Month: November 2020

Thursday, November 9, 2017

ETs and us

Let us return to the question of your place among others in the 3D universe, remembering that 3D is a subset of All-D, and not a world in itself.

That amounts to saying, remember that 3D is more than it seems to be.

That, and that not only are its limits larger and wider than may appear, but its apparent isolation from other parts of itself is only apparent and not actual.

Invisible connections, yes.

Between worlds, no less than between individuals. When you keep that fact front and center in your mind, many things look different. You are never isolated, really, but 3D conditions lead you to define all situations in isolation. The very process of analysis consists of taking certain factors and considering them in isolation. When something is so universal, there is no point in bemoaning it or even in trying to avoid it. No point, and no need. Being aware of it as an influencing factor is enough. But, that awareness is necessary, or you’ll never be able to draw the connections that hold the world together.

By “world,” you don’t mean just Earth, I know, but 3D in general. Learned that years ago.

Some people concern themselves with what they think of as an “alien threat” to Earth, as if you were American Indians being invaded by Europeans.

Well, you have to admit, that is a discouraging analogy.

Perhaps a productive one, in fact. But for the moment we wish to stress interaction over isolation.

No absolute separations

I’m getting a sense of what you want to get to, but you haven’t said it yet. More or less – we already aren’t alone, we already aren’t racially pure, so to speak, and even that we aren’t necessarily the original inhabitants. But I’m not sure I quite got that right.

You got the elements of it. An assumption of isolation assumes, either “we are alone” or “we were alone, and now we are threatened with newcomers.” It assumes “we are the human race, and they are alien.” It assumes, “Earth is our home and others are impinging on what was always ours.” But realize that no one enters the world alone.

We don’t give birth to ourselves. We don’t nurture ourselves, or feed and clothe and toilet-train ourselves. We come into this world into a family, into a society. Although we may become orphaned, still somebody takes care of us, at least for some years, or we cannot live.

That’s right. Life is interdependent. There really is no isolation, though often enough there is the appearance of isolation. So with the individual, so with the human race. An assumption of splendid isolation is mostly a comforting (or, perhaps, a chilly) illusion.

In a very real sense, humans are part of a cosmic family. You have other “species” in your personal family tree; you have lifetimes in other places in your personal history. The people in 3D Earth that you love and interact with also have the same extensive invisible links, which means – once again we come to it – that since you here are all one thing, therefore you are part of the overall “all one thing.” There is no separation in any absolute sense. We just have to keep coming back to this. In All-D, in non-3D, in 3D, you are part of all that is. There are no absolute divisions in reality.

Other-ness

I can imagine some people saying, “Yes, I get it, you don’t have to beat it to death, but what does this have to do with anything?”

If there are such, they should realize that any form of fear stems from a sense of isolation and difference. Apply that fact to the question of ETs and what do you see?

I think I begin to see what you are driving at. It is the labels that are causing fear (or even, shall we say, ungrounded anticipation).

That’s where we’re headed, correct. If you label people “Jews” in Nazi Germany, if you make them wear visible labels, if you distinguish them in ways that never distinguished them before, so that honored professional soldiers, doctors, scholars, whatever, were now seen as Jewish soldiers, etc., that is the first step toward segregating them from the rest of society. If that had been done, even in the absence of Nazi terror, still the damage would have been done in that they would no longer have been an accepted part of society, but a perceived “other.”

That’s the situation of blacks and Latinos in our society, of course, and of most immigrants from Europe at least until they learned the language and / or changed their names, and lived here for a generation or two.

There is a biological instinct to reject the other. A significantly different individual may be driven to the fringe of the herd, as you read in van der Post years ago; as you saw in the schoolyard years before that. As with any widespread phenomenon, there is no use railing against it, and there is sense in at least suspecting that the race is wiser than the individual. But on the other hand, it is the task of the individual to see things differently. The better s/he does this, the greater the gift s/he gives to the herd.

Family

Now apply this to ETs, once again. Work on the assumption that they too are family. You can have little idea how close or distant the inner relationships may be, but consider, these are your family no less than your fellow Terrans.

That implies that they may have rights here that we don’t recognize.

Do you know if you have rights in the worlds of the Pleiades? Maybe everybody who is family has a right to share in the estate. Maybe a given world is inhabited by squabbling clan members. Maybe you, as individuals, are part of larger beings some of whose substance exists on other 3D worlds.

I am wary of our going off on some flight of fancy, as so often seems to happen on this subject.

Remember, words as sparks, not as law.

All right.

So, some people see flying saucers etc.

Want me to try that one? Or do you want to start it again?

You try.

When some people come to accept the possibility or reality of flying saucers etc. they naturally think in terms of invasion by “the other.” Some, facing the same possibility, are excited at the idea of a larger community. Some, generalizing from Earth history, view the prospect as a mixture of good and bad possibilities.

And – see yesterday’s discussion – none of these positions is “wrong” or “right.” They are alternative positions that one may be led to take – and what will lead you to take a position is your own composition and experience (which is saying the same thing twice, in a way). The evidence is always going to be ambiguous, just as it is in your normal interaction with other Terrans. Even if you stand there talking to an admitted ET, thus setting to rest the question of “Do they exist” and of “Are they here,” you still must decide, “Who is this person? What is s/he? Can s/he be trusted? Can s/he even be understood?” (Motives, background, etc.)

