"I of my own knowledge…"

This originally posted as four posts between March 26 and 29, 2007. Reposted here as one post for your convenience.

An examination in four parts

The best way that I can think of to give you the flavor of the process of remote viewing is to examine in detail the remote viewing exercise I engaged in on Wednesday, March 21, 2007. (At other times in the day I served as monitor or as one of the panel of judges, as we all did.)

The remote viewing session involved doing the viewing, with the assistance of a monitor, and then being judged by a panel of eight judges who had to decide which of four possible targets in front of them was the one I had attempted to remote view. I propose to examine it in four pieces:

This first entry talks about the process as I experienced it.

The next will consist of my notes, sketches, and summary produced during and after my viewing. (However, this entry will have to wait until I figure out how to upload scans of my notes! It could be years!)

A third entry will consist of the target pool — the four photos before the judges – to give you an opportunity to examine the photos in light of my sketches and commentary, and see if you could have picked out my target. (This, too, will depend upon my being able to figure out how to upload images.)

Finally — assuming I do figure out how to upload images — a fourth entry will display the target, and will discuss why the judges were able to identify it as the target. (more…)

Rita Warren: This is March 26^th, 2002. And Frank is here, and the rest of the group is here.

F: Maybe. We’ll see.

R: All right. Okay. Let me let me start with something Frank and I were talking about the other day: Soul mates and twin souls. And I was wondering if there was anything at all to this sort of idea.

F: Well, just philosophically, there’s always a nub to any idea that many people have held, but that may be all that it is. The twin soul concept and the soul mate concept, if you look at them, are firmly rooted in this individuality that we keep repeating is overemphasized, not that it’s overemphasized, but that it’s like one end of a magnet, and it’s only looking at the North Pole and not the South Pole, which is equally valid. So if you take the concept of twin soul or soul mate and you look at it from our point of view, what is there to be? In other words, you could say, we group the energies and send them across. So maybe we group similar energies or even identical energies and send them across; you could look at that as soul mates. But does it mean more than that?

And “twin soul” implies, and we know that people say it’s a soul that actually split in two in the beginning and that therefore, they’re looking — and it’s usually seen in a romantic context, although not invariably — buta shorter answer for us than usual would be, no, we don’t think much of either concept because it’s a concept that can appear if you look at something as if individuals were real. And we’ve said more than once that individuals aren’t very real, they’re more like a convenient fiction. If you don’t stay within that fiction, what’s left of the concept of soul mate or twin soul? (more…)

March 19, 2002:

R: All right, this time we have a tape recorder. Let’s see if we can review some of the things we talked about last time. One of the things that I asked about was the noition of your planting an idea that leads to a question. What I remember about your response was that you talked quite a bit about the energy resonating together.

TGU: Let us repeat that again while we have the tape recorder on. What we were saying was that the interaction between our side and your side goes on continually, and it’s often not noticed on your side. You have what you think are stray hunches or ideas, or something that comes out of the blue, and often that’s us prompting you and you don’t really recognize it. And it’s not particularly important that you do. But, that’s what goes on, so that when we say we planted that idea, that’s not particularly unusual. And it doesn’t even mean that it’s particularly important, you know? It isn’t like 95% of your ideas are your ideas and the 5% that are ours are sparklers. It’s more like, we’re always doing it and you’re sometimes picking it up. It’s also that there are ideas that are just out there and sometimes you snag some.

And the other major thing that we mentioned was that we use you to prompt each other. That is to say, if you in your own mind think something, you may not even notice it, and if you notice it you might not pay attention to it. But if you hear someone say it to you, you’ll pay more attention to it, because you’re more accustomed to paying attention to the outside world, or what seems like the outside world. So, when we need to get someone’s attention, one way to do it is to use others around them. And another way, is of course, as Carl Jung recognized long ago, is we use all kinds of coincidences, so called: — dreams, thoughts, people, seemingly external objects, all of those things.

R: And I was asking you how does this process occur, you know, and how is –.

Here’s what I asked. I asked “is your energy system resonating with our energy system in these sessions,” and I think what you said is, “what’s the difference there? Why do you make that distinction?” (more…)

 [continued from previous post]

R: Mm-hmm. Let me ask about another one of the energies that Frank has dealt with, Joyce, who I think was suffering when she died. He has had the experience of going through the Monroe process, of moving her to Focus 27 and releasing her because of the sense he had that she was stuck somewhere along the line. Now, how does this sort of thinking sit with you?

F: You mean how does it square with what we’re telling you.

R: Yes.

F: Well, just parenthetically, it isn’t that she was suffering, it’s that her suffering, combined with the painkiller she was using, disoriented her, so that so that she didn’t notice when she moved over.

OK, it’s a big question, a worthwhile question. We don’t know that we’ll be able to — well, we’ll chip away at it, let’s put it that way.

