualification was not that you could or couldn’t sometimes affect the world around you even at a higher level: It was that you cannot affect the motivating forces themselves. It’s strictly a matter of disproportion. An atom of seawater, no matter what it does or what happens to it, cannot expect to affect the tides.

Ah! Got it. We don’t affect Spirit, any more than the atom affects the tides. The drop of seawater is part of the sea; it is affected by the tides and cannot not be, but its resistance or compliance (assuming it were capable of such) cannot affect the tide nor the moon that draws it..

Exactly. And if this is not clear, or spurs additional questions, you know where to find us.

Well, I do in theory. What has been going on this past month since November sixth?

That would be telling, as they say. Settle for resumption of access.

Cryptic. Okay, well at any rate thanks for this session.

Categories: Intuitive Linked Communication (ILC)

Continuity in form and pattern

Publish on Comments(4)

Friday, December 4, 2020

5:20 a.m. This email from Bob Washburne came more than three weeks ago. It is in two parts, the second of which perhaps we can address at another time. Guys, do you have anything to say about this interesting question?

[Bob Washburne 11-16-2020

[I have purchased and read all of your non-fiction books….  While trying to get my head around it all, I came up with a question for which I don’t see an obvious answer. Several times TGU tells us that the body is more of a colony than a unit with all of the major organs having their own minds and consciousness. I took this literally rather than allegorically – that the liver has its own mind and consciousness. But if that is the case, where does the liver go when the body dies?  Or the individual liver cells who each have their own minds and consciousness?  I am having trouble applying “As above, so below” to this one as the body per se doesn’t appear to extend beyond the lower astral.]

We do, as it happens. As you know, this is the kind of response we would encourage: He read, he pondered, he tried drawing inferences, and, failing to find a satisfying answer, he asks for clarification.

Yes. Rita’s method.

Hence your transient importance. While you are here, he can ask you to ask us. When you are not here, finding a source of connection may not be obvious, like someone seeking clarification from Seth, say. The information is still there; potential access is still there; plenty of people will be able to access the material both from your point of view and independently. But the question will be, How do you know who to listen to?

And the answer will be, you’ll just have to decide for yourself.

A more careful answer will be, “Righteous persistence brings reward.” It will be up to each one to hone the skill, just as it was for you. You did not learn to ape Cayce. You do not contact Seth, as far as you know. (We don’t mean, by that, that you are contacting Seth unknowingly, but that you are not reaching specifically for that particular source.) You developed your abilities, which often feels like “not doing it right” until you find your feet. You tapped into sources of information suited to your interests, your emotional and mental processes, your known and unknown connections. Things that are easy for you will be hard for others. Things impossible for you will be possible, even easy, for others. There is nothing new in this; it is always that way. Perhaps Swedenborg wouldn’t have found it easy to channel musicals, let’s put it that way.

This amounts to saying, we are all important, all unique, and at the same time all limited, all dispensable.

Isn’t that your experience of life? Only, “dispensable” doesn’t in this context amount to “throwaway.” It means, nobody’s absence will cause the world to come to a halt.

Understood. So about the question specifically?

Applying “As above, so below” is exactly the approach to take here. The difficulty is to find the proper analogy.

I immediately thought, “Trees, animals, any form of consciousness not individuated like our level.”

Yes. Just as any particular maple tree may be regarded as one cell of a larger thought-form known as Maple Tree, so with livers or kidneys or lungs. And this leads to some interesting information we have never wandered into, if you want to hear it.

We do, of course. And in passing I would say (as I suppose we must have said before) that this sounds like Plato’s Ideal forms.

It should.

Now remember, we are looking at the world not as dead (or even living) “matter,” that is, as chunks of things sitting in space interacting, but as concretized thought. If you keep that in mind, many things change. A tree, a brain cell, a bacillus, is real; it exists. It is not a figment of your imagination, but is as real as you are (which, we remind you, is “only somewhat” real). As real, but not necessarily real in the same guise as you.

In other words, it would be a mistake to think that an individual maple tree or liver or liver cell had an individual destiny.