And if we reconceptualize them as family – family in a biological sense, almost – everything is the same and everything changes.

In the first place, not “almost.” In the second place, it isn’t that externals change, but you change, which is part of the equation, therefore the equation changes. We know you know that, but it is just as well to state it clearly.

I get the sense this is a long subject, and a long way to go, though I don’t see where, yet. Okay, thanks as usual, and we’ll see you next time.

 

Wednesday, November 8, 2017

Ideas and individuals

My friend Jim sees human suffering as being designed by non-physical powers to cause suffering so as to produce what Bob Monroe called Loosh, which can be used by these beings for their own purposes. Everything you have said that I take as evidence of our interaction, he seems to take as evidence of our being manipulated for the benefit of others. I think this is a fair summary of his position.

And your part in it?

I’d like to show him that that isn’t how I experience it, but words are so clumsy that we all attach our own meanings to what we read. Plus, I have come to see that there isn’t really any persuading anybody about anything. As you have pointed out, words are sparks, not law.

So, where is the problem?

Yeah, I know. He has a different view of things and so what? But I can’t help thinking if I can’t say anything helpful, still maybe you can.

But why would we want to do that? If his life has led him to his own conclusions, presumably there is a reason for it.

[!] There ought to be a way to show the “this-then-this-then-this” process that happens somehow. We need some kind of super exclamation point, to show when we experience a fast concatenation of realizations.

Lacking that, center, slow down, and trace them out, not trying to reproduce the sequence, only to sketch where you came to.

Well, when you said that, I connected several insights, each of which led instantly – faster than memory could record – to new ones. It was nearly instant, didn’t take more than a flash, but reoriented several previously unconnected ideas.

• We don’t come to our ideas without a reason.
• Our ideas express our own psychic realities; they are not really data-driven.
• They are necessary to our overall development; they cannot be accidental or irrelevant.
• Our lives are not meant as expressions of some ultimate or abstract truth, but as expressions of who and what we are. As part of that, we entertain only the ideas we can and (one might almost say) should, ought to, entertain.

Now why do you suppose a simple question would realign all that?

Because I was ready, I suppose, and your rhetorical question – not so rhetorical, I guess – sparked it.

And that is all you can do, need ever do, should ever do. Your ideas, your ways of seeing the world, your prejudices, your hunches, your unreasoning or seemingly baseless certainties, are all part of you, and you embody them for a reason. No ideas are better than any other ideas for a given person.

I think you mean that for any given person, some ideas are going to seem right and others wrong. So there’s no judging another person’s ideas without in effect judging the person – and we have been told for years that we never have the data to judge anyone else, or even ourselves. We are here to express what we are, and of course our ideas are part of that expression.

Correct so far.

Whether our ideas are more accurate or less is something we also can’t guess, because we don’t have that data either. A heliocentric view of the solar system is right in terms of physics and a geocentric one is right in terms of psychology, say.

I think you will find, when you look at it, that most of your social and ideological and political problems stem from the idea that there is a right and a wrong, a correct and an incorrect, and everybody and his position should be judged by how closely their position agrees with somebody’s idea of what is right. Since everybody’s ideas are different, anything other than “live and let live” – which is itself an idea – leads to chaos, which is what you are experiencing. (This ignores, for simplicity of statement, complicating factors such as greed, manipulation, etc., but they too stem from what people are, both individually and in packs.)

I can sort of see it. This assumption that there is one truth leads to assumptions that (of course) wherever we are is nearer the truth than anybody else, or we would move. And, it invalidates other ideas, hence invalidates other people themselves who hold these ideas.

Well, isn’t that what you see all around you?

It is, for sure, particularly in the poor excuse for a country that used to be America. Liberals and conservatives are tearing it to pieces in the name of fighting to preserve it. I have been saying for months that they’re all crazy, acting identically only around different ideas. But I hadn’t thought, until now, to see that it is fueled by each side feeling that the other side is invalidating them as what they are. Obvious, once I see it, but it wasn’t obvious before.

Reconciling beliefs

And this leaves you in something of a dilemma. By nature, you are going to believe in some things. You couldn’t function without beliefs. (Sartre lived on his belief that belief was meaningless.) Naturally you want to defend those beliefs, or, at minimum, live by them, as best you can. So how can you at the same time live your beliefs – in tolerance, say, or in everyone’s right to life, or in freedom of action, or in the value of community – and at the same time respect the beliefs of others that may be directly contradictory, especially if those “others” place no value on tolerance or “live and let live”?

In any dilemma, remember context. Dilemmas, like paradoxes, always resolve at a higher level and – like contradictions, usually – only at a higher level. So here, you need to remember (a) you exist beyond 3D limitations, (b) the 3D plane is only somewhat real, but is somewhat real, (c) no accidents, no coincidence, no ultimate separation; that is, everything is one.

That is almost too concise, and could do with some unpacking.

Feel free. We will assist, if necessary.

I guess your first point means, whatever we manifest in 3D, it stems from our All-D being, which implies a greater awareness. I’m not sure how this applies.

