Intuitive Linked Communication (ILC)

Monday, May 22, 2023

Dirk sent me three YouTube videos explaining the functioning of life at levels below the chromosome, and it is like looking through Jim Meissner’s dark microscope, I can’t emotionally comprehend that all this is going on, all the time, at a tiny scale. I can’t get an image of the intelligence at work there. The videos show the mechanisms, but of course they cannot show the intangible behind it, any more than they could show the intangible thing behind our consciousness at this level.

I said I might ask the guys, though I have the wrong kind of training for it.

You said we would ask you why a mind that thought in terms of the significance of Daniel Boone (as an example) would be a good medium to explain scientific understandings.

And even as I write that out, I get a hint where you’re going to go with it.

Your function is as translator, and encourager, and if there is one thing your transforming civilization needs above all else, it is people to translate one level to another, to erase boundaries between specialists, and encouraging others to do the same. Not so that you yourselves may become specialists, nor, certainly, that you may create new specialties, but that you may make the walls between cells more transparent, and see farther, encourage others to see farther. The alternative is a specialization that understands less and less, because always within an unchanging and increasingly arbitrary context that comes to seem more and more inevitable and obvious.

And if non-specialists

[They interrupted me here, which they rarely do.]

You are all non-specialists in everything except whatever you do specialize in. Just because you ignore whole worlds of thought because they do not interest you, or are beyond your ability to master, doesn’t mean that they cease to exist or cease to influence you or cease to matter to your own specialized circle of knowledge, whether you do or do not realize it.

Thoreau said “We are all provincials in the universe.”

Precisely. So do not feel that there is any area of thought or of life that does not affect you. Any time you feel impelled to look at something new, be assured that (a) there’s a reason particular to you, and (b) your very interest in overstepping bounds is of interest to the universe. Again, the world does not revolve around you as an individual, and does.

Bear in mind, non-specialists do not trump specialists in their own field. Rather, they complement them. They provide what the specialist, from long mental habit, may no longer be able to provide: a fresh look at thing, informed enough to be thought-provoking, but inevitably wrong and even wrong-headed in many details and perhaps even in large areas of interpretation.

That’s interesting in itself. I know of historical examples of vital reframings coming from non-specialists. Jenner. Lister, Pasteur. No doubt I could think of others in other fields if it were important. But let’s look specifically at what those YouTubes aroused in me. I can’t state it very precisely.

Make the effort, first recalibrating and slowing down as much as possible. The effort to bring the concern into focus always polarizes you toward the attitude needed to hear the answers. (At least, that’s one way to look at the process.)

Very well. I see life at microscopic and sub-microscopic levels – life-processes enlarged as much as one million times – and what I see is so active, so intricate, so multitudinous and almost demonically energetic, that it is impossible to reconcile what I am seeing with the stable, macro-level body I am somewhat familiar with. Trillions of cells always dying, always being generated; all that helix-stripping, recombination, etc.

Yes, but look at your – emotional vertigo, I suppose we could call it – in trying to absorb the reality of it.

I see all those madly functioning machines, and it all goes on without our participation – at least, at any level  we can identify with – and it looks like an ant colony.

Go deeper, please.

I guess I’m seeing it as life at a different level, presumably directed by some intelligence, presumably proceeding at a different level of intelligence, a different kind of intelligence, pretty alien to us even though we depend on it every moment.

You’re getting closer. Keep on.

I have gotten used to the idea that cells and organs and what I call sub-assemblies of the body each have their own intelligence, their own kind of intelligence that, as you have said many times, does not read newspapers but knows how to process sugars. But this takes that to another level.

Yes. It ties things in more, if you stop to realize it. It isn’t like there are only two or three types of directed intelligence making up the 3D world. There are actually millions.

Millions? I would have settled for “uncounted,” but I got that you were insisting on millions.

Yes. You can radically expand your understanding of things if you make the effort. Remember, now, everything is made of mind-stuff. Can it be castles in the air, created at whim, altered at whim, maintained – as you say – “horseback”? Just as minerals provide stability in the 3D world, so does every kind of intelligence in every manifestation, and it all interlocks, with – as we keep reminding you – no spare parts and nothing missing or accidental.