The only reason we would hesitate to agree with that statement is because of the second half, not the first. Your own destinies are not exactly “individual” in the way you are thinking. But subject to that caveat, yes, we agree. The pattern of slowed-down energy that is a liver does not need to (nor can it) evolve. When the 3D body dissolves, as when the tree is chopped down or dies of some infestation, the energy is released. The pattern continues to exist as pattern, and thus shapes future livers or maple trees, but the specific consciousness that the liver or the tree exhibited during life is not bound to repeat as a “more evolved” liver or tree. It is not bound to continue a genetic or a non-3D line, any more than the atoms and molecules and tissues that constitute your bodies are bound to continue in your genetic line. How could they, when your 3D body at any given moment consists of material borrowed for the moment?

Meaning, I take it, that our bodies continually shed cells, acquire cells.

Continuity is in form, in pattern, not in the same old cells proceeding on together.

So, you see, you as an individual are real in one sense, only an abstraction in another. You are permanent in pattern, temporary as manifestation. You can be considered as the holder-together of all the elements that go into your 3D life – physical, mental, personal, impersonal – and at the same time as only temporary from the 3D viewpoint. Your fingernails are not immortal as fingernails. There is no non-3D museum displaying them as relics or examples of you. Just as the physical atoms served and moved on, so the archetype itself may be said to have served as pattern but not been enmeshed in the specific creation. How does a blueprint become a part of the structure it shapes and describes? It doesn’t. The blueprint as blueprint remains in being, but no matter how essential it was to the creation of the thing, it is separate because it is of a different order of things.

You could almost say the cel is not the cartoon. Absurd comparison, but since it came to me, I throw it in.

Let’s say the cel, and the entire construction of the cartoon, is not the same as the projected image, but yes, we agree.

So then the swirl of consciousness that is someone’s liver is a manifestation of a pattern, produced for the occasion and dissolved afterwards.

There’s a little distortion there, but not enough to worry about at the moment.

BTW I questioned Bob’s use of the word “colony” but decided it is a minor quibble.

Welcome to our reality. We are always doing that, deciding which slight misconception needs to be cleared up and which can be slurred over for the sake of making a different point. Nothing wrong with it, that’s just the process, and the closer you look, the wider you will see the examples of it, in 3D as well as non-3D. No, you aren’t a colony as much as a construction. But it is a minor point.

I was intrigued by your saying that this could lead to more interesting information. I suppose we are out of time to even hint at it?

Mostly yes.

A hint, even? A bread-crumb for next time?

All layers of reality exist equally but do not exist in the same way. Hornblower is real in the sense of a mental archetype but not in the sense of a physically existing 3D human. Isn’t now, never was. He was created (or perhaps we should say abstracted) by a 3D creator-being named C.S. Forester. Who created Forester, who lived at another level of being?

That’s a hint, only, and that is enough for the moment.

Hmm. Well, to be continued, I guess. Thanks for all this.

Categories: Intuitive Linked Communication (ILC)

Three questions

Publish on Comments(0)

Saturday, December 5, 2020

3:30 a.m. In considering emotion and our lives, two inputs, one from Bill Ebeltoft, one from Dirk. How about it, guys? Compare and contrast? Or at least comment?

 

[From Bill Ebeltoft

[Question from Dave: Since emotions come from this interface layer, how do we change them?

[My perception is we don’t change them; we each interpret them through or own set of filters. We then react to them. How we react is our choice, we choose to react in a specific manner. By choosing, we can change the filter through which we perceive them, thus how we may react subsequently.

[My question to my guy’s was: Is this a reasonable or possible correct interpretation?

[Their answer: Yes, within the space you are working in, this is a reasonable interpretation. Of course, it is always a bit more complex than that. But a good place to start.]

 

[TGU:] It is an interesting starting-point, the question whether in your 3D lives you change the emotions your experience, or interpret and react and, in your reaction, you change you. That is, you change your end of the interface.

May I rephrase? I think you mean, “or do we, by reacting, change what we are, which changes the equation.”

Same thing. Let’s rephrase the whole situation. Emotions are the boundary between small 3D-you and either the “external” world or your larger 3D and non-3D you, whichever way you choose to see it. So emotion per se is beyond your control in the way the weather is beyond your control. You can carve out a greater amount of control over how you react, but that isn’t the same thing. In other words, the emotion you interface with may be regarded as a constant (in that you cannot affect what comes or how strong) but your reaction to it, hence your degree of freedom, is a variable that is potentially under your control, in that you by your second-tier reactions can change the equation. The same input may express differently depending upon what it interfaces with.