It has many ramifications. Who you are connects to who you are not just in this one lifetime, but to “past lives” in all their ramifications. Your actions and thought are less under your conscious 3D control than you sometimes think, because what psychologists call “unconscious” content – and we might call beyond-your-3D-only content – often puts in its oar. This isn’t interference by some “other” – in that it is part of you, after all – but it may frequently seem so.

Your second point, I take it, is that what we do here does have consequences, but at the same time isn’t the whole story. We can’t ever see the whole show, for reasons we’ve gone into more than once.

That’s right; and it also means that the rights and wrongs of a situation look different when seen from a longer or deeper perspective.

And I guess your third point is merely that we have to try to remember and keep real to ourselves the fact that “us v. other” is at most a relative distinction.

And there’s your hour. Notice, we used your question as a starting-point to make points of our own. Nothing wrong with proceeding that way.

Nothing at all. Okay, thanks.

Implications

As I think about it, the implications of this morning’s material keep growing, and the actual change (in ideas) required is less. All it amounts to is seeing ideas differently, but that changes everything it touches, which means, our entire 3D existence. You gentlemen care to help me out on this? Care to trace the logic?

It isn’t so much logic as it is relationship. If ideas are abstractly right or wrong according to some absolute standard, then anyone and everyone – not least, one’s own self – may safely be judged by how far their ideas diverge from the truth. But this is much the same as postulating an absolute standard of morality.

I certainly know what that is like! My own background and childhood (and therefore my unconscious thoughts to this day, probably) were formed within the Catholic Church (interesting that I started to write “Catholic Christ”) of the 1940s and 50s. There is no more absolute standard than that, maybe. With time I lost my resentment and came to see the advantages of such a background, but I never questioned the existence of an absolute standard of good and evil, only the human error involved in comprehending and applying it.

Meaning, you agreed with some Church doctrine and disagreed with other.

That’s what it amounted to, yes. I went my own way, trying to use my own thought and judgment (in practice, my own feelings), but I did not ever question that there was some such absolute. Even when I came to see that situational ethics were not only defensible but inevitable, I didn’t doubt that the issue was our adapting that inner code to specific 3D circumstances. In other words, who would want to adhere to the accepted code of Tudor England, or Ancient Greece or Rome, or Tsarist or Stalinist Russia? In socially accepted codes there could be no firm anchor. (I don’t think I’m putting this as well as you might, as I’m having to write and think at the same time.) Yet it seemed clear that in adapting our behavior to the time, we were still doing so in reference to an absolute that I would now say came out of the non-3D, or let’s say, simply, from our All-D awareness rather than our specifically 3D-bounded awareness.

And if there is no such absolute standard? Yet, how can that be?

I don’t know yet. I’m feeling my way toward an answer. That’s why I called you-all in.

If there is a universal, there are degrees of error in perceiving it, in living it, in attempting to comply with it (which, in short, quickly becomes attempting to enforce it). You can see this in the history of every society, every church, every association. Scientists are as prone to it as priests are, perhaps even more so in that they admit no mechanism for repentance and absolution.

It boils down to, this is the ultimate result of eating of the fruit of the tree of perceiving things as good or evil. In other words, 3D Theater, as I used to call it, is inherently partial, partisan, relatively intolerant, uneasy, even, in a sense, hysterical. (And I don’t mean funny!)

That may be stretching it a little. Yes, it may tend that way; it needn’t stay there. As you change perceptions, you change your reality, just as you have been told more than once.

We can undo the effects of the descent into perceived duality? Is that what you mean?

You can’t do it for others; you can perhaps do it for yourself and – as you would put it – leave a trail of bread crumbs for others. After all, think how many, many loaves of bread have been crumbled to bring you (plural) to this point. The work of realigning your perceptions won’t get done automatically; you need to work the problem that is your life. But it can be done; you have vast supportive forces of which you are usually unaware, some of which you will never be aware of. But it can be done. Only – don’t then judge those whose path leads in other directions! To judge them would be a demonstration that you haven’t yet changed directions yourselves.

This has moved a long way from my initial perception, which was that we can look at other people’s opinions as an indicator of where they are, rather than where they ought to be.

Not so far, just in a direction you didn’t expect. Now go do other things.

 

 

Tuesday, November 7, 2017

“It’s always something”

All right, since I have to be up anyway, I suppose we should begin. I know that doesn’t sound particularly gracious; you know I love doing this, but I’d be just as happy to do it under fewer physical constraints.

It does not occur to you perhaps that this maximizes the use of those constraints. That otherwise you would have the constraints but nothing productive to do within them.

You think I don’t know that, after a lifetime of sitting up reading, rocking forward and back, painful breath by painful breath? I’m not going to go into it, but I’m damn well aware of the advantages of being able to use physical problems as a sort of platform to kick away from. And if uncomfortable nights were the price I had to pay to be able to do this, I’d be perfectly happy to make the bargain. Only, why should it be? It’s the same unexplainable contradiction I’ve always lived within: I know that I should be able to just – turn something, adjust something – and be well, only I can’t find it. And this isn’t just about me, obviously. Everybody wrestles with something; why can’t awareness overcome it?

You have been down this line of thought more than once. Worth looking again, as you are in a different place now than before.

Then let’s look, by all means.

