Intuitive Linked Communication (ILC)

Wednesday. October 11, 2017

One world

Try to hold in mind the continuing trend in our discussions, our argument. We know it is difficult to do over time. There is one world, not two. The physical and the spiritual, the 3D and the non-3D, are aspects of one reality, and cannot be considered as separate entities without serious distortion in your understanding. The internal world you experience through your direct feed and the external world you experience by way of your senses are the same world, not different worlds. They are two modes of experience seeming (until you transcend appearances) to be two cooperating or even non-connected environments. Your lives are internal, not external, or let us say the external reality you perceive as primary is really an internal reality perceived in distortion.

I was clear until that last sentence, but that one didn’t seem to come out straight. Try it again?

No, it wouldn’t get any straighter. It expresses a reality that must be intuited or cannot be grasped.

It seems to me an echo of something Rita said in her sessions about the way we perceive things differently after we drop the body [Awakening from the 3D World], but I can’t quite pull it up.

Again, no need. People – including you – can always re-read it, if it calls to them.

If you can remember that framework, it will keep you oriented as we proceed. One world, not two. Everything connected, not separate or separable. We have said before, it is because people no longer have an intellectual and (even more) an emotional framework that holds together heaven and earth, so to speak, that they have ceased to be able to believe in anything beyond what their senses report, and the result is emptiness and despair. Faith in the unseen depends upon a framework that is itself believed in. We know that seems circular.

We don’t live in an age of faith.

Faiths

Au contraire. The problem is that you all have too much faith, in too many things, and too little knowledge holding it all together.

Emerson’s quote, if I can find it.

Certainly. And these all have their modern equivalents, which you can insert here if you find the quotation.

[No need, they haven’t changed, just changed names.]

Emerson, age 44, August 1847:

The Superstitions of our Age:

The fear of Catholicism;

The fear of pauperism;

The fear of immigration;

The fear of manufacturing interests;

The fear of radicalism or democracy;

And faith in the steam engine.

“And faith in the steam engine” struck me particularly hard when I first read it, many years ago. Certainly true.

The basis of faith is always knowledge. But knowledge is not the same thing as facts, certainly not memorized facts or agreed-upon facts, or any body of logically connected facts and arguments. Those things are results, not building blocks. What you know is from direct feed. What you experience isn’t the same thing.

I have a sense of what you’re getting at, but the words just keep confusing it, or is the thought itself, or my understanding of it, unclear, or wrong?

Abstractions

Have you noticed that abstract statements get us into trouble? And the more abstract, the larger the scale of abstraction, the greater the difficulty. That is why your dialogue format with Rita worked so well, it kept drawing you back to the personal and the specific.

Well, it doesn’t feel like I am the one steering the discussion.

It isn’t a matter of intent, or even of perception. We’re pointing out that abstract statements are difficult to convey accurately, and they tend to attract a fuzziness. When you try to convey something, the more abstract it is, the more likely it is that unconscious mental associations will find their way into the statement, clouding the result.

Jung said somewhere that the unconscious tends to come in via pompous language.

That isn’t quite what he said, but that’s the idea, yes. So, when it happens to you, perhaps use that statement (from experience) of his as a touchstone, and remember that the very difficulty of expression may be (may be) a sign of deep and meaningful content. That is, when you find yourself in difficulty, work where you are. Good advice in general, of course.

So let’s continue trying to make a clear statement about faith and knowledge, internal and external, intuition and sensory experience.

Times and opportunities

There isn’t any use clinging to what you had, if in fact you actually had it. Times change in order to provide the opportunity for new ways to understand the world and thus understand yourselves. Times change, you change. You change, times change. Like so much else, it is a reciprocating process, because that is one of the underlying laws of 3D life. It is only in slowed-down 3D life that the process is that apparent. Delayed consequences assist analysis and experiences. But this is a side-trail.

Trying to retain old ways of understanding life may work, or may seem to relatively work for some, but a changing civilization reflects and potentiates changing mass consciousness, which in turn changes the ecology of individual consciousness.

That word “ecology” is going to startle some people, as they relate it only to nature.

Ecology refers to the fishbowl in relation to the fish. In this case, we refer to the mental, spiritual, abstract fishbowl around the 3D personalities experiencing 3D life. The waters in which you swim are collective in the same way as the physical environment you experience is collective.

I think you mean, collective awareness holds our physical world, and in the same way it creates the boundaries of our mental world at any given time.

Yes, with hesitations. Those words are all loaded with misleading unconscious connotations and associations. But, as stated, and subject to interpretation, yes.

You are not living in a mental ecology that will encourage blind faith in a religious scheme without disastrous results, and the disastrous results themselves will further undermine attempts to live it. But this means two things, or let’s say it means one thing in two aspects.

