“Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg likens this multiple universe theory to radio. All around you, there are hundreds of different radio waves being broadcast from distant stations. At any given instant, your office or car or living room is full of these radio waves. However, if you turn on a radio, you can listen to only one frequency at a time; these other frequencies have decohered and are no longer in phase with each other. Each station has a different energy, a different frequency. As a result, your radio can only be turned to one broadcast at a time.Likewise, in our universe we are “tuned” into the frequency that corresponds to physical reality. But there are an infinite number of parallel realities coexisting with us in the same room, although we cannot “tune into” them. Although these worlds are very much alike, each has a different energy. And because each world consists of trillions upon trillions of atoms, this means that the energy difference can be quite large. Since the frequency of these waves is proportional to their energy (by Planck’s law), this means that the waves of each world vibrate at different frequencies and cannot interact anymore. For all intents and purposes, the waves of these various worlds do not interact or influence each other.”
― Michio Kaku, Parallel Worlds: A Journey Through Creation, Higher Dimensions, and the Future of the Cosmos

 

So what is this thing called “I”? The “I” is something that you reserve, something that through your decisions you alter, that you create by virtue of those decisions, by virtue of the direction that you wish to take, in fact your wishes, your desires, your decisions all work together to form the “I”.

The “I” is merely a transient concept or fabrication that is produced when you open the window and peer into the realm of the physical. When seeing the situation that exists, you form an opinion on that situation, then as you are in a position to manipulate an instrument, you take action which alters the situation which you are observing. You learn from the actions you take and become aware of the strength of those actions and from that comes the feeling of power, and as this power is exercised, or this feeling grows through the exercise of decision, so arises the “I”.

The “I” arises from seeing the consequences of your decisions, my action is doing this, my action is causing that, this is ”ME”, this is “I”, this is the power.

So what you are doing in each moment is adding yet another layer of render to something, to something that started from nothing. There was nothing there until you painted the first stroke, then it became larger and you added another layer of paint, another colour and light was reflected in a different way. You became immersed in this ever growing pageant of light and you considered it to be real. You no longer considered it to be something you were producing, but if you stopped producing and retraced those steps, what would you be left with. You would be left with nothing. Therefore there would be no “I”

Can you see that is why there is no “I”. There is only the “I” that you continually create and through which you believe you have your existence. 

So what happens to that “I” when we no longer have a physical body?

Nothing happens to the “I”. The “I” that you have created still remains in your memory. The memory of the self, the self that you are, the self that created the “I”. You do not create a “self”. If you consider yourself as that which creates the “I”, then the self is eternal, it merely creates a succession of “I’s”.

So what happened to those “I’s”?

The “I’s” are like paintings, as we said, you construct the painting. Does the painting cease to exist after the artist dies? It often grows in stature. When it is first painted it is often not regarded, not vaunted or admired and yet hundreds of years after the artist has passed the painting is considered wonderful and worth enormous sums of money. Why is that? It is because a myth, a story, a perception, a hallucination, imagination has been built about this artist and the paintings…. we won’t say the artist, because one is not aware of the artist,(self) we are talking about the painting as being the “I”. This “I”, this painting, has been given a mythic status, a mythic significance but this has been built up in the eyes of many “I’s” all of which are ignorant of the self that lies in both cases behind the “I”’s. You understand..both cases? Behind the “I” and behind the “I”’s.

So when you say “Do they continue to exist?  Do the paintings still continue to exist? The “I”’s continue to exist, whether they are active depends on whether the artist still maintains an interest. Of course, the artist maintains an interest, meaning the “I” will continue to exist, for as long as the love connections continue.

If your higher consciousness suddenly withdraws its focus and you as an “I” are no longer being created what happens to the pattern of the “I”? Does it still live on and be there to meet its loved ones when they pass over?

Your “I”, once created, is created from the block of stone (on the basis that every possible sculpture exists in potential in a block of stone, so every possible manifestation exists in potential in the totality of consciousness) and as we have said so many times before it has always existed in the block of stone. You merely focus upon it and it is, but of course it is still there, it doesn’t come out of the block of stone, it is still in the block of stone. If you now take the block of stone as energetic vibration and you focus upon it and then it, in inverted commas “emerges” so that it gives the illusion of separateness then if you unfocus it sinks back, you might say, but it is still there, it is simply not highlighted, so you cannot destroy it. You cannot destroy anything because everything always exists, it merely comes into prominence when you focus upon it. (like 3d stereograms) Now this is almost impossible to explain to you but if you, anybody, thinks of an existing pattern it will come into prominence and because it comes into prominence it will, as we have said before, instantly update with everything and as there is no time you will not see any intervening gap. How can we show this not only from a point of objectivity but from a point of activity that all is happening all the time, this is almost past possibility of explaining. If you imagine the CD game we have referred to many times before, imagine it being played at the same time by millions upon millions of players, which it probably is. It is all happening at the same time, it is the same thing happening at the same time, wherever you look it is moving, moving, moving in every direction, that is the best we can probably do, to draw an analogy to show you that multiple focuses of an event can make that event seem to be happening at the same time, we were going to say in several places but, of course, there are no places, it is just what you imagine to be, a constant motion in the ever present once more. If you cast your mind to the CD just being endlessly repeated but also multiply that to as many focuses as wish to be focusing upon it. You can almost imagine standing between two mirrors looking into those mirrors and making a movement and watching it being repeated endlessly. We hope we have given you some idea, now imagine the play going on endlessly in all those locations, and also in order to spike your guns with regard to sequentiality of action, imagine it being started and finished in every moment, so that wherever you look all actions of that sequence are happening simultaneously. You must ask yourself a question at that point, “where did it start?” and “where did it finish?” because you have so many that are happening all at once, all starting and all finishing.

What about ego, what’s your take on ego?

Ego is the same as the “I”. There is no difference. They are one and the same.

We talk about people being egotistical……Full of the sense of “I”, full of the sense of power. There is merely a degree of self-expression, a degree of pride in the “I” that they have created.

Yes. Confident people seem to be egotistical to other people.

Not necessarily. You can be confident and yet humble. It depends on how you express it. Was Gandhi confident of getting the British to leave without firing a shot? Did he do it in an egotistical way, in a brash, forthright way? He did it through humility, persistence and non- violence and merely expressing the will of the Indian people. Gandhi was the will of the Indian people expressed through their chosen instrument, perhaps without them knowing it. [Just as each of us are the expression of the multiple consciousness’s that have chosen to cooperate in producing the painting that we consider to be “I”, without realising that the “I” that we feel is ours alone is actually the product of a multiple thought stream.]

So how do you feel if you consider yourself to be merely a painting being painted by an unknown artist?  Perfectly OK. You are at peace with that? Absolutely, that is the expression taking place. So do you feel confident in the artist? As I don’t feel that I know the artist, I can’t comment on that but it is as it is and I am happy with that. Are you not aware that you are the artist? Some part of me is the artist or the overseer of me is the artist and therefore I should be confident in that, so yes. You speak as if you are separate from the artist? Part of the artist. Describe to me if you can how you are part of the artist. Purely the expression of the artist. Why would that be a part? Well, I consider myself to be a facet of the artist, an expression of the artist.

We are asking you to describe yourself here, in a manner, because the “I” that you consider to be you is a picture drawn by the “self”, the artist, that you do not know.

Yes. I understand.