If you could wish away your problems, so to speak – that is, if you had Aladdin’s lamp to grant you even one wish, let alone three – what good would it do you? In fact, look how much harder it would make your lives. It is much like you were told once, if you had an infallible source of knowledge of what is going to happen, wouldn’t you then be prone to Psychic’s Disease? As long as you function in 3D, you function under limitations, and if it isn’t one thing, it will be something else.

Well, my father always used to say, in exasperation, “It’s always something.”

Yes, we smile too, but of course it is always something. That’s life. And by that we mean, not just “That’s the way life goes,” but, more, “that is the essence and fabric and value of life.” And not just limitation, but conflict, problems, difficulty. The very things you may be prone to think of as drawbacks to life are, in fact, demonstrations that all is well, all is always well.

So much easier to see that in other people’s situation, but I do see it. If we are here to choose and to create ourselves (if only by choosing among versions, which one we prefer to live, moment by moment), then obviously there must be things to choose between, and for the choices to matter to us, one must be more attractive, one less attractive. Which implies problems.

That is taking things a little too much at a gallop. Let’s look at it slowly.

I know, I know. Concentrate: con-center-ate.

Centering

And you see the first thing that happens?

It seems my breathing improved, only it isn’t quite that, is it?

The overall feeling improved because although the wheezing continued, the circumambient tightening of the muscles relaxed, reducing the discomfort.

I had a definite sense that you wanted me to use “circumambient,” which ordinarily I wouldn’t. Why?

It is more precise, more descriptive, than merely saying “surrounding.”

And that is important, why?

Perhaps your habits of thought and expression are not so uniquely and entirely yours as you may think.

Okay. And I get that that is a real point, not just a comment. In other words, we’re all in this together; 3D and non-3D, individual and what we might call our mental or at least non-3D community.

You see, anything widens out, at least potentially, if you concentrate. Slower isn’t necessarily deeper, but it may be. It’s up to what you do with it. Faster may get you safely over thin ice; not necessarily, but maybe. It is, as we say, all a matter of how you live it.

So, to return to my statement that was made too much at a gallop?

No need for us to spell it out for you. Sink into it. That is the advantage of writing, after all; the words don’t move.

It isn’t quite a matter of setting up problems so we will have things to choose among.

No, not Shaw’s “moral gymnasium.” So then, what?

I am forgetting the universal in thinking of the individual.

That’s the right idea, but – slower.

Tides

Well, in thinking of the choices and problems we face in life, it is tempting, or maybe I should say it is habitual, for us to think of our situation in isolation, because that is of course how it will present itself. And I see the relevance of the allusion to speed. In our day-to-day situations, we are usually skating, just having enough to deal with, moment by moment, and perhaps little enough time – even if we have the inclination – to examine what comes more closely, slower. Because maybe any situation, any set of choices, offers insight into larger things, if we have the time and inclination to feel our way into it.

Your lives are never accidentally dropped into circumstances. Inner and outer are the same thing seen differently, remember, one through direct feed via intuition (or, non-3D link), the other through sensory apparatus and extensions. So where is the possibility for meaningless occurrence? Not every choice is momentous; that doesn’t mean that it and its context are meaningless.

Slowly, feeling my way into it, as you suggested. So, our lives are bound into the times we live; we know that about our outer circumstances. That means we are equally bound into the times we live internally. Have to be, since it is the same thing. Which means our thoughts and feelings and all are caught in a tide. Have to be. We are not independent, though we think we are; we are independent to a degree, and social to a degree.

This should be obvious to someone who has studied astrology and seen the tides running through the lives of everyone on Earth, not just any one given person. What the tides react on, or let’s say individually affect

Let me.

Go.

The cosmic tides, call them, are what they are, and they are that as a sort of background for us all. But that isn’t what we experience. We experience the result of the interaction between the tide and the individual we are, shaped at a particular moment of time and place. [That is, shaped at birth.] So, we all live in the same – circumambient, since you like that word – cosmic tide, but the individual is affected by that tide differently depending upon what that tide works on; that is, what it finds pre-formed [by previous decisions] at any given moment.

Didn’t we posit vast impersonal forces on the one hand, and individual complicated pipes for those winds to play through?

Yes, clear enough now, in this context.

So was it worth while to be rousted out of bed?

I may cease to answer rhetorical questions.

Yes, good. We smile too. But you see.

Well, I see further implications, too, accurate or not. It seems to imply that certain problems can only be worked with at certain times.

Again, just a little slower.

What I mean is, it’s just what astrology would tell us: At any given moment, certain things are easier for the given individual (depending upon his or her composition) and other things harder. Does this quite imply that whatever problem or opportunity surfaces at any given moment is the best thing to concentrate on?

Easiest, anyway. “Best” is a matter of value and judgment.

And there’s our hour. Well, it turned out to be pretty productive, I think. Not what I would have expected.

There is something to be said for taking what comes.

I do know that. At least, for my kind of person. Other types tend to shape things more, it seems to me.

Hammers make poor screwdrivers. Wrenches make poor drill-bits. Every implement to its own uses.

Thanks as always.

[And as a sort of PS, I had already closed the book when it occurred to me – with help? – that this entry is an example of taking what comes. They began where I was and continued as they were able to. Maybe from their point of view they’re always doing that.]

 

Monday, November 6, 2017

Alien realities

All right, my friends. ETs?

Let’s discuss 3D and non-3D relationships. There is more than one way to be an alien. We are going to keep coming back to this point: There is one reality with local subdivisions, not fragmented or segmented realities.