You have such things as ghosts, and presences, that sensitive people can feel. And those ghosts or presences — well, we don’t need to go into ghosts. Patrick, okay? From the famous Patrick tape. We remember the question that you were talking about, about since when you drop the body the barrier with the upper part of you — the upstairs, the rest of us — is dissolved, why can anybody get stuck back here? And the best way to put it might be to say that it’s a habit of mind. Patrick, because he wasn’t aware that he had died — the answer will be a little circular but bear with us — because he wasn’t aware that he had died and had therefore dropped the body and therefore was available to flow back into what was, had flowed back on our side, but was not all aware of it. His attention was focused on earth. All we accomplished was to re-direct his attention. (more…)

Rita Warren and Skip Atwater monitoring, Frank in the black box

F: [speaking before tape begins] — possibility. The possibility of more awareness of contact with them. It’s like, they’re here all the time, but I don’t cognize it that way.

R: We want an especially good contact today to get some questions answered that have been bothering us.

F: Give me just a minute, and you can start. [Pause.] if we can get supporting stuff for 21, I think a lot of the session will be in 21 today.

R: All right, Skip has that underway.

F: All right, you can go ahead when you want Rita. [30 second pause.] ah, that feels good. [214 second pause.]

R: Without pulling yourself out of the state, can you tell us what is happening?

F: Well, I’ve been connecting things, extending my awareness beyond the booth and beyond the building, and I just went back to connect with Bertram, and I had this sense of St. Ambrosius, and I have no idea what that’s about yet. And I thought to rebuild the crystal, which it is doing nicely.

R: Very good. Let us know what you are experiencing from time to time.

F: OK. [pause] Basically, I was just waiting for you to start with the questions and then, while I was waiting, I drifted, it was nice. Is nice. (more…)

Rita Warren: Gentleman, good to be in touch again.

TGU: Always in touch.

R: We had some questions occur to us around the issue of other lives we wanted to bring up and try to get a few things straightened out about it.

TGU: You won’t mind if we snicker at the idea of “occurred to us.”

R: That’s all right. We don’t feel personally attached to being responsible for all the good things in life like questions. Let me ask the question I started with, and then we’ll go to Frank’s questions. [pause]

How useful is it for us or for you to have us try to bring into consciousness other lifetimes in order to integrate them?

TGU: Leaving aside, just for the moment “integrate them,” because there’s many things that might mean, we feel it’s very important because it’s your stretching to redefine yourself in a somewhat larger fashion than you did before. From our point of view, it isn’t so much your stretching as that you’re ceasing to limit yourselves to that degree. When you habitually are in contact with parts of yourself that are in other times, other spaces, other dimensions, you cannot see yourself in quite the same smaller way that you had before. And this is in itself valuable.

Valuable for a couple of reasons. You can’t increase contact with another part of yourself without in that very same motion, by definition, increasing the contact that other part of yourself has with you. You see? So, this good work works both ways.

You in the year 2002 naturally look at your own personal self as the center of your larger self. There’s no other way for you to see it. But another part of you that’s in the year 2102 sees itself as the center of the whole extended self, of course, you see? That’s how it’s supposed to be. Well, if you, from your end, widen the communication, the one on the opposite end also gains. So that from its point of view, it’s an unexpected grace, so to speak. You see, like the grace of God. It’s very good work. (more…)

This material was originally posted in five parts, from July 2 thru 6. For your convenience, I am reposting it as one long post.

Saturday, June 30, 2007
Nearly 10 a.m. awoke thinking of something worth recording here, but too many things between awakening and picking up the pen. That’s why I often do my morning’s work before I shower and shave.

So — if one of you splendid gentlemen will deign to get on the line and remind me — or set some other rabbit running — I’d be obliged as usual.

I had a stray thought that I put on the blog this morning — I used to think that what a person made of his mind — the things he learned, the connections he made — were lost when he died. It made everything seem so pointless. Realizing that the pattern of mind created by that effort survives and is there to be used recasts it in a different light entirely.

There is much more, obvious to me but probably not to others (because of just the kind of work I have been doing, it occurs to me!) and would need to be spelled out.

It’s hard to find the organizing principle that will let me spell it out, who and how this network is used. So, friends — David, if no other is more appropriate –

We appreciate the difficulty — perhaps now you will appreciate ours, over the years!

A drawing?

That’s right. We’ll try, anyway. Right-brain pattern appreciation, remember, because words can explain and amplify and clarify but alone they can only mislead. (more…)

[continued from previous post]

R: All right, I think I understand that. It seemed though that the guys, as representing a different level than you as an individual, seemed to see things from a different perspective than you do, and they’re trying to teach us on this level to understand their perspective, but we don’t in fact see without the time and space dimensions. So I’m wondering that about another level. Whether there is talent there that we can understand that would be different from the first two layers here.