So, insects, mammals, birds not only have different receptors, and therefore to some extend perceive different worlds; each is in the world representing a different niche in creation.

Well, if it is true at the levels you can perceive with the senses, why would anyone think it wouldn’t be true at levels too small or too large to be grasped by physical analogy? As above, so below. We remind you, the structure of physical reality is fractal. Not only patterns but, let’s call it, purposes, repeat.

Stars and interstellar debris have their own level of consciousness; they play their part in the whole scheme of things. Like you, they are born, live, die – which means, their non-3D essence appears in 3D and eventually winks out again, leaving them changed by their experience and in another way unaffected and invulnerable.

What is true of the universe you see around you is true of the universe you do not see, within you.

But here is the point you felt but didn’t quite express: Everything at every level has as its purpose to be what it is and to do what is appropriate for it to do. But you will never see the purpose (though you may intuit it, or deduce it); you will never see the animating intelligence that produces, organizes, directs that purpose as it manifests. But can any rational creature imagine that the universe if winging it, day by day? Can anyone imagine that the sun “just happens” to rise in the east and set in the west, day by day, varying slightly according to age-old patterns?

The closer you look into mechanism, the less sense it makes, emotionally, intuitively, until you remember that the animating and directing intelligence is invisible in it as it is invisible in you.

Enough for the moment.

Well, this was very interesting, and should strike sparks. Thanks as always.

 

Tuesday, October 3, 2017

Seems to me you have a good opportunity for teaching us how “all is well” coexists with all not being well, in the latest terrorist incident, in Nevada.

Yes, it will serve.

Once I know that something like that happened, I avoid anything more than the bare fact itself. I don’t immerse myself in the detail and the analysis that is sure to follow. I suppose that is somewhat ostrich-like, but it seems to work best for me.

Not your reaction to the JFK murder, however. Could your subsequent reaction to tragedies have been molded in reaction to your reaction to that event?

Interesting thought. For years, I didn’t want to know anything about various theories as to who really killed him. I accepted the official story, and my mourning was too deep to allow me to touch the questions, for decades, literally. It was years before I emerged from that shell-shocked condition.

And you weren’t about to allow yourself to be equally traumatized again.

No. I walled it off. I remember that. I felt Bobby Kennedy’s murder deeply, but I stayed away from reading about it after the first week.

Now consider the situation. In the 3D world, there was your suffering and there was the resultant habit to deal with the possibility of similar shocks. What about in the All-D, where your 3D reactions were only a part of the reality?

I don’t know, you tell me.

Outside of time and space – which in context means in the world beyond the constrictions of 3D-ever-moving-present-moment life – what was real? Your day to day movements of your body? Your moment-by-moment words, thoughts, emotions, reactions? It probably seems like it, but no. Outside of the present moment, what is real is –

Well, we’re going to have to backfill for a moment. It is true that in one way every moment of your lives is real and enduring and vividly alive. That is what the Akashic Record is, really, each moment held like a fly in amber, except alive. But it is equally true that this could be considered your soul’s record, while your spirit’s record is in what you sometimes call the completed self.

I think you mean, the spirit’s record could be thought of as the end-of-the-story record, rather than the moment-by-moment record. It is how the spirit was changed by the events and by my reactions to the events, from the point of view of “that life is over and done with; here’s the net result.”

Yes, that is the sense of it.

Which as usual begs the question of how there can be a net effect when every possible path in my life is taken, including any paths in which JFK wasn’t killed in Dallas. As usual, the question is, why wouldn’t they all cancel out.

And as usual the answer is, they don’t cancel, they add. The result is not a result of attrition but of addition. The very plethora of results is the answer.

I keep forgetting that. My tendency is to think that a life will produce a result that will be built upon, and I keep getting reminded that a life produces a huge range of results, all of which considered together, and only all of them considered together, is the result.

It makes a difference. Many a conundrum in logic disappears when you realize that common sense is misleading you by over-simplifying the situation.

What is real in your life, as seen from the non-obstructed All-D perspective, is the result within you of going through such experiences either directly or vicariously. Yes, your moment-by-moment reaction is as real as the 3D world, but, in a way, it isn’t any realer, even though it continues to exist in a way the moving-present 3D world does not.