Either you are saying something new that I am not getting yet, or we’re being careless with our phrasing – you are or I am – and said “reality” when we meant “universe,” or 3D universe,” or something.

Both senses are true. In this particular case we are stressing the continuity between what is usually considered to be two different subjects, so the language is going to be vague at first, likely. The question of alien 3D life obviously involves the question of alien non-3D life, but the connection is only obvious once mentioned.

So – to be clear – the two subjects are ETs and –?

The nature of your own non-3D world, which means the nature of the All-D, which implies the question of what you can see out-of-body; how far you can go; what you may or may not be able to imagine.

Still not clear. Getting less hazy.

Your out-of-body explorers – let’s confine our discussion for the moment to Bob Monroe’s tales, which you are familiar with.

Yes. A seeming contradiction, his tales in Far Journeys of AA and BB traveling around, basically for kicks, finding Earth and AA getting sucked into physical life because it is so intense and vibrant. It seems to us usually that non-3D is not tied to locality, but is free to move at will. This material seems to be saying that in any given place, what we experience as non-3D is really a subset of All-D, and therefore must be tied to one locality. The non-physical Canada, for instance. The 3D is not a sort of Disneyland theme park.

And the word that came to you while writing that?

“Non-locality.” But I have only a vague sense of the connection. I almost interrupted my sentence to give a big “aha!” because I sensed it was a key somehow, but I didn’t, because I don’t know what it lights up, only that it does, or anyway will.

Here is the key to the contradiction. Only, don’t expect it to clear up the whole intricate subject in three words. But it is a trail through the forest, anyway.

Life in 3D implies life in one locality. You are in one place, at one time. Yet you know that 3D is a subset of All-D, and All-D does not exist in these limited conditions. The All-D, you already know, comprises all the timelines in which you exist. So, in a sense you in 3D, by way of your own nature in non-3D (as the other part of All-D) also exist in the same conditions that you now recognize to apply to All-D.

May I untangle? I got the sense of it in writing that, but since the process involved my writing while shifting (so to speak), I don’t see how it could have come out clearly, and it certainly didn’t.

This is as much about process as content, remember. Go ahead.

I think what we’re getting at here is that what we experience depends mostly upon not what external subject we think about, but what part of ourselves we experience while perceiving. If we think of ourselves in our accustomed 3D definitions, we naturally experience the world of 3D, with separation in time and space one prominent characteristic. If we think of ourselves as our larger non-3D-bounded beings, we experience the world as nonlocal (because the separations in space are not absolute but perceptual) and time-ranging (because the separations in time are not barriers but, shall we say, a way of keeping times sorted).

Yes, except “think about” isn’t right. It’s more, “feel,” or “experience.” It isn’t your thought about who and what you are that matters. The thought may (or may not!) lead you to what does matter, which is your knowing, your working from, your identity as a being that surpasses, and never was confined to, 3D limitations.

Our divine as opposed to our human nature.

Not so much “as opposed to,” but yes.

So what you call non-physical exploration is not and cannot be non-physical as long as you experience yourselves as 3D beings, having a non-3D experience. You see? Your definitions alter your perceptions.

I take it that you mean, our self-definitions conscious or otherwise.

Precisely, and of course “otherwise” here as everywhere is the strongest.

What is unconscious has power over us, if only because it is invisible to us and therefore we identify its effects as ours.

That’s right. So, consider pioneer Bob Monroe. Consider him not from his unknowable inner process, inner experience, inner starting and ending points. Instead, just look at what he left on the record.

In his three books.

The three books are fixed in form (although their meaning will change as time changes the reader), but the experiences he facilitated for others are also part of his legacy, and must be taken into consideration.  Thus, people who have experiences in one of his TMI programs are a part of his external record, and by nature not a fixed but an ever-varying format, because they proceed from his way of phrasing things. Can you explain?

We’ll see. I get that Bob necessarily wrote his books as if we were the 3D beings we experience ourselves to be – limited, separated individuals – with a hitherto unsuspected additional non-physical dimension. In essence, he portrayed us as individual ghosts able to interact with other individual ghosts, that “ghost-ness” being our true nature, and our 3D experience being just that, an experience, rather than our true nature. I imagine that this was his own starting-point, and I imagine that either he didn’t move from that definition or, more likely, he figured that he would have to begin there in order to relate to his readers. From that individual starting-point, he moved to talking about his I-There and his new self-identification as a human who was really a ghost that was not individual except in a manner of speaking, being a part of a much larger being from which he stemmed and to which he remained connected.

This is enough for now.

Okay. I do get the sense we have begun to clear up the latest contradiction.

It will get more obscure before it gets clearer, but yes, good work on both our parts, today. Till next time.

Till next time.

 

Sunday, November 5, 2017

Do you have a subject today?

We have hardly begun the subject of who you are, in bodies on Earth, in connection to the larger 3D and non-3D universe.

So there will always be a subject to pursue, I get it. Very well, then –

You must continue to remind yourselves of the basics, if you are to make sense of things. For brevity, we cannot keep spelling them out every time. Your work is to keep them current in your active memory.

No absolute divisions, as above so below, etc.