• Your time and your society will not find your salvation by any one blind It can only be a faith built upon what you know. And that cannot be based upon sensory data, it is too unreliable and, worse, second-hand and superficial.
• But neither can it be built in active opposition to that sensory data. It must be firmly rooted in experience and it must successfully reinterpret the sensory data that people accept.

And that is what we are doing here.

Indeed it is. Put it into context.

I suppose I could draw a line, but it would always be somewhat arbitrary. Parallel to the accepted materialist interpretations of the world has been another very different interpretation of what is. Swedenborg to Emerson to Whitman to William James and Carl Jung, perhaps. The Fox sisters to Edgar Cayce and Jane Roberts, say. Rhine and Monroe and so many psychic investigators.

Yes and another line as well, religious mystics, hard-headed physics mystics, people who feel their way to what is real.

Frustrating, how slowly this goes, sometimes. Here’s an hour gone and I feel like we never got started on what you were intending to say.

Some things just require a certain amount of time and attention to be said and understood. Persevere and it will come forth.

 

Tuesday, October 10, 2017

Levels of observation

You said, “Your reality can’t really depend upon observers.”

And we said it is a separate topic, not because it didn’t belong, but because it has so many facets if it is to be understood. This conversing sequentially in words that must be carefully defined and then explained anyway is cumbersome, as you have experienced, and makes it necessary to creep, because only the smallest bite-sized items can be discussed at any one time.

If reality depended upon observers in the way the phrase suggests, your lives would be remarkably contingent, hanging always by a thread. For, what if the observer were to be distracted? However, it isn’t that simple, as usual.

In the first place, the sentence you just quoted wasn’t what we said, it was what you concluded when we said the level of one’s reality depended upon the level of the observer. We meant something different from what you heard, but that mishearing may itself be productive, so we mentioned it as a possible topic. If we can, we will address that first, and then expand upon what we meant.

Do you remember being told that everything in your 3D world is made of consciousness, but that each form of consciousness is different, appropriate to various circumstances? A rock, having no external freedom, has absolute internal freedom, while an animal, say, has far more external freedom, which means that each individual manifestation of animal must pay attention to its environment and circumstances, hence requiring both a group mind and an individual mind, both “instinct” and individual alertness.

Well, those rocks hold the world together with their undeviating, unblinking attention. They are the stage scenery that prevents the whole thing from being free-form kaleidoscopic ungraspable swirl. They are the holders of stability. So that is one level of observer. This is not to say that rocks know what is going on around them, any more than you as reality-holder for the microorganisms that live in your physical body have any knowledge of or interest in them. But the rocks – the external mineral level of reality, that is – hold the space. They keep things stable. They are a form of unwavering awareness, the energetic blueprint for the continual re-creation of the world so many million times a second.

The interaction of various forms of consciousness is the world as you experience it. Clouds, wind, rain, anything you experience may be said to embody a specific form of consciousness, and whether you can envision it, or even allow for the possibility, makes no difference. However, that wasn’t the point we were making. We were discussing observers in the context of performances (call them) at a lesser level of reality.

“Lesser” is going to get us into trouble, I think.

Comparisons don’t have to, and shouldn’t, imply value-judgments. A tree is taller than a person; the person can walk and a tree cannot. Which is “better”? But if you cannot recognize differences, if you have to pretend that equality of worth means pretending that observed differences don’t exist, you will never get anywhere. You have to begin with what you observe, not with what you think are abstract truths.

Maintaining the world

So, to stay on the point, what is Hamlet (the individual) in the absence of Hamlet (the play), and what is the play in the absence of  performance? (Yes, it can be read, but for the moment consider a reader as a one-person-at-a-time audience.)

I get that you are logically dividing the sense of “observer” into two. One is, the world is maintained by collective observation; the other is that there is also observation at the next higher level of reality. And if you keep giving me more insights while I’m trying to write up the old ones, I don’t know where we’re going to wind up. Is it faster this way?

Getting it in a burst is facilitated by

• your general attention to the subject and
• your specific attention to one aspect of it and our connection

It is faster, yes, because then we don’t have to go through the long dance of getting you there by words and readjustment of words and correction and revision of words.

I see. So, while I was trying to express where I was, I got that the group-mind aspect of human life also maintains the world. Our collective underlying unstated agreement on what’s what assures that it remains what. As long as we all agree that Africa is where it is, there it remains, regardless what individuals or even groups may think. As long as we agree that water is heavier than air, that the various elements have the characteristics they have, that time flows as we observe it (though this one is more tenuous), that’s what we get. Our collective observation (or call it our collective continuous re-creation) maintains the world at a different level than the minerals do, but working with it. Different forms, flowing together.