Now, on that basis, in the living picture (vehicle or instrument, as it is normally called) which the artist /creator is creating, it can start the vehicle, the “I” and it can either then control the vehicle or it can let go of the controls just to see what the vehicle will do. When the artist/creator does that he wishes to observe the result of letting his vehicle, let us say, keep moving in an uncontrolled manner, in that the vehicle has been programmed over its life into a series of repetitive behaviours which if left to itself it will continue to repeat. Yet within its programming there will be a series of new actions that can be taken simply because as the action arises it is filtered through the history of previous programming in an associated context and therefore another action can arise. It will be an action that has happened before but may be presented in a different way or may have come about in a different way in a different situation. The artist will then see what happens when his creation is allowed to carry on. The artist creates the vehicle, the artist allows and directs and programs the vehicle and the vehicle also learns because its computers, with their senses, record every bump in the road, every direction the vehicle takes, every form of incline and decline, the number of passengers that get in, the weights etc.. Everything that happens to that vehicle is recorded and so you can then, for a while, have a driverless vehicle, because it can get from A to B, because it knows how to get from A to B from memory, not just of the previously travelled route but from knowing what to do at an intersection, at the traffic lights, and it also knows what to do when aware of other traffic. Which is how these driverless vehicles that will, in the near future, be on your roads have been programmed, but they bear striking analogy to the “I” that the artist has been creating. Do you understand what we are saying? Yes. Therefore the artist is observing his creation. The observer is creating the observed but the observed is purely a reflection of the observer.

He creates the vehicle in such a way that eventually it is able to drive itself, with the artist watching the vehicle and how it behaves and what it can do. And deciding whether he can do better and create another vehicle especially if the first one wears out.

 So tell me how you feel about all the “I”s that are in the world today and how they behave?

If we are talking about the instrument we call David, me, then I feel I am gradually learning what the real situation is. I can see that there is neither good nor bad. Good or bad is purely an interpretation we put upon something. If I wish to view what is happening from being part of the play, the living play, then I will interpret this as being good or bad depending on how it affects me or my mind or my beliefs in what should be. If I then understand that this is all just different scenes from all the scenes that exist in potential, and it is a continually changing panorama of illusion, because all you are talking about, as far as we know from the physical plane, is that everything is just energy, if you wish, electromagnetic charges appearing from nowhere and disappearing into nowhere, but that nowhere is something that we do not understand. So if you stand back you can look at the whole thing from a completely impersonal viewpoint, quite dispassionately, much as you, to some degree, look at history. That was interesting, look at that, but there is no immediate effect. 20,000,000 people died in the First World War, that’s terrible, but have I got a feeling about that, yes it shouldn’t have happened, but what feeling have you got about that? So it depends when you say “what do you think”.  It is a question of which you, the “I” can think one thing, the artist, the self can think something entirely different because the artist understands and the “I” does not. The vehicle feels the road, the artist watches the vehicle go along the road, the artist does not feel the enormous bump except he may see the vehicle rise over the bump. He may see the jolt, he may understand what the jolt does to the vehicle but the vehicle carries on and the artist is unaffected, but for a while the vehicle remembers the bump, it remembers the jolt and when it sees the huge pothole next time it steers round the pothole and the artist may say “I programmed that vehicle well”.

So choose the seat you sit in or the position you wish to view from. You can be on the stage, in the drama, or you can be up at the back of the audience. Wherever you wish to be. And so at one stage you can place yourself in the audience but then you decide to use your binoculars and find yourself right in the middle of the action. Focus is everything.

What were the two questions? The two subjects?

The two subjects were ‘other selves’ and ‘created environments’.

Other selves, to summarise, you create the self (the “I”) that you think you are at the moment. The consciousness feels that this created self is itself, although it harbours a suspicion that there is more, hence the seeking, the looking within. Of course, there is more. Every instrument is a gestalt consciousness and, if you would like to put it this way, part of a larger gestalt consciousness that does not exist in the physical. In actuality, all in the involved consciousness exists in all dimensions, a word which is not necessarily the right one, at once. But focuses perhaps only on one. Now, consciousness is interconnected, as we have established many times before and there is no reason for consciousness not to have a finger, fingers, in many pies, that is, it has involvement in many gestalts of consciousness each with a primary focus on one instrument, one life, one self. Just as each of these instruments are separate in the dimension in which they operate, in your case the physical dimension, so the consciousness, as it is involved in each one of these, has quality of separateness, let us say, we use the word, the veil of forgetfulness once more. Just like your channels on the TV they cannot exist in the same place, you cannot be aware of both channels at once. Where you focus in one channel, then you switch to the other channel. Now, the difference is that consciousness that has its finger in all these pies does not think, much as you do not think, of one channel while it is focused on another one, it merely switches its attention, switches its focus. Because of the depth of attention in each focus, each channel is such that you blank out what you have recently seen on another channel, unless there is a happening which is extremely similar, shall we say, to that which was recently seen or experienced on another channel and somehow you have the idea, “This is what I will do,” or a eureka moment or “I think I had better do it this way”. Some of that can be because you have in your, let us say, composite memory the experience of the other dimension, although the focus is fully in an alternative one, then because you are mentally searching for an answer, you access it without understanding from where it has arisen, yet it has arisen from yourself. Let us come back to the previous analogy, which is not a wonderful one but it gives you some idea of how you live lives simultaneously. We postulated that just as time passes very quickly when you are enjoying yourself and very slowly when there is nothing to take your attention and also that it seems to pass at an ever increasing rate, speed that is, as you get older, then time has an elastic quality. Therefore, we said, that if you thought it was possible to break your day into a number of segments and then expand the time in each segment, expand the experience time, shall we say, in each segment to that of a full day, you could fit in several lives at once. Once you turn it over in your mind, you will see this is a possibility. So this a way of saying, of living, having several selves, living several lives, keeping them all separate if you wish, because in general it is necessary to keep each life separate, otherwise confusion arises, if the memory of the previous experience, recent experience in one life, is thought to be in another life, then confusion will reign as you can imagine, it would be chaotic, because simply the pieces of the jigsaw would not fit together, they would be of different shapes. Another analogy is, put it another way, the frames in the film, some would be out of place, they would not fit into the sequence or the association.

Now, when it comes to creating environments then you co-create your own environment, so if we now go back to the separate selves being lived simultaneously, each one would have created, co-created, their own environment and so you will have created different environments. Just as you can create different environments in the physical dimension you can create different environments in whichever dimension with its associated, as Seth would say, camouflage patterns, senses, laws, agreed frames of reference, as we would say, terms of reference, then you can create your different environments within said terms of reference.

I think we did miss a part, because we talked about multiple personalities able to use one instrument, yet when one personality, shall we say, surfaces it has no idea, whatsoever, that the other personalities also use that instrument, and why, because when it focuses upon that instrument it creates the “I”, the self that you know, the “I” is being created all the time at every moment. All “I”s are being created at every moment and why, because when it focuses upon that instrument it creates the “I”. The “I” is being created all the time, at every moment, all “I”s, all environments are being created at every moment, just as electrons flash in and out of orbit then so does all energy, for want of a better word. Everything, you might say, blinks on and off. It is just that as the light blinks on and off the existing pattern is shown each time and as it changes, then simply it changes, what we would say fractally, so you cannot tell the difference, until, what you would say, time passes and then you can see the difference.  But, from one on/off to the next on/off it appears that no change has happened.

So let us come back to the multiple personality experiencing the same instrument and yet being unaware that other personalities are involved in the instrument. Turn that inside out and realise that a gestalt consciousness of any size that is involved in a range of focuses, a range of involvement, with other gestalts, whose primary focus is a single instrument, although none of them are, they are all focused separately, but however for the purposes of explanation, can you imagine one consciousness has a finger in many pies, is involved in many gestalts. When we say consciousness we mean a gestalt consciousness without saying it. A consciousness can be a single point of awareness but it takes many points of awareness before it is possible to create a self. A single consciousness cannot create a self. A single consciousness is aware that it is.

Each cell that composes your body can be aware of you as the self that you are. However its primary focus is upon the activity in which it is engaged e.g.as in the role of a heart cell, a muscle cell etc.