Yes, but the “etc.” is important! Very well. As we said, we will not recite our version of your unsuspected history, lest it encourage fantasizing, incredulity, dogmatism, contention. You have enough of all that to deal with. Instead, we concentrate on what can be – shall we say – emotionally verifiable. In other words, we will suggest relationships and you will decide for yourselves what resonates and what does not. That way, you are left with an approach and a task.

Okay.

Different situations

Consider: Your situation in 3D is the same as that of every other species in 3D, regardless whether they are so far away you never come across them. (You as a species, we mean; as civilizations; not you as individuals.)

Another system may have entirely different physical rules. Things may operate unrecognizably. Still, you are all compound beings; you are all creations of your larger selves who exist in a greater reality, a realer reality, that may conveniently be thought of as of more dimensions than 3D – so long as you remember that “dimension” is an analogy, a construct, no matter how solid dimensions now seem to you as a result of your having seen things that way all your lives.

Just as physical conditions will vary from one place to another, so will what we might call social, or psychological conditions. Every species has its own challenges and opportunities, and no two are identical between species any more than they are between individuals within a species, on a smaller scale.

Yes, so I gather. Some civilizations may not experience war, or even fear.

Or competition, or the convincing illusion of separation, that’s correct. Not every species ate of the tree of “perceiving things as good and evil.”

Difficult, but attractive, to think of a world that is still in 3D yet lives without fear, and competition, and warfare, and – presumably – the seven deadly sins.

No need to make idyllic comparisons. Every life in 3D is going to have its problems that will be challenge enough for it. Otherwise why experience 3D life at all?

Deepening

Some will ask, are ETs living on Earth? Have Terrans lived elsewhere? Is physical interbreeding past or present fact or fiction? They may ask

Yes?

[Long pause]

I feel like John Nash in the movie A Beautiful Mind, who sometimes would freeze in place, but who could easily resume if someone jogged his arm. Where did you go?

Experience more of this.

[I had drawn a doodle on my desk pad a while ago, and now I found myself drawn into it. I’ll cut it out and reproduce it, though I don’t think the doodle per se is the point here.]

In just such a way, using whatever is convenient, you can learn to go deeper into whatever subject matter you look at, because it isn’t the object, but the subject – you – that needs deepening. You can always go farther in at any time. Whether you are talking to us or reading history or talking to someone else or experiencing scenery or even seeking out the author of books written long ago. The path to greater power, greater intensity, always leads inward (in a manner of speaking), not outward toward the seemingly other. And any subject may be examined in a more, or a less, superficial manner. You will find it useful to live at a greater depth of insight – insight meaning not the result but the process, the intensity with which you experience. Greater understanding may (or may not) result, but the point is the process, not the result.

Does this come up now because I was still feeling tired?

That provided an opportunity, yes. How do you feel now?

More alert, more centered. I suppose it is useless to ask if I was led to doodle that out whenever it was – a few days ago, I imagine – for this reason.

Not useless to ask that question continually, or rather, repeatedly, in your life.

Consciousness and awareness

We should perhaps draw a distinction between consciousness and awareness. You are always conscious, but your level of awareness varies radically and is potentially under your own control. Only – to raise your level of awareness, you need to be aware of the need to be more aware.

Hence the usefulness of communities.

Often, yes. You can be reminded by others when you have fallen half-asleep. Of course, that requires that the reminder be received without resentment – and it assumes that at least one member of the community is aware at all times, which is by no  means always the case. But the point for you – plural you, here – is that living as you do in effective isolation, you need to be your own alarm clocks. Living among others equally prone to sleep is no advantage, particularly if the attention of the community comes to center on rules and practicalities, as tends to happen over time. (Hence the continued tendency of religious or metaphysical communities to decay from the center over time, a difficulty and danger unrelated to creed or belief-system.)

I was going to ask how we can be our own alarm clocks, and then it came to me, and of course it is obvious once seen: The closer our contact with our own non-3D self, the less the danger of falling asleep at the switch.

Yes except remove the nuance of “danger” and the image of eternal strained awareness. Perhaps “alarm clock” does not serve all that well either. We mean to point you toward a calm, even, quietly joyful state of being, in which you are aware amid fluctuation.

I got that last, but phrased it clumsily. You mean, a state of being that will still have its ups and downs – being ordinary life, after all – but will have those ups and downs from a higher level.

That is your intermediate goal, and further prospects will open up from there, as always.

So why did this arise in the middle of what looked to become a discussion of us and ETs?

It is precisely the subjects of greatest interest that have the greatest potential to lead you to forget your own consciousness as part of the equation, concentrating instead on the subject at hand.

I can see that. And the result is to leave that subject all “in our heads” rather than to really connect it to our beings.

Correct. Once you notice the mechanism, or let us say the tendency, the potential pitfall, you will see it in operation all around you. Whenever people are the most vehement – be the subject politics or science or poetry or even something technical and seemingly objective – you will see that they are forgetting themselves and identifying with their positions. Being to that extent asleep, they will be unable to make the distinction (and they will not thank the person who makes it for them), but their level of awareness will have dropped. One might almost draw a graph and say, the greater the vehemence, the greater the preceding drop in awareness.

So, ETs are a charged subject.

As you know.

And we should look to our level of awareness in discussing them.