Existing at different levels of reality

And there is a lot contained in that observation that may be teased out by thought and intent. But let’s set this out carefully: This next higher level of reality we are talking about is, and is not, what you call TGU, or any one of us you are talking to.

You – the TGU level we experience or can experience during our 3D lives – are part of us. You exist at our level of reality. Energy is matter (since matter is energy), therefore the non-3D portion of All-D is, by definition, as real as the 3D portion and no more real.

That’s correct. And at the same time –

At the same time, you are part of a higher level of reality than the 3D world, so – we are too.

Of course, and you feel that in your bones. How many of you feel at home in your lives? Feeling that “this is not my home” does not mean you belong on Mars, or Alpha Centauri. It means you are not at home in 3D-only. You know it in your bones. You may not know where you do belong, but you know you are only voyaging on earth. (And as always, “earth” here means, physical matter, the 3D-only experience.)

So somehow we are players in the play and at the same time viewers from the stands.

“Audience” is the usual term. Yes, and that is why you often feel stretched, and why so many proposed explanations of the meaning of life do not resonate, or shall we say do not resonate forever, however attractive they may be at any given moment. As your self-definition, or let’s say your observation-point differs, so does what you see. So does the meaning of what you see.

And that’s enough for now.

Well, it never quite goes where I expect it to go, not that I’m complaining! Even when I think I have a handle on it, unexpected aspects surface. Thanks as always.

 

Monday, October 9, 2017

Drama

You said we’d start by looking at what 3D life as we experience it implies about “the underlying reality it suggests and mirrors.”

Meaning, merely, that the world you experience is not divorced from the realer world it is based in. You can extrapolate from your experience, you don’t need to accept a whole new scheme unrelated to your sensory-reported life. But it is extrapolation, it is not straight continuity. Your 3D experience of life is a useful platform for acquiring a deeper understanding; it is not in itself that deeper understanding.

So, as we said, your lives are primarily passions: emotions, feelings, drives, compulsions, shading down to interests, fascinations, vocations, orientations. If you don’t instinctively (now, there’s a word!) understand what these seemingly quite disparate words have in common, a little thought and some internal questioning will repay the effort.

Remember, you cannot reliably use academic habits of thought to understand. Mere associating or classifying is not going to lead you to get what we are saying. On the contrary, it will prevent you or at any rate interfere with your seeing familiar things in the new context that can revolutionize your understanding. The enemy of expanded comprehension is the habit of seeing things as “nothing but” variations of accustomed categories.

Your lives are drama. They are all forms of drama from morality play to farce. And they are this for the same reason that drama as art form was created within 3D reality.

Fiction within the fiction. Hamlet’s play within a play. And I gather that this is another example of “as above, so below.”

Drama always encapsulates in miniature its encompassing reality.

I think that means, drama as an art form shows us life in a condensed form, so that we can see it. A biopic may give us a person’s life and times in a couple of hours, or that same “life and times” may occupy a six-volume set of books, or may be conveyed in a Classics Illustrated comic book, or a children’s book, or in popular legend, or even a TV show.

Yes, that’s what we mean. So, since you are familiar with that process, extrapolate upwards, to see how the dramas you live may be miniature versions of something real. Just as a film is going to differ from the life itself by a huge factor of time and energy – a couple of hours’ worth of attention as opposed to decades of living – so your lives are but an illustrative blip on the record in comparison to what they illustrate.

Even more than ordinarily, I’m having trouble deciding whether what you’re saying will be clear to those who are not sharing the joint mind at the moment of transmission.

You can always expand and interpret. There is no great penalty to over-explaining to some, and there may be great benefit to explaining to those who begin from somewhat farther away, for whatever reason.

I hear you saying that just as drama is our way of understanding life by putting it under a microscope, so our lives are the equivalent to the next higher order of reality.

That is accurate, and said perhaps more clearly than we did, so, as we say, potentially a useful exercise.

Well, since this is true (as true as we can express given the limits of translation across conditions) you can see the point of your lives, perhaps.

I can imagine people coming up with all kinds of conclusions, some of which will seem to them to follow, but may not follow at all.

True, with the caveat that as usual, judgment of someone else’s conclusions is risky and not necessarily profitable. You can tell what seems true to you; that isn’t the same thing as saying that what is true to you is true in any absolute sense.

Relatively real

What I hear you saying, or rather, the implications I draw, are that what we get from drama is analogous to what another layer of reality gets from observing our lives.