As an analogy, let us take the point of view of a soldier in an army.  When he is discussing how the war is going, with a friend say, he would probably discuss from the point of view of the overall situation i.e. he would identify with the army as a whole. However, when discussing with his comrades where their platoon is going to be sent he will be identifying with his platoon, his focus will be on his platoon as an entity, a gestalt consciousness if you like. In the heat of battle his focus will generally be on his own personal safety, his own gestalt consciousness which he experiences as himself, “I”. In much the same way as a liver cell, when confronted with a sudden rush of alcohol focuses pointedly on the role of a liver cell, of who he is in that capacity.

A sense of “I”, or “Self”, or idea of being, is, or can be, created depending on the viewpoint from which the consciousness is focusing and the information it is receiving from that focus. The consciousness gets so absorbed in what it is experiencing that it effectively becomes the observed forgetting that it is also the observer. This is how the liver cell can experience being the whole body, the “I”. It can experience two “separate” “I”s and yet feel that it is exclusively each one.

All gestalts of consciousness, to whatever degree of conglomeration, are constantly fluctuating in the number of consciousnesses focusing within the idea, around which the gestalt has formed and as such all are being constantly created in every moment.

The sense of “I” arises from a state of mind or a state of being, therefore when you ask, “who is doing the talking?” it is the “I” or the sense of “I” that the consciousness is using in we must say, your particular space or your particular time or your particular dimension be it both in space and time.

(Of course, I am now aware that I have many “I”s depending on where I switch my focus and, depending on the frame of reference of that, shall we say, dimension, I am another “I”. But each time I switch “I”s, I am only that “I”, and each “I” is not aware of the other “I”s. But in the same way each “I” is not aware of the consciousness behind the “I”. All “I”s are instruments of the “self” i.e.experiences enjoyed by the self via its focus into each particular gestalt which is producing that “I”.)

If the actor is wearing makeup and costume can he see the actor? He can see the part he is playing, he can see the role, facial features aside, can he see who he really is? He can only have a sense of “I” from within, you finished my sentence for me. We are although, able to understand much more from this vantage point than from that of the physical instrument. The physical instrument is too personal, a physical person, the earthbound ego you might say. You would not expect to understand the complexity of the worlds of consciousness with just one small incursion into the infinite realm and interconnectedness. Would you agree? We can only move a certain way along the line of further understanding before the concepts become unfamiliar. Although we make tentative attempts to grasp  the ghostly mental images of understanding we normally seek, gradually the concept, the understanding, becomes more certain. Do you understand what was being said there? Did it make you doubt something?

No, it did not make me doubt anything.

(David speaking, What I can gather, is that although they have been saying a lot, they don’t think they understand it all. I know it sounds as if they know an awful lot, but they still only know a little.)

It might sound a lot to you but we know that we are not much less limited than you are.

What about the different levels there are supposed to be?

Do you live in a different level of experience from those you spoke of earlier?

Yes.

Therefore, as above so below. You create your realities. You go to those areas to which your thoughts naturally attract you and that is why you are encouraged to act and think in a way such that you naturally gravitate to, and are accepted by, those who you wish to be accepted by. Your idealism, your ideal world, in which people act in ways commensurate with your ideals where you would feel immense happiness and peace as everybody and everything that you experienced was in perfect harmony with your own vibration. It takes much practice, we are   trying to avoid the use of the word “time”, it takes much focus and practice to divest yourself of a lifetimes attitudes of judgement and replace them with attitudes of acceptance. You learn to accept things that you see and decide that, this could be interesting, let us put all judgement aside and see how it feels. Of course, you will naturally find that some things are in harmony with what you are and some things are not. Another time the initial feeling will be so good that as you let old attitudes surface and you find yourself unable to stay in that state you will learn to change your attitudes and therefore change your vibration so you can continue to stay in that harmonious state.

That is the process of “forever becoming”.

Each new focus you take upon will entail a different vibration. A different frequency that you are focusing into and you have to adjust to that frequency. Sometimes you get so used to that frequency that you find it hard to adjust back again. All consciousness is in the process of, shall we say, re-discovering. This is a circular thing. You discover something, get lost in it, change your focus  and you re-discover something you had experienced before but you have forgotten. You put it aside, because “the internet”exists. For your world, humorously, Wikipedia exists, anything you wish to know is there for you. So why create a storage facility, there is no need. Anytime you want it you can pick it up if you desire. So you move on forever becoming this and forever becoming that and not necessarily, unless you stay in a certain reality, having any need of the actuality of what you have experienced as memory of a previous event or object. Are we making sense?

I think so. Are all individual consciousnesses of equal importance?

You believe that all molecules of water consist of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. Would you consider them to be the same?

No, they are different.

In what respect?

One’s hydrogen and one is oxygen.

Now a molecule of water consists of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom, all water molecules consist of the same combination do you agree?

Yes, of course.

Can they be any different?

Well then they would not be water.

Exactly, whenever you come down to consciousness, for language sake being units of pure awareness, then they must of necessity be of equal importance. This is simply a value judgement that you have created on the physical plane. It does not exist except in your mind. Importance is purely subjective judgement that you place upon something.

Yes. So a consciousness in your toe is equally important as a consciousness in your heart.

Of course. If those two consciousnesses had to be put side by side to converse with each other in their natural state what has each chosen to be?

The part that they are playing.

And therefore, have they chosen the part that they play? And having chosen the part that they play and being aware of the parts that they are playing then one could take it upon himself to say “I am more important than you are, because you could be chopped off but I couldn’t be.” What is that but an ego, a feeling of self-importance? Back to feelings.

Which “I”? Which Reality?

So you are moving through a reality, a reality that you call physical reality and you think it is the only reality. But when you think that you find yourself in other realities when you are asleep then you call them dream realities. Yet at times you find yourself conscious in those realities and they seem exceedingly real. Such that you can wake up extremely frightened or extremely puzzled as to where you have been and what it meant.

How often do you consider that your dream reality might be as equally valid as the reality of your waking reality? When you are awake and your eyes are open, you see the reality that you have co-created along with others. Now can you accord that same belief to the dream reality you found yourself in when you were talking to those you know and you were experiencing sensations even to the point of touch and certainly of voice and sight in those realities? We daresay there are some who also experience taste and smell in those realities.

So what is there to tell them apart? Apart from the fact that when you have your eyes open you can see that you are in a physical body whereas generally when you are in a dream reality you are not really aware of your body because, perhaps, that reality is all in the mind. You haven’t necessarily constructed a recognisable body and yet you are enjoying all the sensations of a physical body. Of course when you bring the memory of the dream back into the physical you convert it into something you can understand. Therefore you have to use the language of the physical reality and that entails the feeling of the vehicle, the body. Yet often when you are asked to describe the body you are inhabiting in the dream reality you find it difficult to do so.

So, you will have to sit and ponder on the differences between your waking reality and your dream reality as to which one is more real than the other. You will say of course that the physical reality is more real, but is it because you have only spent more time in the physical reality and you have built a belief system about the aspects of the physical reality?

Now try to imagine in one of your dream realities if you stayed there for a long, long time and you were aware of time. Of course in dreams you can seem to be there for a long time and yet very little time has passed, and sometimes vice versa, as time has suddenly become extremely elastic or maybe simply doesn’t exist. Depending on which reality and which laws and parameters are followed in that particular reality then your ideas of time and space are found to be extremely flexible.

But let us say that you spend, say, weeks asleep in the other reality. What would be your response upon waking back in this reality, to learn that you had been asleep for several weeks and that the other reality had become a real reality to you? So when you wake up back in this one you will bring those memories over and suddenly this reality would seem strange and you may take some time to get used to it again. Because you, while in the dream reality, would have forgotten all about this reality. So even though it would come flooding back, the longer you spend away the longer it takes for you to re-acclimatise. Does this make sense to you?

Yes.