To put it in a hierarchy of reality:

• The 3D experience itself, including bodily impact, anything sensory.
• The psychic portion of the 3D experience; what enters the Akashic Record.
• The net effect on this version of your life of having gone through the experience.

The first tier hurts; the second tier has meaning; the third tier contains the potential from that life forward.

Well, what about the time I healed Joseph Smallwood’s injured back?[i] Didn’t one life move to at least the Akashic Record version of another life and alter it, thus opening a new path for the entire life, at least that version of his life?

And perhaps you might have been able to – still could – cause him to move his body during the battle to avoid the crippling blow. That would be at the first-tier level of reality. Wouldn’t that be a good thing?

I’m sensing a trap. I don’t know if I would still be me if he didn’t have his altered-state experience of an angel healing him. If that is a true risk, I don’t suppose I would change things even to spare him. But, is it a true risk?

Remember, you are considering one given time-line. It isn’t like it would remove all other possibilities or even one of them.

Ah, but in effect I would be creating a new possible time line, and I would be somehow tied to it.

Haven’t you spent years wondering why you couldn’t live in a timeline in which Kennedy did not get killed?

For the first time, I’m beginning to understand. Not all timelines lead to the same place, of course. From your third tier of reality, where we come out is more important than what we go through to get there. Can’t avoid the speed bumps if we want to traverse the road.

That’s a little too simple, but close enough.

 

[i] As described in Chasing Smallwood. I, working in an altered state from 1994, changed what had happened in 1863, with momentous consequences. Impossible, according to conventional views of reality. Less unusual than we might think, according to the scheme sketched out by our non-3D friends.

Monday, October 2, 2017

Physical train wrecks and psychological debris and vast impersonal forces flowing through us.

You all know how these forces sweep through your lives; you see it first hand, you see it in dramas and histories and twice-told talks. Passion and conflict is at the heart of story, after all. No conflict, no story. But is conflict as simple a thing as self-interest colliding with self-interest? You could make a reasonable argument that that is all it is, but we would say that argument would amount to “nothing buttery,” and would clarify nothing.

Lust manifests!

Anger, envy, swollen pride manifest!

You see them on all sides. Conversely, anybody could tell first- or second-hand stories of noble actions, of self-sacrifice, of quiet unnoticed heroism. Scratch any story and you will find people acting out of motivations. Scratch the motivations and you will find desirable or undesirable passions, maybe quiet, even placid, but passions. An old woman may be invisibly passionate over her flower garden, or her pets, or – anything, really. The key here is “invisibly.” Although passion is at the heart of all drama, not all passion expresses itself in a dramatic fashion.

These forces make up your life. The man who sacrifices his life day by day at a meaningless job, that his children may live and hopefully may live better than he, is acting from conviction, and what is conviction rooted in, if not some passion?

We will not continue to pile up examples. Look at other aspects of your life, the events around you and those you only hear of. Wars, cooperation, disasters and disaster relief, millions of private enterprises commercial and otherwise, and millions of pointlessly destructive activities like vandalism. Music, art, poetry, technology, finance, scholarship – all the forms of human activity you can think of. At some place they connect to passion.

So where does it come from? In trying to answer that, realize that plugging in a word like “instinct” is not an answer, because not a process, not a linking-together of things, but a word implying “nothing but”; it is a decision not to inquire. So – inquire. Where does this force come into your life from?

You may think, “I was born with it,” and that is certainly true, but it doesn’t answer anything. It says that you have never lived without it. (Nor could you.) But we knew this: Soul without Spirit is not living in the 3D world; it is closer to being a ghost of itself.

All right, but that sort of answers the question, doesn’t it? These forces are the forces of Spirit.

Fine. And what are the forces of Spirit?

I take it the answer is not as simple as “The electricity that runs through the wires,” or “The light that shines through the fiber optics.”

That would be merely to restate in other words what was said. Resist the temptation to consider the Soul as in 3D and the Spirit as coming from the non-3D somehow. Try to see both inhabiting the All-D, so that, although they coexist in the same space, Spirit is mostly not comprehended by Soul. You could say, pretty accurately, that

• Soul is bound to its 3D limitations in which it was founded
• Spirit inhabits all of reality, not only the 3D portion of it.