George Washington controlling his temper by a lifetime’s rigid self-discipline.

Yes. To look at it merely externally for the moment, would an undisciplined Washington have experienced the soul-searing experience of the winter at Valley Forge in the same way that in fact he did? And would such a version of Washington have been able to command the respect and allegiance of his officers and men? Life in 3D is not primarily about externals (though it looks like it is), but here is one external that should illustrate the point.

So in response to Bill’s interpretation we would say (minor correction) it isn’t exactly the filter of perception that you change. Rather, it is the mechanism of reaction that changes.

Not so much that we perceive differently but that we choose to react differently.

Yes. By choosing how you will react to something, you choose what you will see subsequently. You change the world coming at you, hence you change the emotional layer interpreting and intervening in your life.

Not sure I really understand that.

The laminar level – the smooth or turbulent connection between inner and outer world (for this is how it appears to you) – changes automatically if one or the other end of the equation changes, or if both do. That’s what it is, a boundary and a bridge, but an energetic, dynamic, barrier and bridge, not something solid or static.

So, moving on to Dirk’s analogy to physical systems —

 

[From Dirk

[So might we then, in thinking about the difficulty of the boundary interface and laminar flow as a model for emotions, also consider that one way to change that is to change the nature of the (our) interface.

[E.g. in engineering, laminar and turbulent flows are commonly encountered. At times it is desirable to change these conditions. There are many ways to do this. One way is to change the boundary. I.e. make it rougher or smoother, add specific surface shapes to it, make it porous and either allow some leakage, or inject something across the boundary, change the surface character by making it harder, softer, more or less resilient, or chemically more or less similar to the fluid, or adding various things through the surface that change the nature of the flow – such as oils, soaps, alcohols, …  Then there are other ways beyond the boundary. We can even do things like adding or removing vibrations at one or many frequencies, introduce patterns in the surface, ….

[Might we consider that energetically we have a near infinite multitude of ways to metaphorically make similar changes the (our) emotional interface?]

 

One way to apply it would be to consider the habitual reactions you can build, the second-tier reactions we discussed. What is that but redesigning aspects of yourself so that the same input from the emotional layer will meet a different you, hence express differently.

[Pause]

That’s it?

You need more?

I don’t know, somehow I expected it would require a more in-depth discussion.

We don’t see the need, but if questions arise, you know where to find us, as we said earlier.

Anent that, since we have some time, part two of Bob Washburne’s email of Nov. 16:

[Also, I purchased the full Gateway Experience CDs several years ago (the newer ones which included Focus 15 and Focus 21) although I have never been to the campus.  I have used them may times, but I don’t seem to be getting anywhere.  That is, I can readily attain the different levels at will without the CDs, but I don’t seem to be able to do anything with them. For one thing, I never see anything but black.  No images, no sounds other than the ringing in my ears, no voices, no emotion downloads. Just black. Second, my awareness seems to be nailed right behind my eyeballs and nothing can shake it loose. So is there a self-help group for slow psychics?]

And as you know, many people experience excruciating difficulties in connecting.

Yes, they do, and being individual they respond in different ways. Some take it personally, some assume they are at fault, some travel hopefully, some despair.

And many of us move from point to point along that scale, until we succeed or we concede failure. I just went through a month of being unable even to summon the energy to try to connect. That’s what it felt like, anyway. And I well remember the two or three years  before I did Gateway, using the tapes, trying, intending, hoping and not succeeding.

Your second-tier reaction to that long preparation served you well. You did not get angry, nor did you despair.

I sort of hoped against hope.

Righteous persistence did bring reward. But remember, what you learned at Gateway was that you had been asking the wrong question, or let’s say, had been expecting things to appear in the wrong guise. Your unconscious expectations added to your difficulties.

Very true, and after nearly 30 years of experience, I have learned to advise people of some of the usual pitfalls. But a listing of obstacles, and a listing of suggested ways to overcome them, does not amount to a magic formula.,

There isn’t a magic formula, unless it be “Persist, live in faith, live your life knowing that although it may not be what you wish it were, it is right for you.” Not so easy a magic formula to follow, yet not an impossible one, either.

You can understand that to us in 3D it sounds a little like “It isn’t under your control, so ride with it.”