Yes as long as you remember that it would be more carefully stated if you said, “What we ourselves realize at our higher reality by observing ourselves at the 3D level of reality.” That is clumsy, but it is important to try to avoid the “we versus they” polarity that continually sneaks in to the argument. “We versus they” leads straight to a sense of victimization and an attitude of distrust and paranoia. “One level of ourself versus another level of ourself,” though more difficult to envision, avoids that trap.

So do you begin to see your experience of 3D life differently? Do you see why it is only relatively real, why all possible versions of your life are explored, why so much of it is inexplicably caused and not easily seen even after the fact? And can you see what is or is not important within the context of your life, and how what is or is not important changes as you change context?

Yes. Hamlet may be prince of Denmark, but he is not owner of a bank account, doesn’t have a refrigerator, doesn’t even use the restroom. In other words, as a character in a play, he is real. As a living person outside of the play, he does not exist except as an idea. Like the play he is a part of, he is relatively real, to us at our level of play-going reality.

Now, that isn’t the whole story, because as you have learned elsewhere, created characters live, just as you do, who are yourselves created characters. So it isn’t as if they aren’t real, it’s that they, like you, are only relatively real, and how real depends upon the level of the observer.

Since our reality can’t really depend upon the existence of observers, I take it you mean, how real we appear depends upon who is watching, from what level.

It is not literally, but only metaphorically, true that your reality “can’t really depend upon observers.” But that’s a topic for another time. It will bring us far, and meanwhile people may want to think about it. For now, let us stay with the question of relative reality.

What you experience is real to you, as it should be. But it is a pale shadow of what is real in realer dimensions. (The very concept of dimensions is a metaphor, an abstraction. We use the terms because it is widely understood in a certain sense, but as you see, every so often we remind you not to take it literally. There are no dimensions bounding reality, only ways of looking at things.)

Beyond drama

Re-read what we just said. Another way to say the same thing would be, “Passions, emotions, feelings, etc., are more real than you are.” They, like you, are closer to being shadows of a real substance than substances in their own right. You want to know why life is so dramatic and often painful, so seemingly unfair and so seemingly arbitrary? You cannot understand it if you look at it only in its own terms, any more than you could understand Hamlet if you were within it rather than viewing it.

I know you are not explaining away our perplexities and sufferings here, but I don’t know if others will see that or not.

It can’t be calculated; there are too many possibilities. We can only make as clear a statement as possible, and trust people’s own internal compass to bring them to a right understanding.

So, this should explain to some degree why you don’t live in a world that is just as you want it. Be it Macbeth or Hamlet, the king is going to die, or there isn’t any drama. That doesn’t mean that every play is a tragedy, or that everyone within the tragedy is equally affected. It merely means, no story, no drama, and what is a better story than one with high stakes?

I remember my daughter once, when she was very little, saying with a sigh, “You know what I’d like? To have everything my own way.” I laughed and agreed that it would be nice. But I see now that this would limit us to our preconceived ideas of what would be good for us, or would be pleasant.

Prince Hamlet no doubt would have preferred that his father live. Certainly he would have preferred to continue the life he was leading before the tragedy, before his father’s ghost laid a burden of obligation on him that he did not know how to fulfill. But it was in living those complications that Hamlet became more than any other person, and became himself a legend.

It is a wrench for people to see the pain and suffering of this world as only relatively real. It seems too much like explaining them away, even when you carefully explain that this is not what you are doing.

But, you see, their wrestling with this is itself good and profitable work for them.

 

Sunday, October 8, 2017

We recognize that it is difficult for individuals to hold on to a continuing theme while moving thorough the accidents and distractions of the ever-flowing present 3D moment, but remember, your anchor, your un-moving non-3D aspect allows you to remain oriented,  if you orient to it rather than to your flowing mind.

I’m pretty sure you mean, the ever-flowing 3D timestream carries the 3D part of our consciousness along with it, like a raft on a river, but the part of us that resides in the rest of All-D, the non-flowing non-3D, does not get carried along, but rests firmly on solid ground, and the two aspects of us are connected but are not always conscious of each other unless we make the effort to make them so.

The point is, the “you” that you customarily, or let us say automatically, identify with, is not invariant. When it centers on 3D life and takes for granted 3D conditions, it is in effect limited in what it can do, what it can associate, what it can remember. When, instead, it connects with the non-3D and sees 3D life as a subset of All-D, it takes for granted an entirely more expanded view of 3D life, and it experiences limits that are significantly more expanded.

Just as Thoreau said in Walden, that I have quoted in the past.

That’s right. In the case of this kind of exploring, it isn’t traversing the terrain that is unique, it is in the reporting in modern language.

Yes, I got that. I don’t expect us to see what human eyes have never seen, only to maybe interpret what we see in language (and amid associations) that have never been used before, for the sake of translating to a new civilization.