Hence Spirit is invisible to greater or lesser extent depending upon how conscious the Soul is. Spirit is always here, always functioning, but is it not always perceived, and rarely is perceived in the same way at different times by different Souls.

The next step is to realize that since Spirit interpenetrates your being, its vagaries are going to affect you, often directly.

I didn’t realize that Spirit has vagaries. I think of Spirit as – well, as a vast impersonal force, the way you have been describing it.

You are thinking of Soul and Spirit as two different kinds of things that happen to intersect in human enterprises. But Spirit created Soul. It animates Soul. It shares its essence with Soul.

I thought we were saying that a Sam creates a soul of its own essence.

Do you think a Sam’s essence (in so far as it is personal) is somehow different from Spirit? That we have Spirit on the one hand and Sam on the other?

I guess I don’t know what I thought. I never thought about that as a problem at all.

Well, let us give the kaleidoscope a shake and see if anything emerges more clearly. Look at it this way. Sam = Spirit creating and incorporating and developing and fostering Souls. In being so engaged, it loses some of its freedom of action, somewhat as a parent does to a dependent child, and becomes part of a compound being. So the difference between what we call Sam for convenience and what we continue to call Spirit is whether one is or is not part of a compound being.

So I take it that Spirit too can be subdivided into more or less individuals, some of whom make one choice, others other choices?

“As above, so below.” What is individual seen one way is community seen another way.

Huh! Well this is a startling development.

Think about it and we’ll come back to it.

 

Monday, October 2, 2017

To continue, then: How can all be well when all is not well, at the same time?

And you heard the answer even as you wrote.

Well, I heard the analogy: How can we be individuals and communities at the same time?

Mostly it is a question of focus. “What You See Is What You Get” is an expression you use sometimes. Perhaps this is true in a sense not intended by those who invented it.

In computer terms, WYSIWYG means transparency: Literally, whatever you are looking at is the result. It means there won’t be translation errors, you might say. But you are using it to mean, depending on how we choose to see things, that’s how they are.

Well – not quite.

Smiling. I get that a lot.

Better than “Dead wrong,” probably, or “Don’t be ridiculous.”

Still smiling. So –

Depending on how you choose to see things, that’s the aspect of them that seems to you to be real. That often seems like the only aspect that is real. In this case, closer to “choose your own reality” than “create your own reality.” It isn’t that you are shaping reality by how you choose to see it, but that you are shaping you, shaping your reality, which after all is the only reality you can know. Your, and our, perception of reality is always going to be less than whatever reality really is in essence.

So, accepting that, how does it tie in to the vast impersonal forces you keep mentioning?

First, are you clear that life is how it appears to you, more than how it really is?

We never see the entire picture, only our subset which we often take to be the entire picture. I am clear on that, yes. Even the fact that each of us has uncounted versions living different timelines tells me that reality has to be bigger than anything anyone or any one timeline can apprehend. By definition, really.

All right. So then it shouldn’t surprise you – though we suspect that it will – to hear that the shape the world is in is no more fixed than anything else, except in any given timeline.

That makes perfect sense, and you’re right, it never occurred to me. Not sure why. I suppose it has been obvious all along, but in a different context that I didn’t happen to associate with this one.

Most of learning is less the acquisition of new facts than the associating of what you already know in different contexts.

And I’m starting to get your drift.

It really shouldn’t surprise anybody that the world they see around them is integrally connected to the version of themselves that is walking that particular timeline. How else could it be? You and your world can’t be connected only arbitrarily. External events are only seemingly external and unconnected. Rita was at some pains to point out that the newly dead soul realized that its 3D life had all been internal after all. It is in the confusing of external and internal that so many people’s anguish takes place. And perhaps you can spell that our in our place.

You seem to be saying, if we didn’t take “external” events to be more real than the internal life we know first-hand, we wouldn’t be so upset at how badly things go. Can that be what you really mean? I know, “not quite.”

This requires some careful spelling-out.

If you take external events to be self-evidently real, if only because they seem to be perceived and accepted by everybody around you, they will seem realer to you than the thoughts, feelings, emotions that make up your life. It is crazy but natural: What is remote from your experience will seem more real than what is immediately at hand.