F: Well, the only thing that comes to mind right away on that, it is that in fact it isn’t an “us” and a “you,” and it isn’t a “they” and an “us,” it’s all one thing and these distinctions that we go along with making, still you have to remember they’re not real distinctions. It isn’t Frank on one end, the guys on the other end, even though it’s convenient to look at it that way. It really is that you are seeing a part of a being and in trying to understand what you’re seeing, you’re dissecting the parts, and that’s true as far as it goes, but don’t lose sight of the fact that the parts are parts of one thing, and this goes all the way up and all the way down. We know you know that, but we need to continually reemphasize it, because your spatial analogies — which we really don’t think you’ll ever be able to get out of while you’re in the body — by their very nature separate things into here and there. And your time analogies separate into now and then and when. But the separation is not real, it’s just convenient.

We understand your question. Is there a difference beyond us as noticeable as the difference beyond us in your dimension where everything is compressed into matter? But we have to say, one world a time.

R: OK, we’re ready to release that for now unless you have something else to say about that.

F: No, just that you can think of it as, if you would magnify pictures of the ganglia of the brain, and think of that as a miniature picture of the way reality is, and don’t look at it logically but look at it as a picture — in other words don’t analyze it by logical but  analyze it by your spatial appreciation — it’ll give you some sense of the holographic nature of things. It may, anyway. (more…)

[In the black box at The Monroe Institute]

Rita Warren: Are you totally comfortable in there?

F: Yes, indeed.

R: Okay.

F: Was that too low?

R: Everything’s fine. Just relax and move on to a place where you’re comfortable and can report, and let us know when you are there.

F: All right, how about if we just go up to 21. That feels like the flavor du jour.

R: All right, just taking your time, move up to 21, and us know when you’re there.

F: Okay. [Long pause, with yawns.] All right, that feels pretty good.

R: All right. Very good. Can you tell me what you’re experiencing right now? (more…)

December 4, 2001

F: [Yawns]

R: You’re getting very relaxed, I see. Very good.

F: Someday you’re going to turn on the radio and there’ll be no show. [they laugh]

R: Well, one thing that’s already come up this evening is a concern Frank has about – I think it’s an over-focus on the individuality of perspectives rather than backing-and-forthing between that and the oneness perspective, is that it?

F: Well, that – yes. That’s close enough. What’s happening is that he is occasionally suffused in one viewpoint and finds it persuasive enough that he finds it difficult to remember the other viewpoint. Now, you might not think he would, after this time, but it’s still ingrained, and when he looks at the complexity of the systems that have been worked out working from the assumption of individuality, and sees these elaborate systems involving reincarnation and judgment and karma and apparent progressions of individuals, then harks back to our explanation of all of those individuals as being part of larger beings that are also monads, he finds himself a little at sea as to how both can be so, given that he sees nothing in our explanation that shows the other ways of seeing things from a different point of view. In other words, it seems to him, or somewhat seems to him, that our unitary description doesn’t exactly contradict the multiple description, it sort of goes off in another direction entirely. He sees little overlap there. That’s what’s distressing. And he merely points out a gap that remains to be filled. There are many things to be said, and that’s one of them.

            For instance, we lightly touched on how a larger being — how an amoeba — might create a new life in space-time, chaining it to other ones or individually. Eeither way, that is, using part of its own essence that hadn’t been before, or chaining it through another life that had been before. And that gives a misleading impression, because it sounds like us bringing forth life that hadn’t lived before would make it kind of isolated and solitary. But that overlooks the fact that, of course, that life, even if it had never been on earth before, still connects with us, which connects with everything that’s been on earth before. And that’s perhaps not an obvious correlate. We thought it would be, but we still forget how easily things are seen as separate rather than connected, just from your mental habits. It’s not meant as a criticism, it’s meant as a description of the state in which you find yourselves, the mental environment, shall we say.

            So, we would advise that he just cool it, that it’s very good to ask those questions and bring up the perplexities. It’s, though, a little bit — not quite useless — but it’s needless friction to worry about it quite so much. It’s easier just to ask the question and see what happens, than it is to mull over it and go, “well, what if they don’t have an answer,” or, “ what if it doesn’t work?” You see? That’s all. The long and the short of it is, anything you can ask us we can answer, and supposing our answer was, “we don’t know,” it’d still be better than you sitting around wondering, “oh, God, do I dare ask a question,” which he tends to do somewhat. Not a lot, but somewhat.

If he’ll come loaded for bear next time with some specific questions about ways in which he thinks that our scheme doesn’t overlap with what he sees, we’d be delighted to answer. That means that that will have come to the top of the stack, and that would be a perfect — You see. There can’t be a wrong time for a question. All right? (more…)