Trust that the information will flow even when you yourself (consciously, in 3D terms) don’t know what it is to be or even where it is to begin.

What is it all for?

The underlying theme is your lives in 3D as conduits of vast impersonal forces. How can your lives be both personal and impersonal, both contingent (even accidental) and firmly rooted and determined? As we said, it is soul (pattern) flowing spirit (energy) through it. And the question beyond this is, why? What’s it all for? What is going on?

As always, “as above, so below.” Looking at your third-tier lives, see the continuities.

• First tier, the 3D experience in its own terms.
• Second tier, the internal reaction to the physical events.
• Third tier, the effect on the being of that second-tier reaction. In other words, how the transitory becomes the continuing part of the fabric of the soul. (Of course that doesn’t mean third-tier reactions cannot be counteracted or modified later. We are sketching a way to connect the somewhat-real 3D experience to the more real All-D situation.)

If you want to understand your lives, start with what is most familiar, the first-tier experience that happens to you firsthand and that is reported to you by everything around you: friends, news media, books, films, everything. In other words, begin with the world as it is reported to you. Not only wars and rumors of war, but passions and rumors of passions, predicaments and rumors of predicaments. Start with the dramas of everyday life at first-hand and at a remove. We want to explain life, not explain it away.

Surely it is obvious that life consists of negative and positive emotions and experiences. Those experiences and every way in which they can be sorted into categories are not incidental to life. They are life, they are the fabric of life, the essential background of life.

It is true that some people in their yearning for peace and for meaning would transcend all this if they could. And it is true that some religions and philosophies argue that such transcendence is the only worthwhile goal of a life, all else being Maya. In a way this is an accurate perception, for the 3D world as it presents itself is not nearly as real as the casual observer assumes. But there is a difference between seeing the only-relative-reality of the life you lead (on the one hand) and deciding that 3D life is a waste of time, so to speak, a fraud, a snare, a delusion. Just because you wake up for a moment and realize that the play “Hamlet” is not the reality you thought it, doesn’t mean it wasn’t affecting you. Similarly, life.

For some reason – certainly not a logical association of ideas, at least if it is I can’t see the logic – I think of flight simulators.

Flight simulators

A good analogy up to a point. A flight simulation machine gives you a somewhat-real experience that prepares you for the real thing. By simulating the first-tier experience (the physical sensations), it allows you to experience the second-tier experience (the intellectual, kinesthetic, emotional reaction to the first-tier data), so that in a sense you will form third-tier reaction-patterns based on what you have become by having gone through that experience. This is not an exact analogy, remember, but it is useful. Don’t parrot it, but do chew on it and see what further analogies suggest themselves.

I get, just because you realize that what you thought was flight is actually a simulator, don’t jump to the conclusion that flight itself is an unobtainable illusion.

Isn’t it more logical to assume that if this is a simulator, it is in aid of something? Preparing you for real flight, perhaps? The conclusion that the world is only relatively real may lead you to conclude that it is a meaningless charade, but it doesn’t have to. It is, shall we say, at least equally probable that life means something, is in aid of something, is preparation for something. Otherwise it’s a lot of money, time, and effort to create a simulator just to fool you.

Smiling. I figure you guys (we guys, I realize) work for Industrial Light and Magic.

Not so unflattering a comparison. They do produce remarkably effective second-tier experience, even though they think they’re in business to make money.

As we say, start with what you know. Next time we will begin at this point: Looking at 3D life as you experience it, what does it hint at regarding the underlying reality it suggests and mirrors?

 

 

Friday, October 6, 2017

Here is a long message Henry Reed posted on my blog. I have my own reaction to it, and I gather that you’d just as soon I set that out so you can correct and comment as usual.

[Henry Reed: A professional Intuitive posted this recollection,.

[The other day, after the Vegas attack, comedian Jimmy Kimmel … stated that it seemed like a window onto evil had been opened. This made me think of something my clairvoyant professor had said back in the mid ’70s…. He said that the first bomb testing, and all the bombs that have followed, have actually “blown holes” in Earth’s spiritual layer of protection…. With each ‘hole’ a tremendous amount of evil or dark forces has been able to enter. They have come streaming or flooding in. In his words it was like a “vacuum cleaner” sucking in tremendous amounts of negativity.

[Then the drug revolution went hand-in-hand with this. He explained that loosening one’s consciousness thru drugs allowed many of these dark forces to have access to them. To easily come into (either partly by influencing or more totally inhabiting) bodies. That with this much dark forces on Earth now it is no longer safe to do mind-altering drugs and he even discouraged social drinking. (You see literally the evil that literally comes into some people who drink often). Some people I know do peyote rituals, insisting it is fine and the native Americans did it. But here again, this creates a “loosening” of the finer bodies (etheric, astral and spirit layers etc.).