And don’t think this means only events you may see on the news. The things that happen to you – the innumerable things that make up the external interface with the world also may seem more real, because more undeniable and more unmalleable, then the internal events. So, tying your shoe, eating your breakfast, driving your car, reading your mail, talking on the telephone – that kind of thing – is all going to seem realer to you than your own thoughts! It’s crazy, seen from our viewpoint, except that we do understand the underlying dynamics.

So do I, now: We are used to crediting our senses more than our intuitions. Sensory data seems objective, intuition or call it non-sensory data seems at least debatable.

Does this seems like a stretch, then? To say that 3D life is a life that systemically inverts the order of importance of things?

I can see it. But seeing it doesn’t overrule the reality I experience. My lungs still function correctly or they don’t, and my part in that seems secondary to environmental forces.

Well, we aren’t trying to say that people ought to be able to overcome 3D conditions; just the contrary. 3D life was not designed to be superseded or outmaneuvered. Our point here is that this systematic distortion in how you understand the world, rooted in how you experience the world, helps explain how “all is well” and “all is not well” can coexist, both being true depending upon viewing point.

It still comes perilously close to saying, “It’s all a show; those mangled bodies don’t mean anything.”

No, that is not the idea. What we are really getting to is that the reality is the energy flowing through those lives, not the external incidents that result from energy flows, and redirect energy flows.

I’m starting to get what you’re driving at. They are real forces, real consequences. But the reality is in the real part of us, and not in the merely physical part of us.

You’ve gotten it by a spark leaping mind to mind, but your readers may not get it from the words they’ve read so far. Some may, some may not.

Well, how to put it any clearer? Our emotions, and that includes all the emotions of anybody in any news event, are real, and they are the point of the experience. They (and the changes they result in, within ourselves) are what we will take with us in the realer All-D world. Nobody carries a burned building or an exploded bomb or a deadly virus from 3D into All-D. They are all, you might say, local phenomena. In that sense, it hardly matters what happens externally in 3D. What matters is what happens internally to each of us, because that is what is real and that is what will persist. In that sense, all is well no matter the train wreck. Although, this does leave the fairly large question of what about the psychological debris caused by the physical train wrecks.

That has everything to do with those same forces we keep promising to discuss. And of course, your time being up –

Next time. Okay, thanks.

 

Sunday, October 1, 2017

We as 3D beings may be receiving different-colored input (so to speak), as well as coloring it ourselves?

You are part of a process, not only the result of a process. Creation isn’t finished, and creation isn’t something that was done to you, so to speak. It is something done with you, and is forever being done with you, not merely to you. Remember this, if you can.

As I was writing that, I got an image of people watching television, passively receiving input.

That may be how it seems to them, but even “passive” is active, in a sense. You might as well describe plants in a garden as being passive to input like water. Receiving is transforming, conscious or not. It isn’t really possible to remain unaffected by anything that flows through you, even by an active decision not to be changed.

The resolution would itself be a change from a prior state.

Even if it were a continuing resolution, yes, it represents an effect of an interaction. You are never inert recipients, but, by nature, inevitably, creators. That aspect, that you attribute to your God or gods, is the one descriptor that best includes all humans.

Creation is not a matter merely of imagination, of focused thought, any more than merely of skilled hands, or channeled willpower. It is your essence, your continued and uninterrupted and uninterruptable effect upon the world around you and within you. Every moment, you create by what you are.

• You are creating your flower,
• you are creating a habit-system (your mind);
• you are molding the possibilities of the present moment in the context of past moments and future moments.

And of course it all proceeds in a broader context – past lives, other versions, interactions with all the parts of your Sam, and so on  and so forth.

I don’t know, that sounds kind of high-flying. Too mystical to still have any practical meaning, almost.

Oh do you think so? Then what is the meaning of lives that last 10 or 15 years in the middle of some African war-zone, or in semi-starvation somewhere in Asia, or in meaningless drudgery in middle America? How do you make sense of the world if you think (implicitly, as you often do) that the measure of a life is what one does with it?

Is that why you can say all is well? Because no matter how miserable a life people may have, it is a creation somehow?

You see, we just pushed a button you didn’t quite realize was still wired up.

You certainly did, I take it you did so deliberately.

Well, we aren’t sorry to have done so. The more you are aware of, the larger your options, as you know.