We are saying, the longer you stay focused in, let us call it, the reality created by the imagination entered into with others who join in the group illusion, the group creation of a reality, then you all believe in it together and reinforce each other’s beliefs. The longer you spend there you feel that this is the only reality you know. It is the only real thing that you understand. Until, of course, you are able to switch realities, generally by leaving this “vehicle” i.e. you move over, you pass over, you change your focus and the physical body is no longer activated, is no longer created. Then you find yourself in another reality and you quickly get used to that of course.

So one has to ask you to sit and think quite deeply about this and imagine your change of focus.

Let us go back to the actors in the plays. Imagine an actor having to play his role in a live 24 hour soap opera which is open to members of the public drifting in and out. The cameras are on all the time, let us say like one of your survival programmes except that everyone has to play a certain part for the whole time and the cameras are always upon them. Now imagine you having to play a certain part continuously, for years, would you forget who you really are?

Yes.

Because every action you take in order to portray the part that you are playing would gradually become a new habit and slowly you would become that person. And it may be with some difficulty that you would be able to return to being the person you were before. But once you made the break and moved into a different focus, a different reality, then you would become a new “I”. Yes?

Yes.

So let us go back to the actor, several years in one part and then finding he had to switch or a very remunerative new part came up and he could switch into that part and so he would develop a new persona to suit that play. You (he) would change from one  ”I” to the other but gradually his original sense of “I” would become a very distant memory and probably disappear altogether. As you moved from one part entailing many years into another part entailing many years you would gradually form a succession of “I”s.

That is exactly what you are doing. You are taking life after life in conjunction with other consciousnesses and simply creating one “I” after another except of course there is no time and you are living all these lives at once. You keep them separate because otherwise confusion would reign.

But, as the instrument has found, because it is all a co-creation by a large group of consciousnesses not all concentrate in one life or fully in any life. Some remain as a sort of observer or director in the capacity of overall director of operations, shall we say, as a whole group. They receive the emotions, the sensations, watch the events. They are aware of the abilities and the information transmission is going to and fro continually to each of the “I”s that we have been talking about.

Now because this information goes to and fro to what you might call a central group of minds then any “I”, if it is aware of the situation we have just described, can send out thought to find whether there is an ability that he hasn’t yet been able to master, and whether this has been explored in another “I”. The instrument found that somehow, to use the terminology that can be understood, he seemed to have hacked in to another “I” who could speak beautifully and, somehow again, he was able to tune in to the information feedback loop between the centre and that “I” and alter his own speech to that of which he presumed to be another “I”. Whichever way, he managed to access the ability and utilise it in his own method of speech.

Additionally while accessing, as per Einstein, “a higher plane of knowledge”, by accident maybe or by desire, the singing voice vastly improved and the whole action of singing changed. The voice emanated from the upper chest, not from the throat and the back of the mouth, seemed to resonate, pour out, with different voices. The explanation that we have given you is that it is not difficult for a group of consciousness to resurrect a pattern of a previous singer in whatever part of his life they choose and should they be able to find a suitable instrument they can overlay that program on the instrument and the voice can live again. Which is why David does not seem to be able to produce the voice at will, he seems to have to induce it or the urge suddenly comes over him to sing. Again, this is just a thought from those who wish to hear the sound and David gladly acquiesces because he thoroughly enjoys the sound and, let’s face it, there is a certain amount of satisfaction in a newfound ability.

So, for the moment, we feel there is really far more than enough for you to think about and you will need to think about it. This is not something you can just say “Ah yes, I understand”. It is something you may have to think about for many weeks or months and depending on your belief system you may never be able to fully accept it, but if you are open-minded enough you will see that what we have said is quite logical and rational.

Listen to it all and relate one thing to another. Relate your waking reality to your dream reality. Now if you could sing beautifully or speak beautifully in a dream reality then why should you not be able to do it in your waking reality? They are both sounds in your mind, both expressions of what you would call “I” because surely you feel that you are “I” in your dream, the same as you feel that you are ”I” when you are awake.

Enjoy.

Comment:-We think this is worth repeating.

That is exactly what you are doing. You are taking life after life in conjunction with other consciousnesses and simply creating one “I” after another except of course there is no time and you are living all these lives at once. You keep them separate because otherwise confusion would reign.

The Co-creation of the “I”, the sharing of the “I” experience.

Well of course, we are interested in these things in the same fashion that you are. We are only one step removed after all. People think that it is all under control, it is all set out there, this is planned that is planned, it is all planned to learn from experience. But think that one through as well. What sort of life would it be if you were sitting there saying  ”let’s organise this and let’s organise that, plan this and plan that” and then it all works out like clockwork. How long do you go on doing that without saying “well this isn’t much fun is it?” It’s like painting by numbers, it is all laid out there. All you are doing is going through the motions and filling in the blanks. “There is no real learning in this is there?” Apart from saying “I can design a pretty picture and I can write a play”. But you know what the beginning and the end is going to be and we have talked before about the uncertainty and the excitement, so how do you write a play where you don’t know what the end is going to be? Where’s the excitement for the writer in not knowing how it’s all going to end up and how do you structure a play for this to happen apart from saying to one person “you do this, I’m not telling the others, we’ll see how they react to it”. That gives you some new information, something you can learn from. At the same time you can whisper to another “you do this and do that” and sometimes when it appears to be going off at a tangent you may step in and give an instruction because you want to change the direction. It’s not going quite the way you want it to go.

You learn as you go along. You are seeing different things happening and it keeps you interested because you never know what kind of response is going to come up. So you organise the personalities to suit. Now when you have different consciousnesses organising different personalities then the level of uncertainty rises.  “We’ll agree to operate our instruments as each of us see fit and we’ll see how we have to compromise to get along” in view of the fact that we both want to have a good experience in running a puppet and not have too many sad experiences, which we feel as well, because there’s not much joy in that is there? We want to have some fun and some high points, some enthusiasm and achievements. We can compete on this side just as well as you can compete there, except of course when you say you compete there it is our puppets competing with each other to see who wins the race, shall we say, who gets the last laugh, whatever it happens to be. When you see who gets the last laugh you get the last laugh as well because you’re the operator.

You can be fully focused in there or you can sit back and put it on semi-automatic. We’ve given it the program, its going through the maintenance schedule of eating and showering and the rest of it all, it knows how to do that and so it will get on with that. A bit like a self-drive car, it can get itself from A to B without any problem and we’ll focus in for the next exciting bit. Of course you can have lots of these going on and lots of what you might call semi- automatic instruments that are programmed to go through the working day, go through the motions and then come into areas where maybe a deal of surprise or learning is lurking.  You then get alerted as you feel the vibrations starting to quicken. You might call that nervous energy or a quickening in the pulse rate whatever it happens to be as you feel the excitement. The alarm goes off and you switch your focus, come back in and are ready for a touch on the tiller should things not be quite proceeding to your liking.

Now when it comes to planning, as we were talking about, then as you say there’s no time but you start off doing something don’t you? You are not bothered about time, you are just bothered about getting on with whatever is going on and moving from one thing to the next. Time doesn’t really matter, it is still there, it is still going on and if the instrument is wearing a little bit thin and showing signs of age does it matter a damn? No, because there is always another instrument isn’t there? So life and death doesn’t mean anything. Shame, that one’s stopped working, never mind I’ve still got 8 or 10 going and I can start some more up. Time doesn’t have the importance that it does in the physical but because of the nature of the game we have to program the element of time in and the element of self- responsibility, being in charge of one’s own life, otherwise you couldn’t make these decisions could you? You are programmed to make some of them and some of them you make without even thinking. Others you hedge about, shall I, shan’t I. That’s when we are talking to you, we give you the shall I, shan’t I to enable you to feel that you have made the decision because otherwise if too many things came through, “I feel I need to do this” then you would start questioning “why do I feel I need to do this and then do it? “What is actually pushing me?” We have to let you feel you are in the position where you actually make the choice. You may not be but you have got to feel that way because you can then make choices on the smaller matters yourself as well and occasionally we want to see what happens when we just leave the choice to you. Because after all we have programmed the instrument and there is a certain amount of pride in programming one that works better than the next door one.