Not only in connection with this subject. Not even particularly, in fact. Each person has his own sensitive subjects, for of course the sensitivity relates to the person, and is not intrinsically related to the subject matter. This was merely a convenient “hook,” one might say.

 

We’re all pretty eager to hear more about our extra-terrestrial extensions. This is one of those topics where, I suspect, objections and requests for clarifications are going to be important assists in getting clarity. But before I begin compiling and posing people’s questions, I get the sense you’d rather continue a while.

Objections and puzzlements certainly will be of service to clarity, as you say, but it will be better to try to set out our idea a little more fully, before entertaining them.

I got up because I thought I’d write down, lest I forget it, “It’s still a question of `which you.’” but then I thought, since I’m up anyway –

Still a question of “which you,” exactly. That single reframing will itself take us a certain way. That’s why we made sure to give you the message. Easier for you to remember it, and write it, than to have to try to pass it to you in the course of a session. This avoids false starts, you see.

I do. I guess I would have thought that in a session would be easier to pass over an idea, not harder, but I see that you didn’t quite say that it would necessarily be harder, but that it might involve a certain amount of chit-chat to steer me to it.

“Which you?” That’s always the question, and it’s always the question most likely to be forgotten or never considered. Yet so much hangs on it!

So, if you are thinking you are part extra-terrestrial, or are directly connected to one (or more) extra-terrestrials you might have any amount of ideas about it, ranging from physical hybrid to mere psychological resonance. So we’re going to sketch a few possibilities. No telling ahead of time how quickly this can be done or how long it may go on. We’ll see as we go.

An extended family

First off, remember and try never to forget, you are 3D entities who are nonetheless the offspring of what is essentially a non-3D entity. That is, you – All-D you, both your 3D and non-3D components, considered together – were put together, so to speak, by a Sam, and a Sam by definition is not a 3D-bound entity.

Next, remember that you are intimately connected to all other lifetimes you are involved in, call them “past lives” or “simultaneous lives” or even “future lives.” If the same pattern that is your present psyche lived in ancient Egypt, then, in effect, you did, or in fact do. So your definition of yourself may need to be widened.

Beyond that, remember that every strand incorporated in every individual you connect to in this way is a part of you. You have a very extended family. And among all those lives that are part of your life, you can’t know where all the branches of your family-of-you come from.

In other words, any strands included in your present being may include extra-terrestrial beings as well as terrestrial ones. In such case, as long as you are still dealing with compound beings as on earth, the same pattern of interrelated strands means that your extraterrestrial family connections may be as extensive as those on this plane.

“We have met the alien and he is us,” to paraphrase Pogo.

We wouldn’t propose it as a flat exception-less statement of fact, but often enough, yes.

I know you usually shy away from speculation and abstraction carried too far, but I gather that this means that various families of ETs are interrelated, as well, that in effect all 3D beings, not only the 3D beings on Terra Firma, are part of one thing.

And we have never said otherwise. The universe – reality – is all one thing, divided nowhere absolutely, only relatively.

So, we are perhaps as alien as human.

Why not reverse it and see that aliens may be as human as alien? In fact, this may be a challenge, but

No, don’t put it that way, you’ll raise everybody’s hackles and defenses, needlessly.

You are welcome to phrase the thought.

Let’s just say that we might as well consider all living beings – at least all compound beings; I don’t know if it applies to unitary beings – as one extended family, in the same way that we recognize humans as one race subdivided into what we call races which (they being able to interbreed without creating sterile hybrids) are not really separate. You are saying that to consider other alien species as essentially different from humans is something we might call understandable racism. The differences exist, and some of those differences are startling. But all compound being are akin, and sooner or later we are going to come to see it.

In any case, that makes our point. It isn’t really a case of “you” v. “them.” You and they have already interbred. You as humans don’t remember your own origins, but as a species and as individuals, you are the equivalent of the English.

By which you mean an identifiable set of sub-species with a common culture formed of invasions of Celts and Picts and Danes and Angles and Saxons and French and Romans and Phoenicians and God knows what. The result was not a shapeless mongrel race but, over time, a clearly identifiable culture. If the English themselves occasionally overemphasized their supposed Anglo-Saxon purity (as some Americans do today), still they were pointing to something real, something created in history.

If this did nothing more than shake the idea of “us” v. “them” that continually pops up in any discussion of wider extensions of accepted ideas, it would be worth the effort. You are not hermits living off in the celestial woods, in the back of beyond. Humans are the descendants and contemporaries of far-ranging explorers and settlers, and not all the exploring – not even all the settling – is physical.

Now I know people are going to want to get a story of our past and / or present interaction with ETs, and I strongly suspect you aren’t going to give it to them.

Any such narrative would be mere assertion. They wouldn’t know – you wouldn’t know – if it were fact or fantasy or disinformation or error or some mixture of them all. And what could they, or you, do with such a tale? It wouldn’t expand your horizons; it wouldn’t give you something solid, something connected to your individual lives, to chew on. It would give you spur for opinion, and if you don’t mind our saying so, you have too many opinions as it is.

Which doesn’t mean some can’t get such information.

Everybody’s access is different, and everybody’s general makeup presents different needs and opportunities. But making flat assertions of fact in the matter is not your path.

No, and I’m glad not to have to form such opinions.