It is always well to have compassion for others and to do what you can for those who touch your life. But it is a hasty person who concludes that life is poorly designed because the world is full of suffering or (an even more common, if unconscious, reason) because the world does not conform to your expectations of it, or your desires for it.

Here’s an experiment: Why don’t you do something to prevent the slave trade of the 17th century? Or, prevent the Roman Republic from degenerating into the Roman Empire? Or stop the Opium War of 1842? Those are all worthy causes, and your ability to affect them is exactly the same as your ability to affect things halfway around the world today.

Between the lines, I get, “unless your life calls you that way.”

Well, unless your life brings you there, or brings them to you, yes. Explain.

You aren’t saying don’t help when you can; you’re saying don’t confuse feeling bad over a situation with actually doing something to help, and don’t spend your life feeling guilty that you are leading your life instead of somebody else’s. I get that the people who formed the anti-slavery society, for instance, were doing something that came to them, or were finding a way to affect something that was affecting them. This isn’t a contradiction to what you’re saying, but an illustration of it.

That’s right. If you are called to a crusade, all right. But if you are called to every crusade, well – not only do practical objections arise, but what you are doing with your self-creation is not perhaps what you think you are doing. All paths are good; we aren’t saying, “Don’t do that, it’s futile.” We are saying what you decide will be what you do, and what you do (internally as well as externally) will be what you are. And it is “what you are” that ultimately will count.

But there is a larger point to be made, and a more difficult one: Life is good, no matter what it looks like to you. Human life on earth in 2017 is not mostly a failure, no matter how it looks to you.

Your political and social and economic and ecological troubles – not to mention the huge spiritual vortex stirring up everything, ramping up the intensity of all conflicts – could tempt you to say, “All is obviously not well. We are doomed. The injustice of the world is suffocating us all.” Can you hold that thought and feeling – which is not wrong – and still realize that all is well because all is always well?

I think people would be glad if you could help them with it.

We can, probably making them angry in the process because it involves associating two lines of thought that they typically keep separate, even if they shuttle from one to the other several times a minute.

On the one hand, follow the news, with its unending serial of disaster upon problem upon intractable conflict. You mostly do it all the time, scarcely even noticing. Studying it in history isn’t all that much different from allowing it to flow through you via television or computer or gossip. Even sagas of heroism, altruism, even success stories, take place against a background of on-going train wrecks. This half of your mind is firmly mounted in a setting of on-going unfairness, stupidity, incompetence, malice and – in general – a throwing-away of all good possibilities, and unnecessarily.

True enough. That has been my experience since Nov. 22, 1963.[i]

Certainly. You compare what did happen with what you think might have happened, or should have, could have happened, and it all looks like waste. So you understand the half of the dilemma that looks around and says all is certainly not well, and anybody who thinks so is blind or stone-hearted. And by nature and on faith you nonetheless hold to the conviction that somehow all is well, regardless.

I hold to it, I feel it, but I certainly can’t explain it or even defend it.

And, unlike many, you are able to hold both incompatibles at the same time. Do you know why?

I do since you just conveyed it. I got “all is well” not from somebody else, either first-hand or second-hand, but from essence. The guys flowed it through me, telling Rita in 2001, and I never doubted it, even if, as you point out, it is incompatible with everything else I know.

That is where we can go next, then. How can both be true, and what does that tell us about those vast impersonal energies flowing through you, which we remind you is our main focus at the moment.

 

[i] The day the assassination of President John F. Kennedy changed everything.

We were describing compound beings living, deciding, shaped by and shaping (to a slight individual effect but a somewhat larger cumulative and collective effect) the winds of spirit that blow through them.

We remind you, as you seem to need to be reminded periodically, that all of this effort is not so that we may draw castles in the sky or that you may daydream “what if” pictures to compare with other schemes, but so that you may change your lives.

In other words, work with this, don’t merely be entertained by it. You don’t have to accept it, or reject it, but, work with it, wrestle with it. See what you really think. Of course, this too is within your choice, but the reminder is there. We don’t mean this as a chastisement, but think of us as an alarm clock, set to go off at unpredictable intervals, lest you fall asleep and have no one to nudge you.