When you are talking about puppeteers and puppets, you can visualise that with people and animals and that sort of thing but what about for example earthquakes? Would you consider that a puppeteer working a puppet, and if there are plans how do those major events affect any plans or are they all part of the plan?

You have to realise, as we have said before, you are looking at this beautifully large picture, tapestry, world, reality, created by very large consciousnesses and you would agree that, in the scheme of things as you look around yourself, if you attribute everything to a conglomeration of consciousness, an idea conjoined by consciousness and  put into what can be seen through the eyes of the senses used in the physical reality, you must look at the earth and the planets and everything else as what you might term as super, super conglomerations of consciousness. Yes? And what have you chosen? You have chosen to create your reality in a very small part of their reality. Now what on earth makes you think that you can actually influence these other consciousnesses?

I don’t think you can.

How do you know, other than pure speculation, and how do we know as we are the consciousnesses creating our puppets in this little corner of reality. We are minor players, they are major players and do they bother to speak to us? Occasionally, we may be able to get some idea but at our level we are still bit parts. Look at the earth for example as a planet, look at your life span and look at the earth’s so-called life span. How much does the earth change, how long has it been going as far as you can ascertain?  Man is a very recent introduction. It is something, you might say, worlds apart. It operates in its own fashion, it is doing its own creation and who knows, when you look at the bit that we see which is akin or even less than akin to the skin on your body compared with what is underneath and what is going on. When we consider what is going on underneath then the skin of the earth is very little indeed so how would you class an earthquake in comparison with your body?

Really, really minor.

A little shudder and take no notice.

But is it part of the plan in any way?

As we have mentioned many times before, there is no grand plan. There is just existence, you exist, you exist, you exist. Forever you exist. You always have existed. So why would there be a plan? A plan is basically a non- sequitur. It has no meaning.

So there is no plan for people to meet to have children…….

When you say that there are small ideas, you can call the idea a plan and what is this for? Basically what you would term a playlet. Now how do we understand what is in the playlet for the earth and the sun and the stars when their whole level of existence changes so minutely and so slowly compared with the consciousnesses that are involved in the physical reality that you find yourself involved in?

To me they would be a bit like the scenery on the stage of a play which really doesn’t change except for a gradual deterioration.

So what plan would you say the scenery has?

Well there is a plan when the scenery is created but when it is done it is done.

So take your scenery, take your mountains that are created, pushed up, then how many hundreds of millions of years before they are worn down to the level of the plain again?

You can’t even begin to think of it.

Would you consider that to be a life cycle?

In terms of the mountain yes.

So when there is forever existence and time is of absolutely no importance whatsoever all you have is the experience of the now and the experience of the now is one day followed by another day, in earth terms this is. Sometimes you are quite happy to follow your 24 hour days for a long period and be quite happy that nothing is really changing. So for those consciousnesses that are happy to follow what they consider to be their day, which may be say 1000 years of your time, how do they see it? To them light and dark would be happening every second or so. Now if they saw light and dark happening every second or so then it would depend on what they programmed themselves to actually register as to whether they registered long periods of dark and long periods of light or all light or all dark. Do you understand that? It is your snapshots, what you take in. If you ignore the darks and only saw the lights, we’ll come back to your 60 frames per second, what happens in between the 60 frames? You have no idea.

No.

So take that as your lights and your darks and you are only aware of the lights. In which case you could have a million lights and a million darks but you would only be aware of the million lights. So that would be a long day, wouldn’t it? And depending on how you felt and what your belief was you might then have a long night. That would be your reality in the same way you have your reality. Certain consciousnesses would just think this is how it is. Once more, you create your own reality. You create your slow change, you create your quick change depending on what you want to experience. And when we say ‘you’ we are referring to the massive you, (all the consciousnesses involved at any time) every time you join a reality. The phrase ‘create reality’ is all very well but it gives the impression that you create your reality in a singular fashion but as we have explained so many times you don’t actually create your reality in a singular fashion, you create it in a cooperative fashion, a gestalt fashion. You are aware of the reality that is then produced and you then decide whether to stay focused in that reality or you decide you have had enough and you move off and focus somewhere else. But the reality is still there. The reality that is you, the pattern, carries on with the consciousnesses that are interested in the life of that pattern and yet as a singular awareness you can leave and focus into another one. This movement is going on all the time.

How many lives would you say are totally without interest?

I wouldn’t say any life is totally without interest.

Exactly. There is always somebody, plus which you get used to something don’t you? So if you have got used to what is going on with somebody then that instrument is, let us say, being piloted along but there will always be a certain amount of uncertainty. It is like you switching between programmes, if they are all boring and there is only one or two of interest even the interesting ones will have boring periods or the adverts come on and so you switch to another one to see if there may be something happening which could be interesting. So even with what appears to be the most boring life there is always something that may be of interest to somebody. Eventually of course there comes a time when so little is going on the consciousnesses lose interest and there is insufficient energy to maintain the pattern. At other times the decision is made, we’ve had enough let’s all go. Again here you can get a crowd effect in that another great idea comes up and a whole body of consciousness decides to switch its attention somewhere else and unfortunately the one they leave suddenly ceases to be active. This doesn’t seem caring but you have to realise as above so below, it really is, and the more you think about it and you believe that you have a higher level of consciousness operating a bit of itself down here, it is one and the same thing. You just have to think what would I do in those circumstances? That is the easiest way to think your way through this.

Now we say that there are all these consciousnesses. So on your side do you interact with individual consciousnesses not grouped together?

You can interact in that you are aware of all the others that are around, thoughts can go backwards and forwards. It is a bit like tuning in to radio stations all over the place. But if you want to create something that you can both enjoy as such, to make it easier for you to understand, let us say something that can reflect light so that all can see. You can transfer imaginative concepts from one to the other but they will be somewhat altered by the experience, the bias you might say, of each particular consciousness in that every consciousness sees something differently. So if you want to have everyone agree that we are all going to see the same thing then you need to join together and all agree that you are going to see the same thing. So you do not see it particularly differently. Everyone agrees and accepts the scenario. It is like painting the scenery as we have just discussed. We are all the actors, all the producers, so let’s paint the scenery and are we all happy to enact our playlet with this background of scenery? Yes is the reply.

Now where would you be if there was no scenery and you had to enact your play without? You would be in a vacuum wouldn’t you?

I would hope to co-opt other consciousness to help build the scenery.

But that is exactly what you have just done. You have got together to create the scenery. If you don’t get together no scenery is created so how does the idea get enacted with no stage and no scenery? What are you left with?

Just a concept.

Yes. You are just left with thoughts going between awareness’s. You have points of awareness sending ideas backwards and forwards to each other so you end up with just a conversation. Purely a conversation until someone says “let us make this something that is actually real”. The word ‘real’ is not correct of course but it is something that we can all see, we can all agree on and it doesn’t change because, although we maintain it, we maintain it to the exact pattern. So all of a sudden you agree on your theatre, you agree on your stage, you agree on your scenery and then you agree on your puppets! Everybody is in agreement on everything. If they don’t agree then you don’t have anything because nothing gets formed. So one group consciousness,” this is our puppet, are you happy with this?” “Yes, we see the representation, we are OK with that”. This is why we are using the idea of light because it is the only thing you will be able to understand. You will not be able to understand an invisible hologram even though other senses may be able to see it. You can only think using the senses you have. You cannot possibly conceive of anything happening outside your own senses and yet if you think to yourself, if this was all in a medium where you used X-rays or ultraviolet to see what was going on your senses wouldn’t pick any of this up but those who had those senses would see the reality although it may be invisible to you. This is why you agree on the parameters of your realities. You all use the same senses, you all produce the same stuff but of course it all may be completely invisible to anybody else unless they know which senses to use to see whatever is there.