[With the prevalence and existence of SO much negativity on Earth now along with the heightening of energies our way of living cannot be the same as in the past. He said that Earth’s protective layer is now more like “Swiss cheese” — extremely full of holes, giving free access to negative forces…. Indeed literally many ” windows onto evil” have opened. If only people more in general could understand the many layers of existence. [He also said] that as time went on closer to the millennium and after, good spiritual forces or beings would have to be streaming energy to the planet just to keep us functioning long enough for a major event or change to happen. And that these “speeded up” energies would be something that a segment of society would not be able to handle. Some people would become erratic. We are seeing lot of this happen…. Interesting that Jesus had said something like “except that things be ‘speeded up’ there would be no one left alive.”

[MOST SIGNIFICANTLY, as I see it anyway, weapons of killing SHOULD NOT be easily accessible to the public!! This should NO LONGER be possible! The human climate is changing and has changed so dramatically that this can no longer be possible, as I see it anyway. There is way too much instability now.]

My thinking is that this is all confused. I think it is inaccurate use of metaphor, for one thing, inappropriately concrete. Atomic bombs, being physical, can’t blow holes in something that isn’t. But – I don’t know, I suppose. I could be persuaded to think I am being too rigid.

Always a good attitude, if uncomfortable, being ready to be made to re-think. All right, let’s examine it.

Atomic bombs

“A window on evil.” Doesn’t this metaphor suggest that you are on one side of the wall and evil on the other, and if only the window weren’t open, you’d still be separated?

For many years I have been quoting somebody, can’t remember who, who pointed out that the line between good and evil is not between people but within them.

Correct. But, a careless or ambiguous metaphor does not necessarily discredit an argument, still less an insight or position. So, let’s look farther.

At the most simple and physical layer, atomic bombs do not blow holes in a layer of protection that would by nature be non-3D and would be internal. Clearly at the literal level, this would be inappropriately concrete. But look at it symbolically, and there could be an argument. Certainly the implied devaluation of the sanctity of life that has followed the use and development of such weapons might be expressed that way. However, as a literal material description of reality, no. The thought coupling atomic bombs and current manifestation of evil rests on interrelated incorrect ideas. That::

• Physical events cause rupture in a postulated spiritual protective shield.
• The spiritual shield existed, with one side being protected against evil on the other side.
• “Windows” have opened between the 3D and non-3D worlds. When you remember that there is one world, and that 3D and non-3D are subsets, where is there a place for walls and windows? (Yes, we recognize that the window was metaphor, but within the construct of the metaphor, that is the function, and, as we say, where is the possibility?)
• Great amounts of negativity were allowed into 3D by the disruption of this spiritual shield. Without the shield, without the separation of spiritual and physical, without the segregation of good from evil to begin with, what is left of this idea?
• Without a spiritual protective layer to be breached by a physical event, where is the potential for it to be full of holes?

The analogy resembles the hole in the ozone that was detected decades ago, except that ozone depletion was described as resulting from physical causes affecting a physical substance and system. No one suggested that the ozone interacted with spiritual forces.

To sum up the portion on atomic testing, we would say, no, this is bad theory, inappropriately concrete, and if meant only metaphorically, much more misleading than elucidating.

Drugs

In relation to drugs, however, this is on firmer grounds. Notice immediately one difference.

This one attributes a physical mechanism (drugs) to individuals rather than to society as an abstraction.

It is true that drugs affect the individual mind. Do they therefore affect the individual spirit?

That isn’t a question I have thought to ask.

Think in terms of what we have been encouraging you to think of as the structure of the world.

So much easier to take dictation.

So it is. Think.

Well, if 3D and non-3D are two aspects of the same world, and everybody is in both, the differences between mental and spiritual aren’t necessarily even real. I mean, whatever spiritual means, we are it. And it can’t be something walled off within us, this much body, this much spirit, this much mind. If there is a difference among them, we’re closer to raisin bread than separate bins of wheat, raisins, yeast, etc.

Does it affect your spirit when you take aspirin?

Does it affect my spirit when the headache goes away?

Exactly.

Well, “exactly,” only I don’t know quite where that leaves us.

Drugs, even psychotropics on one end of the scale and pain-relievers on the other end, are all physical substances. They affect the physical body by producing chemical changes. Those chemical changes may be mild or profound, and they may have effects on the 3D consciousness ranging from disorienting to imperceptible. Where is the scope of action for the physical substance to affect a postulated spiritual barrier? What they affect is consciousness, and their chief effect there is indeed to lower the barriers, but they are internal barriers, not barriers between the individual and the outside (even if non-physical) world.