So, keeping in mind that we intend to give you something of practical use, let’s consider your lives as you know them. In all their infinite variety, still they have patterns common to all. No need to enumerate them, you know life. But for the moment, concentrate on your emotional life, or – let’s say, your internal life, which is nearly but not quite the same thing.

When the morning’s energies flow though you, how do they flow? Do they flow through unshaped space?

I think you are meaning some illustrative images, like wind flowing across a field, unobstructed; or funneling through and between trees, or being channeled down the streets of Manhattan, or blowing into windows on one side of a house, blowing through and emerging on the other side, things like that.

Yes only more intricate, more obstructed, more convoluted, and at the same time under less pressure and more pressure.

Harder to find an image for that. Air conditioning is one example that comes to mind, perhaps an absurd example.

Not so bad in some ways. Air conditioning is channeled through duct work, and the ducting may be looked at as both channel and obstruction, as interference with flow and as magnifier of flow. But for the analogy to work, you need to see your lives as the building, and the ductwork as the pattern of your life to date; that is, at any given moment.

I see that a less mechanical and solid analogy would serve us better. It would need to be able to change the ductwork moment by moment, like a computer responding to commands of a programmer.

More than that, it would need to allow for different kinds of winds blowing through. Try another analogy.

Instead of wind, let’s think of the forces as electricity moving through a neural net. The configuration of the net determines the direction of flow and, to some extent, the strength of the flow (in inverse proportion to the obstacles it throws up, the tortuous pathways it requires). The configuration is determined not by the electricity but by the controller of the net, however we wish to envision that.

A much more elastic, serviceable analogy. We congratulate you.

I can’t decide whether that is sarcasm. I’m well aware that what I did was wait, receptively, holding the requirement in mind, until it surfaced.

No need to fear sarcasm. When something has been achieved, it has been achieved.

Okay. So then—?

Well, you see, between the two analogies, you get closer to the idea we are trying to present. Analogy is never exact, but two or more may together suggest what cannot quite be stated outright.

All right, so look at what we have. Energy flows through you. If it did not, your computer would not work, so to speak. But how it flows through you is not the same as what flows through you.

I think you mean, the very same energy, flowing though us, will appear to be different in that it will exhibit different characteristics depending on the nature of what it flows through.

No, not quite. It is the same energy, and depending upon what it flows through, it will seem to  exhibit different characteristics. Spirit will be blamed or credited for what it animates, not for its own neutral animating force.

A better analogy comes to me: Light shines through a vast maze of fiber-optic threads, and the configuration of the threads is what channels the light.

Now you have three analogies; so much the better. Continually triangulating, you can get closer to it.

Now, bear in mind the contradictions in what we have said.

• We have described these vast impersonal forces (we repeat these words for a reason) as representing or even exemplifying what you know as sinful or soulful attitudes, negative or positive biases, predilections that dominate and complicate your lives.
• We have also described these vast impersonal forces as being, in effect, causative and neutral, like wind, like channeled air, like electricity, like light.

That is contradiction, and in contradiction, faced and (so to speak) faced down, is greater understanding to be found.

In effect, you are asking us to do as Rita did, posing questions and pointing out ambiguities and contradictions.

Wrestling with the material, yes. Taking it seriously. That’s the invitation.

Well, how do you reconcile the two positions?

We don’t.

I beg your pardon?

We don’t reconcile them, we use them to show that they are contrasting points of view. In such case, resolution always comes only by moving to a higher, more encompassing perspective. The resolution is in realizing that the analogies are still too simple. They are good as halfway houses, but they contradict the facts somewhat.

It is as if all the light shining through the fiber optics must be white light, or all the electricity must be at the same amperage or voltage. All light may have been white on the morning of creation (so to speak), but that was a long time of experience ago. All voltages may have been uniform initially, but, again, not by now.

Remember, these are analogies. Try not to get caught up in the logical problems caused by the nature of the analogy; center on the logical problems posed by what the analogies are trying to convey.

I get that by this act of the play, nothing is pristine; everything shows the result of prior use.

An interesting take on what we are trying to convey. Not that the forces of the world are shopworn, but that the very energies that flow through you are themselves the product of much that happened before you arrived on the scene. It isn’t white light; it is light some of whose qualities have been enhanced or hampered. (That is a definition of color, you see.)