We covered this point when we discussed looking for other realities, unless you know what senses to use you will not discover them. It is a matter of experimenting with different combinations until you find one that works. You can compare this to your own procedures of general research and say probing of various states of consciousness using drugs, meditation, chanting etc.

So you are doing exactly the same thing on your side as is happening here?

What is happening here is what has been planned on the other side otherwise there would be nothing happening here.

I was trying to find out how it’s all working over that side because all the consciousnesses have all got to have a certain amount of individuality and I was trying to work out how it is on that side as regards individual consciousness.

It depends on how you view an individual consciousness.

A point of light.

But then are you talking about an individual awareness. We are back to words here with how you would define consciousness and how you would define awareness. Now would you say that consciousness arises when……..

I would have said that consciousness was basically what I would call an atom or smaller than an atom.

Let us say whatever it happens to be and we can start with an atom if you wish but it is aware that it is aware. So, what is it aware of? I know that I am but what else is there? There must be other I am’s. You look around and you communicate with others be they atoms, electrons, points of light etc. But what sort of life is it? Think this one through.

You can imagine it being a busy life.

Doing what as an electron?

Just fluttering from here to there. I can imagine there would be some sort of communication going on, some sort of thought…

Once upon a time….(see Entangled Minds)

But you wouldn’t need food or drink so you could imagine it like molecules of air floating around you now.

Once upon a time a thought arose, can you remember the rest?

Probably not.

Where it came from…

Nobody knows…

But some minds noticed this thought…, so when electrons see a thought somebody says “if we got ten million electrons together, say, we could end up as a cell in a human body doing this and because we are all talking to each other we would know what is going on. Could this be more interesting than just flashing about the place in a mindless fashion”?

Can I just ask about something else then? We, when we pass over are expecting to see our loved ones. Now all the consciousnesses that were involved in our loved ones when they departed this life would presumably have gone off and found other thoughts and ideas to go and experience. So how do our loved ones come and meet us? How are they re-formed?

We refer you once more back to Entangled Minds…. Every mind that was ever a part of Joe always remembered being Joe…. So if they always remember being Joe they will remember how they loved Joanna…. Do you understand that?

Yes. I understand that. I am only asking these questions to make it clear for other people.

Moving on from there, each point of awareness, you might say, each consciousness had decided to take an interest in being Joe, joining the pattern, the projection, that was Joe and feeling the love of and for another, that wonderful feeling. So when Joe departs, even though you have interests in many other places, as Entangled Minds says… you always remember being part of Joe….”I was Joe”. Although Joe goes on and the pattern exists it doesn’t mean to say that it is active but the pattern is there and so the minute that anything to do with that pattern, say Joanna, Joe’s loved one, comes over the link is there. You may say it’s on hold because there is always somebody keeping an eye on it and keeping it ticking over and the pattern continues on anyway in its other forms, its astral etc. The alarm goes off again, and that love bond never goes between the points of awareness, and so you all rush back and thereby reactivate the pattern for the wonderful feeling of reunion. Everything is experience. You did things to experience things. How lovely to re- experience that feeling through a fabulous reunion.

I totally agree.

And then you can explain, if you need to explain, because all the consciousnesses know what the game is, but you all have a fabulous reunion. Not as a mass, as a unit together, you all focus through a particular puppet, so that you all feel, each one of you, are the puppet. (Every participating consciousness considers itself Joe, the feeling of “I am Joe’). The feeling is amongst all of you. It is very difficult for you to understand that the many become the one but the many all feel themselves the one.

So when all the consciousnesses rush back to portray the consciousness that is going to meet its loved one, what happens to all the places they have left?

How many lives is each consciousness able to lead at one time?

As there is no time it seems that we can live lots of lives at one time.

Have we said so often, and so have others, you don’t leave anything, they haven’t rushed back from anywhere, they have merely added another focus. You don’t have to leave one thing to go to another, you can just, in your terms, switch your gaze. When you are speaking in any area are you aware of what is going on outside your point of immediate focus? For example, when you are talking to somebody else does something catch your eye when a bird flies by outside the window?

Yes. It can do.

Yes. So other things can come to your attention but you can still hear what the person is saying or you can listen to what the person is saying and at the same time you can be thinking about what you are going to cook for dinner tonight. Now this is with a pretty slow moving instrument. Look at how many jobs a computer can do at once and this is something you have to get through to yourself, that you are a vastly expanded consciousness once you realise that you are not limited to the focus into the physical. Again, look at it from being at the back of the theatre, you can keep an eye on what is going on in the play and yet you can notice the bald head two rows down, the bright shirt across the aisle, the lady leaving her seat on the other side and yet you will know exactly what is going on in the play.

It is the same thing. You will suddenly be aware that so and so is coming over, “let’s go and meet them, won’t that be wonderful’. But that is just one of the focuses, it is just like someone exciting coming onto the stage. You’ll see that the same as if somebody moves in your peripheral vision. It is difficult to explain what it is like when you are so limited in your ability to focus. Try to imagine your speed of information scanning to be the equal of that of your computer and you will get some idea of how many focuses you seemingly can handle at any moment if your senses were programmed for it. Now if you imagine how fast the computer can continually revisit say 100 sites, many thousands of times per second say, to your senses they would all appear to be continuous, all happening simultaneously. You can see how it is possible to focus into many lives seemingly simultaneously and once you do the math you will find you could be experiencing a number of lives running into six or seven figures however incredulous that may sound. It all depends on how many things you want to experience at once, some will choose a few some will choose many, as above so below.

So it is no big deal to resurrect your physical appearance for the welcome home party. Everybody has a great time, re-lives those loving moments and the rest of it all and then of course the one coming over quickly comes up to speed and realises they never went anywhere in the first place. This is a very hard part to understand of course, that you were together all the time, there was never any separation. The puppeteers were always in contact with each other. The experience needed non-essential information to be screened out because it just wouldn’t work if it wasn’t.

Now with individual consciousnesses, as we’re calling them, are those that want to go to a human body also able to be a part of the earth or the sun or a tree or whatever or do they prefer to stick to one type of creation?

Imagine yourself as, what you would term, a singular consciousness and you open your oyster in the morning. Now, just open your mind and think to yourself, what would I like to experience today? Just for five minutes here, an hour there, I’d like to experience what it would be like to be this or that. Do just exactly that, think to yourself, I’d like to do this and now speak it.

I’m visualising myself being a cloud, looking down to see what I can see which isn’t very much because I’m in the middle of the cloud and I’m surrounded by drops of rain. Actually my cloud is changing and disappearing and now I can see down to the ground but it seems to be night time. I have now changed into air from the droplet I was before but I don’t know if I am oxygen, nitrogen or what, I just know I am in the air.

So what else do you want to do? You can do many things.

Perhaps I want to become part of a stream, bubble along over the rocks. A shallow stream merging into a deeper stream going along towards the sea, bumping into the banks every now and again and there are creatures in with us, fish and frogs and tadpoles all in the water. There is a delta where it is very shallow and now I have reached the sea and am part of a big wave going out into the deep, deep sea.

Where would you say you have described an interesting experience? An interesting journey. You have been, let us say, a water molecule both in the air and in the river and sea. In both situations you have had interesting perspectives. So you opened the oyster and you decided I will do this and I will do that. Now of course you have just opened the oyster to every single possibility that there is. You can do this, that or the other. That is yours to do every single moment even though you may agree with others to keep a certain amount of focus, focus energy, shall we say, to keep the scenery alive, to keep the puppet moving in one area. Then the rest of your energy, if you wish to call it that, your focus, your myriad focuses can be involved in many other things as well.