I have long said that LSD does not bring chaos or harmony, clarity or confusion, but magnifies what you are. You may be overwhelmed by it, but it is overwhelm by what you already are, unsuspected. At least, I think so.

That is substantially correct. Again, the metaphor implies invasion from without. Absent that, what remains?

However, despite inappropriate metaphor and inadequate examination of premises, this is still a valid perception, that the current moment is one of heightened activity.

Long-repressed content

I get that the point here is that this is a time when what was unconscious is becoming conscious (whether we would prefer it or not) and therefore the negative is coming forth full strength, having been so long repressed.

It isn’t that the negative has been repressed, it is that the awareness of, the acceptance of, the negative has been repressed. And like any long-repressed psychic content, it is now erupting full force.

Yes, I see that. And, because we are good as well as evil, protection flows forth along with destruction.

It is your choice, always.

This is very helpful, and a lot more thoughtful than my reaction would have been.

It’s mostly a matter of slowing down, of sinking in, unafraid of what you may find. You do it by talking to us. You could profitably do it in your day-to-day interactions, as well.

I was about to say, “easier said than done,” but it is just a decision, isn’t it?

That’s what it is, and your lives are built upon a continual stream of decisions.

And as to the commercial for gun control at the end?

Change the consciousness, and the manifestations of the consciousness change automatically. There is much more going on behind the scenes than you can know – we are talking in 3D terms here, not speaking of non-3D manipulation – and the issue is not what it seems to anybody on any side of it. Stick to what you can do, rather than obsessing over what you cannot do.

Don’t go marching off to a pretended siege of Babylon, as Emerson says.

Some psychological situations never change, which is why older wisdom still applies.

Many thanks for all this.

Thursday, October 5, 2017

Again I am hearing time’s winged chariot at my heels, so to speak. A sense of “no time to lose,” even despite the need sometimes to cool our heels till the time comes around (if only to give ourselves time to recharge). I’m getting a sort of visual: force issuing as from a high-pressure firehose, then, as it enters the matrix of channels, being diverted and channeled by the nature of the terrain. Not a very good description. Can you amplify and correct?

What you are getting is that human life is a combination, an interaction, of two forces. One is, as we keep saying, these vast impersonal forces, flowing through you (and around you, and all but engulfing you), each one to his or her own carrying capacity.

And do the forces ever exceed that capacity?

They do, and those vessels break. But let us finish describing your situation.

The other force is what results when your share of these forces run through what you are. Because each of you is different, the appearance of the force flowing through you will be different. It may be classified by various schemes, but those schemes will be reporting averages. Thus Leo energy is different from Scorpio energy, and both are different from Gemini energy. But the commonalities do not amount to identity. One Leo is not interchangeable with another. You are all individuals. That is the point of your existence, after all.

You, who you are, what you have made of yourself at any given point, are unique, and so the forces flowing through you are going to be colored by your essence.

Temporarily, you mean. While they are flowing through me.

Well, it requires careful saying. The forces – let’s think of them as white light – are no less white after they have shined through the maze of obstacles, baffles, redirections and contradictory paths that you are. But you shine with the energy of that light, but the color of your own pattern. You see?

Yes, that’s very clear.

Good, but let us stop there, and you do other things, even if of less allure.

 

Thursday, October 5, 2017

Ready if you are. Where were we?

You had just realized why you live on a timeline where everything you don’t like nevertheless exists.

Perhaps you could spell that out again?

Even on any given timeline, decisions have consequences. Even though other timelines follow opposite decisions, and thus assure that every decision is explored – which means the fate of the universe never depends upon anybody making the “correct” decision – in each timeline, the decisions that have been made determine the reality being experienced, and determine which opportunities exist (or, as it appears to you, which opportunities are thereby created).

The sense I’m gradually getting is that our lives are the demonstrating of the consequences of a decision-tree. Each version shows what would happen along a given chain of decisions – ours as individuals, but within a context of uncounted others’, which means within what seems like a firm matrix. It begins to seem that life is the showing of uncounted possible paths, the showing being the main thing, for some reason.

That won’t be as clear to your friends as it is to you at the moment, and won’t be as clear to you later as it is now. So we should press on and provide context.

Perceptions and intuitions

Now remember that at the moment we are looking at your 3D life as an experiencer of the interaction of soul and spirit. That is, soul, the shaped collection of traits, and spirit, the free-ranging animating force. You may find it easiest to begin with negative manifestations. Let us start with hatred.

Which, I presume, begins with fear.