 

Our weekly Intuitive Linked Communication class did a five-minute drumming session on this question: “What is the nature of instincts, habits, and intuition?” After I heard what everyone got, I asked them to type it up , and Dirk volunteered to concatenate them and send them back to us.  Given that this does not raise privacy issues, I decided the net result is a post in itself.

I think this is of interest on a couple of levels:

a) the similarity of results,

b) the fact that everyone got their answers in the same way, by consulting guidance and reporting what they got, and, of course,

c) the material itself.

Here’s what we got, working together/separately:

Drumming:

What is the nature of instincts, habits and intuition?

Dirk’s session:

Though you sense there is a relation between these, and there is, it is not so strong as you imagine.

Habits we covered yesterday. And some of those are related to instincts and intuition. Many though have very different origins and are unrelated.

Instincts come mostly from the past experience of yourself, your threads, your parts and the interaction among them happening in the background – subconsciously so to speak.

They are a reflection of past experience overlain on current experience.

Intuition is a bit different. It can be very similar. But the major distinction is that intuition relies more on connection with ‘higher self’, connection to others, and even more about direct and indirect sensing of those things that are about to happen.

For the intuitive insights that do not rely on future memory, or anything like that, they rely in part on a pattern recognition similar to instincts and related to insight. They are projections of likely paths based on all of that and on connection to guidance.

For intuitive insights that are dependent on future memory, there is a strong filtering aspect to prevent you from always “falling” into a seemingly preordained future, and instead keeping you grounded in the present moment.

Paul:

Instinct or intuition is unlikely to manifest “purely,” that is, to be solely composed of itself. Just as, in Ben Franklin’s words, “Diligence is the mother of good luck,” so instinct and intuition can result from the cultivation of other qualities. If you learn to absorb sensory input before you judge, if you put aside intellectual rationalization—which after all is primarily a learned or education-imposed habit—forces are free to arise—when you get out of your own way.

For the group, this is a contribution to the question. Obviously there are many other aspects and points to be made and discussed.

Dave:

What you’re really asking is, what is happening below the level of conscious thought. The answer is… everything. The universe. All that is. You’re looking at instincts, habits, intuition as different things. What happens if you look at them as all one thing, emanating from the totality of you? [I assume this includes threads, higher self, sam, what have you]. Perhaps a more productive question is, what can I know now, below the level of consciousness, that can lead to living life more abundantly?

At some point, they mentioned the Dunning-Kruger effect, measuring a cognitive bias to overestimate ability. I took that as a cheeky way to say, the veil is there to allow full immersion in the physical experience, enjoy.

Frank:

Instincts – innate habit. Habit – results of past choices. Intuition – manifestation of instincts.

That is, instincts allow faster-than-thought reaction to present-moment situations. This is because they rest on past habits – past agreed-upon ways of proceeding – among and within various strands. Intuitions are instinctive summaries.

We know this is difficult. We can talk later at more length.

Nancy:

Immediately you felt instincts had to do with safety and survival.

Habits are for comfort and rest periods between growth spurts.

Intuition is heart centered, coming from a more inclusive connection to divine nature.

Martha:

The 3 words are a semantic continuum.  Intuition is in the moment guidance.  Instinct is more historical.  Maybe generational knowledge.  Ingrained, reflexive.  Can be a warning system.  Habits are unconscious, usually.  Easier to change than instincts because they start consciously.  So you can use the conscious mind to stop them.

Jon:

They are basically each from separate sources. Habits being like programming in software. Instincts being hardware. Intuition being neither of those. But some input from spirit. They can all be experienced in a similar way. But they still have different origins.

Jane:

You remember some of the rough water times in your life. And you thought you were spending too much on 3D and not on your non-3D self. Consider it was when you were relying on the work ethics of an earlier self, like a thread. And you needed to refine that for the current line of work. That work ethic may have been just fine for the work that that thread was doing. And it was time to update it.

Christine:

Instincts intuition and habits – instincts and intuition resemble each other as they can both be nudges from guidance. Some instincts are built in reactions – hardwired. Guidance is always available depending on your vibrational opening or states.  Instincts can also be learned like Pavlov’s dig.

Can I be aware of the difference between instinct and habits.

Put your energy there.

Dick:

Hey. You forgot about us. Well… where do you suppose they came from?