So you can be whatever you want to be whenever you want to be. It is a question of what holds your attention. What turns you on you might say. There is always something that is of interest because there is always interaction with others and every other sees things slightly different from every other one and so whoever you exchange conversation, ideas, thoughts with you see something slightly different. This keeps you on the move, keeps you alive and at the same time you can be resting happily in a peaceful situation deep in a rock. Still a conversation going on, still lots of particles whizzing around. While it may look unmoving from the outside once you start looking deeply within it is a mass of moving energy again.

So whichever level you are at there’s awareness. You cannot say at any one time that anything is purely inert. It cannot be so. Everything is always in motion, inertness is just a question of relativity. It is extremely difficult to understand that the “you”, the “I”, the self is something you participate in, it is not something of yours alone. It is enjoyed by many, many, many other consciousnesses.

That is very hard for us to understand.

Yes, because what you experience is the product of many but all the many experience this and they accept it because that is why they have agreed to use these senses and if we just take sight alone that is what they see and when the thought gets expressed that is what they hear as being said. When you come back to the thought that is going through what you call the mind each is aware that the thought that gets presented is already……. Let us say that the thought is like a light that requires a certain amount of electricity in order to light up. Let us say it takes 1000 volts and each volt requires the attention of one consciousness, one awareness. Like harnessing 1000 horses to something before you can move it and then it moves. So when 1000 consciousnesses focus it lights up, but which consciousness decides it is the 1000^th?

It can’t.

But can it feel it is?

I suppose it could because when the 1000^th one joins the light comes on.

And who knows who is the 1000^th?

Nobody knows except possibly the 1000^th.

Why?

Because the light came on when he joined or each joined.

But each one is thinking, you cannot see the others so you wouldn’t know you were the 1000^th. So if you think that the light came on when I joined then do you think that what you see is what you created?

Yes.

So then does your sense of “I” arise? I did that. But every other one feels the same, I did that. Because if the idea comes by and we think, “That’s a good idea” and we focus upon it and it appears, are you aware of the rest?

No.

Of course you’re not. This is what we have been saying for so long. We do not know how many consciousnesses are involved in the particular instrument at any one time and therefore we don’t know what is going to be said until it is said. We have a reasonable idea because of what is going on at the present time, the trend of the conversation, but we are still not totally sure and we may not always agree but we know that this is the product of however many consciousness’s are involved at the present time. It is a constant flux so what is the point of wondering how much does my individual consciousness influence this?

You know that you could not possibly do it on your own, you need all these others involved. It becomes a fact that ”I experienced this, I know others experienced this at the same time but it doesn’t matter because I experienced this and most of what is said and most of what happens is something I agree with”. Now I know there will be times when I am going to do this and I am not happy at doing it but I know I am going to do it and that is one of those times when it doesn’t really suit you but you have agreed to be part of it and you are happy to subjugate your strong feeling in order to go through that period to get out the other side. Your other choice is to leave and you don’t want to do that and you can apply that to your present life can’t you?

It is a question of sitting down and thinking through how the sense of “I” arises. Once you get further on than that and you start to think of what happens when someone else says “Well I was Joe” so was I, so was I, so was I…. Then you realise, well of course, we were all Joe weren’t we, wasn’t that fun?

Yes.

And so your sense of possession of the “I” disappears and your sense of sharing the “I” replaces it. Then you find it is far more fun sharing the “I” and far more secure than it is being in sole possession of the “I”. At the moment you feel that you are in sole possession of the “I” but on another level you know that you are only sharing your experience of the “I”.

You don’t know on this level.

If you did the whole point would be abrogated wouldn’t it if you did know? You have to have this sense of “I” otherwise you’d have no sense of responsibility either. You’d just say it’s all happening, it’s nothing to do with me, I’m just going along with all this. So then you wouldn’t even try to alter situations but if you all feel that you can do something different then you will get yourself in gear, shall we say and that is when the intensities of individual awareness’s come together and the intensity grows. So in a fashion, as an individual conscious awareness, if you are passionate about something you indeed are making it happen but along with others who share your passion as well but if none of you were passionate nothing would happen.

It is a co-creation of the passionate.

Everything!

Have you found this reasonably enlightening tonight?

Yes thank you.

We thank you too.

 

Your choices forever create the “I”.

Perhaps you could explain for others exactly the relevance of all that you tell us has for the way we are currently living.

The last session should give you the answer to that. You have sought interminably for the answer to why bad things happen, in your perception, and how can good and bad be part of the same thing and we have sought valiantly to answer your queries. If you read again what we have delivered, it enables you to stand away. To view what you call your behavioural reality from a distance, dispassionately to some extent. So that you can say that ‘this is a story that we are constructing with others in order to experience it”. As we said, just like getting together to put on a play.

You build the scenery, make the costumes, play your parts and then you can sit and discuss how well so and so played his part, how someone else let the side down maybe, how the dog stole the show. But you all agree it was a worthwhile endeavour and maybe you would like to do it again and take a different part and see how that worked out.

Yes.

How do you feel in your mind and in your equanimity when you view it from that perspective?

Calm and thoughtful.

There’s no pain is there? There is only a degree of interest and possibly excitement and challenge and why?

Because you are sort of watching from the wings.

Because you are constructing it and you are constructing the ‘choice belief’, the make-believe, the choice-believe. You are choosing everything that you wish to do and so are all of your brother consciousnesses involved in the endeavour. You are all aware that you are part of the production and that actually it isn’t real.

We have chosen this depiction of puppeteers and puppets to try and get the idea across, but of course once more to confuse you a little bit, the puppeteers and the puppets are one. As we have said, the observers and the observed are one (note ‘observers’), so you must now try to equate that the puppeteers and the puppets are one because it is the one (group) consciousness stretched if you will. We had to use the term stretched because you only understand in terms of separation, yet yesterday we talked about above and below, within and without, around and within but we’ll have to move into the area of ‘it all exists in the same space’ and there is no space in the first place. Then we lose you again.

Yes very difficult to say you fully understand.

But if you can imagine moving on to a different level and say that your body consists of many bodies, all of different levels of vibration. This is as far as you have got in trying to understand that the physical body may be controlled by a mental and other bodies and you have chosen ‘bodies’ in order to portray them as different degrees of ‘dispersed energy’, shall we say, vibrating at different frequencies. Suffice it to say it is all ‘one’ regardless.

If you can take this another way and imagine that your point of awareness with other points of awareness as they come together and imagine the same thing actually radiates, comes alive, in that it radiates light. So your body becomes the production of the imagination of consciousness, both from within and without together with all the apparatus that goes with making the thing work. This has to be done in conjunction with all the other group consciousnesses and we are having to say this because of your concept of separation whereas it is all one mass in the first place except there is no mass. Then of course we are back to the concept of the one god, one mind, breaking itself up into different imaginative elements. It is up to you how you want to form your own beliefs.

Yes.

For your purposes here and for some time in what you would term the hereafter you may as well look upon it as being ‘you’ve joined together with other consciousnesses to create, explore and enjoy the imaginative reality and events and experiences that you all choose to experience’. You are doing this in as many focused areas as you wish to focus into and when you wish to move from one to another you can do so. But the “I” that you experience as Joe cannot move into the “I” that is Joanna and still think of itself as Joe. Do you understand that? When you move from focusing in your group consciousness of Joe and move to your focusing in your group consciousness of Joanna you will only be Joanna. You will have no recollection of being Joe.

Yes I fully appreciate that. Separateness is essential to prevent confusion of identity.

And when you move your gaze back in to being Joe you will only be Joe and will have no recollection of being Joanna.

Your ”I” is only where you focus. You will eventually understand that there is no “I” as you think of it. You co-create the ”I” and you share the “I” and you do that with every “I” and so you are happy to rest in who you are in the now. Do you understand this?  ( To all our readers, please let us know if you can accept this and/or understand the concept of co-creation generally)

Yes, I can accept the idea.