But. Hear this. When you are told that you are originally not from here, when you are told that Earth is not your home, remember, that is true of everybody. It’s all in how you interpret the words. It might be said, “You did not originate in 3D. 3D is not your home.” You see? Same statement, in a way, but a very different set of implications. And there is your hour, or near enough.

Thanks, and we look forward to more another time.

 

Thursday November 2, 2017

My friends, I got the idea yesterday that today’s discussion might be called something like “geography and the spirit,” or “alien life in 3D and otherwise,” or something similar.

Until now we have been describing All-D life as localized – as indeed it is. As your “guys upstairs” told you, there is a non-physical Canada, corresponding to the physical Canada you know of. In your newer understanding, this meant, the non-3D is a part of the same more comprehensive reality as is the 3D, so of course it describes the same physical space. So, if we’re talking about life on Earth in 3D, we are also, therefore, talking about life on the same Earth in non-3D. How else could it be? Indeed, one reason for adopting the terms 3D and non-3D, rather than physical and spiritual, was to emphasize that it isn’t a matter of one realm being here and another realm being somewhere else, and also, isn’t exactly a matter of the non-3D being “nowhere.” Understood?

Yes. I have gotten that fundamental strategy of realigning our way of thinking about things. That’s also the reason for the term All-D, to describe the over-arching reality of which 3D and non-3D are each a part.

As Bob Monroe said, “there” is “here.”

Yes, that made a great and convincing impression on me when I read it in Far Journeys.

But of course, if “there is here” in terms of non-3D being in the same space as 3D, in a very different sense “there” is also necessarily “there and not here.”

But that is a different sense. And I take it you want me to explain what you mean. In the second sense, you mean that just as the 3D world we experience is defined by geography, so necessarily is the non-3D world, only there are different conditions of movement.

You may have to move slower to say things clearly.

Yes. All right, let me center. [Pause] It’s interesting, I seem to have learned a new technique. Okay, trying again.

Let us for the moment disregard the fact that mind has no physical barriers. If the 3D conditions of perceived separation by distance applied to the mind, we would see that a mind anchored to one place – Cleveland, say – would have to travel to visit another place. It doesn’t; we know that. But what I am trying to clarify is that our minds are anchored by their attachment to a 3D-oriented body.

Whew. This isn’t going to be easy.

No, but you will find, a little at a time gets it done.

I guess. So, my non-3D mind is anchored in Virginia at the moment, because that is where its 3D body lives. Yet that mind also connects to other physical locations where other lives were lived – is that correct? So, Egypt, England, other parts of the U.S., places I don’t even suspect? Anywhere a strand lives there is a connection? I don’t have it quite right, I can feel it.

No, but you advanced the argument a bit. The links to other places through other lifetimes is really that those lives are linked to their former 3D existence because, remember, times past don’t cease to exist.

Okay. So, my mind is tethered to Virginia because my 3D body is here. It is also tethered to England and other places because David Poynter lived there. And so on. Does this imply that in the absence of such connections my mind could not travel elsewhere?

It implies that in the absence of such connections it would have to travel, it would not be equally at home, in such elsewheres.

So when we move in 3D, that is why we seem to fit better some places than others? Why some places are recognized as familiar and comfortable, perhaps as exhilarating, and others are not?

You’ve experienced it yourself, moving from your original home through several states until coming to Virginia, and within Virginia moving from one place to another on the tidewater until you came again to John Cotton’s old home.

That I felt even in 1958, passing nearby on Route 29 at age 12.

All right. So that’s the mechanism. And now we take the leap.

Alien? Terran? People talk about extra-terrestrial visitors, and they think in terms of UFOs carrying aliens to Earth. It doesn’t occur to them maybe that many people who are 100% Terran (Earthian?) nonetheless have strands, even dominant strands, that tie them to far star systems.

Perhaps you had better let us try it. For this once, it may be easier.

Consider it a thought-experiment, both for the sake of clarity and in order to lower the threshold of acceptability. In other words, we don’t ask you to believe or dis-believe, only consider.

A mind from the Pleiades arrives at Earth and wishes to explore. How does that mind “arrive at Earth”? How does it – how do you – extend your mental world to places where you are not and have never been? You ride your 3D body there. you explore between planets in the same way you explore within planets, by going there.

You live there. Having once lived there, you find yourself in a web of connecting relationships formed during that life. It isn’t only – as Bob Monroe implied – that you get increasingly fascinated, although there is that. You are also progressively “hooked” by issues that arise, relationships that form, possibilities that seem to be uniquely associated with that bit of terrain.

Then, you die. Now who are you? Are you still a being from KT95, as Bob put it? Are you not equally a person of Earth? And does not any one of your lifetimes connect with all those other lifetimes here, there, and elsewhere, many of them literally unimaginable?

That’s how the universe stays knitted together.

Of course. We keep telling you, in widening contexts, that there are no hard and fast divisions in reality. True, until now we haven’t mentioned that interplanetary lives are part of that rule, but you can only say one thing at a time, and build, and hope for the best.

“You do the best you can.”

So now, who are the aliens here on Earth? And for that matter who are the aliens elsewhere? How can you hedge reality with meaningful boundaries when you realize that (a) geography matters in All-D no less than in 3D, yet (b) it is an absolute barrier no more in All-D than in 3D alone. It matters; it is not an absolute.