Yes, it does, doesn’t it. And is that erroneous? Your life is not under your 3D control, and it is well that it isn’t, or your life would be a maze with no exit. What is under your control, we remind you, is how you react to what happens to you. Seen in a certain light, that is no different from George Washington continually molding his character.

So what of someone trying sincerely and seeming to get nowhere?

The operative word – as you knew when you wrote it – is “seeming.” But life can require quite a lot of patience and faith, because often what you are really working on is not at all what you think you are working on.

Yes, I’ve seen that often enough in my life.

It’s an inevitable effect of your 3D consciousness being less than your larger consciousness that has a better perspective. So you may strive earnestly and diligently and seem to get nowhere. But the striving itself is “getting somewhere,” if you can realize it.

So our life is not so much Sisyphus, everlastingly pushing a rock uphill, only to see it fall to the bottom, making him continue an endless fruitless labor. It is more George Washington, a life presenting endless possibilities to work on character?

Don’t carry it too far, but yes. Success in what you want is not necessarily the same as (or worth as much as) success in what your intent and actions make yourselves.

And there’s your hour.

And pretty efficiently employed, too. Our thanks as always.

Categories: Intuitive Linked Communication (ILC)

Sex and our lives

Publish on Comments(0)

Wednesday, January 13, 2021

7 a.m. Okay, guys, I’m ready if you are, for however long my energy lasts. Advice? Commentary?

Your earlier instinct was correct: Your medical condition will take a certain amount of time and attention from here on in, so use your energy and attention – and intent – wisely.

Wrapping things up.

Not the way that sounds, but let’s say tying off loose ends while it is relatively easy to do, rather than allowing them to get harder to take care of because of neglect.

Are we finished – you and I – bringing in new material?

That depends entirely upon which road you choose to follow. It isn’t like anything is set in stone. What is set in stone is, You Choose. It is that way for you and for everybody, and it doesn’t change just because you think you’re finished or because you want to be finished or because you insist on continuing. You are in 3D to choose, as we may have mentioned once or twice, and second-tier choice [how we choose to react to what has happened to us] remains available on your deathbed. Indeed, one could almost say that for some people, that is a reason (not the reason, but a reason) for a prolonged deathbed process, to allow time for a final choice of attitudes toward the life one has led, the values one has affirmed or denied or waffled on or betrayed.

Nice reminder that it isn’t our external actions but finally our internal choices that matter.

It isn’t an either/or, but yes.

I loved our last series on emotion and feeling and had the sense that it didn’t come to a natural end, but just stopped. Can we resume?

Perhaps we should resume not so much by making statements as by positing questions and suggesting to your readers that they consult their guidance on the subject.

Sounds like a good idea, winnowing away from me and my limited stock of energy and moving them more into position as co-contributors.

Yes. A necessary step in any case, unless your and our work together over three decades is to be merely a monument to a collaboration rather than a doorway to greater life.

I hesitated between “life” and “consciousness.”

Either will do. Very well, let us pose a question which will require minimal energy from you (that is, merely the transcription) and may lead those who address it very far, if they will only trust their process. Be warned, though, it will take unprecedented layers of vulnerability and honesty. But then, that is part of the price of admission.

Shoot.

In considering your lives as 3D beings who are also in non-3D and who are also intimately connected to other 3D lives through connections known, unknown, suspected, dimly felt in distorted or less distorted form –

Consider everything we discussed about reason v feelings in terms of one supremely insistent factor in your lives: sex.

I take it you aren’t expecting or asking for personal revelations.

Not vis a vis each other, no, but some straight thinking will bring you far. Sex is the deepest, most mysterious fact of life, and the vast majority of your thought, feeling, obsession, curiosity, compulsion around the subject is necessarily kept secret not only from each other but from yourselves. Unlock this dangerous room and you will open to a dragon and a treasure.

So the question is: What light does sex shed on your lives as 3D creatures choosing what you will be? This is throwing you into the deep end of the pool, but if you have been following these discussions, it must be important to you. Get off the bleacher seats now, and get into the pool, or miss a major opportunity. There is a reason why heroes and heroines brave dragons to seek treasure. To coin a phrase, there is no royal road to transcendence.

Enough for the moment, perhaps for quite a while.

 

Categories: Intuitive Linked Communication (ILC)