That’s a “yes but no.” But explaining why it is a “yes but no” may take some doing. It isn’t simple. Your ideas about things are based on a combination of things: input and prior ideas, mostly.

Input is skewed by perception, and your sensory perceptions are by themselves limited to a tiny percentage of the physically existent spectrum. Even the electromagnetic spectrum that is recognized by science – which is to say, by sensory data extended by instrumentation and inference – is mostly far beyond your ability to experience directly by sight, sound, smell, taste, touch. That limited input is interpreted by ideas of how things are, ideas formed from prior first-hand and second-hand experience, all of it also subject to those same limitations.

If this were the whole story, your possibilities would be very much more limited than they are, for how could you break out of the self-contained idea-system and experience-system delivered and limited by sensory data? You can get an idea of what your world would be like by looking at the mental constructs of people who believe that sensory data is all there is. Of course, these people themselves do not live in the world they deduce; no one could. But they ignore and deny experience to the contrary, so you can get an idea of that mental reality by overhearing their mental reinforcement of their ideas as they ty to persuade others.

The compensating factor in your lives is, of course, direct feed. Call it intuition, divine guidance, extra-sensory knowing, instinctive wisdom, inexplicable useful connection – however you think of it, it is the other part of your being that makes possible your limited 3D existence. No one and nothing could exist without an unbroken connection to its larger self centered beyond the 3D construct. The birds that build nests may not be able to say “non-3D,” but they rely on it, as all animals and vegetables do, to enable them to make sense of incoming sensory data, particularly in advance. You call it instinct, but it really is connection. And remember, that isn’t connection to a something else; it is connection to another part of yourself.

Aha! And the two forms of perception are sometimes at war with one another.

Not the forms, but the results of having contradictory ideas about the meaning of the data from two different kinds of sources.

Okay. But still, war.

Responses to contradictions

It can be; it certainly doesn’t have to be.

• Some people respond to contradiction by attempting to define one half of the contradiction out of existence, and this can lead to conflict in one or another form.
• But others respond by seeing any contradiction as an implicit invitation to see more clearly, deeper, to resolve it, and only if they are unable to find resolution do they proceed to ignore one half, or go to war on it.
• And still others, fewer, respond to an irreconcilable contradiction by leaving it in suspension, waiting for further developments to clarity things.

But yes, there is the potential within you of warfare, one element against another, and of course it is easier to direct those forces outward – projecting the conflict on to others – than to deal with it within your own psyche.

Now, you could argue that in the case of self-division turned outward, the hatred is the unacknowledged result of fear (fear of one’s own contradictions, illogical, inexplicable, and perhaps therefore terrifying), and that isn’t wrong. But it isn’t the whole story either. This particular genesis of hatred is the most common by far. But it is not the only one.

Does that imply that if we could overcome the resistance of the 3D personality to realizing that it extends beyond the 3D, the world would be a more peaceful place?

It should scarcely need stating. Instinctive societies anywhere are inherently peaceful; it is the separation from one’s roots beyond the 3D world that leads to a society’s madness. We are not quite saying, indigenous societies are sane and the technological post-Christian Western world is crazed. But we would say that if you will look around you, you will see some societies that take instinct and folk-wisdom for granted – Italy, say; Poland; country-folk pretty nearly anywhere before they are disillusioned and mentally overthrown by the assumption of superiority by city culture. These are not societies roiling in hatred, and they aren’t very easily roused to hatred based on abstract ideas and plans to reshape the world.

Unlike technological, materialistic America. Our rulers, I mean, not necessarily those who happen to live here.

Well –

I know, don’t give ourselves a pass as if we were living here by coincidence. We must bear some responsibility for what is done in our name.

That isn’t quite the nature of our reservation. It is more to the nature of your attitude than to the substance of the comment.

Okay, I get it. You don’t like me making blanket condemnations.

Condemnations

It isn’t so much what we don’t like, as what is good for you. To issue a blanket condemnation is to show that you don’t understand, or are suspending your understanding. To understand everything, someone said, would be to forgive everything. In your life you mostly know this. And, in fact, a teaching opportunity: Consider your reactions as opposed to what you would prefer your reaction to be, what your reaction often is. Where does the difference come from?

I think you’re going to say it is the difference between a reaction from my 3D-only personality and my larger personality which presumably knows better.

Well, “knows better,” but also isn’t hurting in the same way. First-tier experience hurts, we said. Well, anger often proceeds from injury. And this is one reason for bringing to political and social questions the knowings you have developed in your “higher” moments – that is, your moments of meditation, or of communion with your larger self. The closer your connection with your self beyond 3D limitations, the more accurate and effective your reactions within 3D, you see. It is in effect a fountain of wisdom that cannot be matched by any amount of 3D experience.