If a thought comes from someone saying “do you remember being Joe?” you immediately think yes because he is already focused in the Joe pattern and the mere mention of it links it in and you are once more Joe. Because their thought is focused on Joe you are immediately aware of Joe and you link in and you both link in to the same knowledge bank, which is ever present. So once more you are focused upon the ‘Joe’ that is always there. There is always somebody, if you wish, remembering, but when they remember, ‘Joe’, is active. This is why everything always exists. You think in terms of ”How can it exist if it isn’t moving forward and being sequentialised. The existence of ‘Joe’ depends on a whole group of consciousness. As consciousness thinks of Joe, Joe is alive because Joe is a combination of all the thoughts, and so is everything, of all the consciousnesses that are focused upon that pattern. Do you understand?

Yes.

So, just as you agreed on the scenery and the characters, you agreed on the nature of Joe. As you think of Joe it is just like putting it out over your Facebook, all those interested in Joe see the Joe contact and are immediately, shall we say, linked in, if they care to be. They are automatically linked and they must make a conscious decision if they do not wish to link, if that focus does not interest them anymore. But for the instant they are linked. There are always those, like the die-hards we have referred to who will always be curious and will focus in.

To make it easier, as consciousnesses both focused into the Joe pattern you can both discuss what is going on, it isn’t quite like that but it is the easiest way for your present understanding. When you decide to switch to another focus you are then that one, and that one and that one. You are all these things at once and yet when you move your focus away you are no longer that. You will be thinking that you will be carrying the experiences from one to the other and you will remember the experiences of others but you have to get into your conception that the idea of forever becoming is ‘you are forever being changed by your experiences’ but you cannot remember those experiences unless you focus back into the pattern from which that experience was derived. Can you understand what we are saying?

To a certain extent.

In other words you will not be using memory. It is as if you are a bucket of paint and each time you experience something a drop of paint of a different colour is mixed in fractionally changing the colour of the paint, but can you find the drop?

No.

So can you understand this as experiences continually changing the nature of the substance? The substance that is your awareness. Which is continually being changed by your experiences and yet with no recollection but the pattern still exists so if you wish to focus once more on that, as soon as you focus in, instant update. But because there is no time it is not actually an update, you are just aware of everything once more. You will have missed nothing because you are aware of everything. (So, no gaps, no catch up) This is all very hard conceptually but we are moving you on slowly from previous explanations which were relatively simple to the more difficult to comprehend nature of who you are. To try to get you to drop this idea of a static “I” and understand that you are a forever becoming state of being constantly being modulated by experience which blends into your overall, you may say, experience bank but is not segregated or compartmentalised.

Yet because the patterns always exist you can, if you become aware of a thought from a loved one say that is coming over, immediately focus back on the pattern with which that loved one has a link and so once more you have that experience and, you may say, re-live the feelings etc. Everything is always there and yet it is not there in the fashion……. You use memory in order to hold onto things because you think they are past. That is the only reason you use memory, it is memory of a past, but when there is no past there is no need for memory because it is always there but then you will say “well how do I access it then?” As we said, when something triggers the need to and that need generally comes from association because when you are absorbed in something else how does it come up except through a thought and that thought has to come from somewhere and then the link is made and off you go.

I think we’ve provided quite a lot of food for thought here, more mental gymnastics. Put that out there and see whether it evokes some response.

Thank you, I will.

How We Choose Our Lives and Their Events.

Do you actually choose the lives that you wish to lead and how do you choose? You said the other day that there was no plan but it seems to me that there has to be a plan as to how that life is going to proceed or is it random?

The method of choices is not so much you deciding that you want this, that and the other in some form of even random order because what you are asking for is a list of experiences to be experienced by an instrument. But the instrument has to be constructed by a conglomeration of consciousness and a far larger one than you think. You would have to have a very large number of other consciousnesses all wanting to experience the particular list of events etc. that you have drawn up. Now just how likely is that to be?

Whereas on the other hand if you said, ‘Here is a broad brush idea, it is intended to be a male with average sporting abilities, will get married, have children, will have a career in a profession and encounter many problems but will have the satisfaction of overcoming challenge after challenge after finding themselves in despair from having to start from the bottom again. They will travel and see the world, live to a good age and enjoy reasonable health’. If you took a scenario like that other consciousnesses would look at it and say ‘Sounds quite interesting’.

But if you went into fine detail how many would say ‘that’s not for me and that’s not for me’ and remember your playlet, plan, whatever, has got to have the other participants whose choices mesh with your proposed experiences and events and these are all ideas that are floating around. So you can see that actually putting this thing together takes quite a lot of to-ing and fro-ing and quite a lot of compromising. You may start out with an idea that you want to do X, Y and Z, and settle for doing X and experiencing A as well and maybe K because there are those who want to do A and K. They wanted to do A, B and C and now they find themselves agreeing to AXK.

It depends on the attraction of the particular experiences and how many others want to be part of that because, as we keep on saying, you cannot construct anything on your own. If you wish to experience a certain event others will also need to want to experience it. It is not a question of saying ‘I want to do this, that and the other, where are my parents?’ There may be brothers and sisters, uncles and aunts involved, mothers, fathers, children. These things all have to be considered and put together so that there is room for manoeuvre and openings for others to come in.

It starts off with a larger consciousness with a larger plan, or a larger playlet. If you could imagine all the participants in your particular life being part of a larger group, as they would have to be in order to enact the playlet that you are currently participating in, that is the larger consciousness, shall we say.  Again we are talking chicken and egg here, are we talking about a larger consciousness with a big idea attracting others or are we talking about consciousnesses getting together with the idea of putting on a play, considering various suggestions and ways of putting them all together?  Do you understand?

So we are really back to talking about plans although…

Just don’t use the word. Desires, choices instead.

So who initiates those desires?

What have we just said?

That the larger group..

And what did we also say?

That everyone has to agree…

We said chicken and egg, it can come together from a top down or bottom up process. It can start with a very small idea that is added to or from a big idea that needs the details filling in, all is possible.

So what is the idea behind these experiences?

Do you want to sit on the stone or do you want to move about?

So even when it comes down to a very poor life, must that still be desirable?

Would you be happy to get murdered in the first act?

I’m not talking about murder…

We are making you think. You are talking about a poor life which is a choice. Being murdered in the first act is a choice. There is always somebody who is prepared to be murdered in the first act, there is always somebody who is happy to experience the poor life. For there to be long and short straws there has to be those who happily accept the short straw although you must remember that these are simply varieties of experience. They are only long and short from your point of view. It is all just focus, it is all unreal, so you don’t mind choosing the short straw. You have many things going on so if someone asks you to help out as the plot requires someone dying at birth then why not?

So you could have somebody who comes on for a very long life but it’s a very hard life living with very little food and water.

But, as we have said, are you on the stage or at the back of the theatre. It depends on how much you are connected. There are those who can live a very poor life and yet be quite fatalistic about it, ‘this is my lot, yes, it’s not the greatest but I’m relatively healthy, I sleep well, I get enough food to keep me going and I’ve got plenty of people to talk to’. This is a physical experience. It may not be wildly exciting but on the other hand I have also got another life going which is wildly exciting so I can withdraw every now and again and compare my experiences and contemplate my preferences.

Is it better to have this huge mortgage and the stresses and strains of the upkeep of this house or do I experience more contentment and peace of mind by having very little and not having to care about it? So I look outwards and find that my relationships are perhaps less fraught than where the scramble for material possessions causes a lot of stress. How else would you find out which is the better way to live? How do you experience values without comparison?

Yes. Would you say that now the majority of people have got access through computers and phones etc. to what is going on throughout the world that it has caused a lot more discontent in those living in what we would consider to be the poorer areas whereas in terms of overall happiness they may have been considered good areas?

You could say ignorance is bliss, knowledge creates desire. If that desire is seen as being pie in the sky as regards fulfilment then one can leave it there but if it is seen as attainable then one considers the price of attainment and whether one is prepared to pay that price. So you find that the addiction to desire, shall we say, spreads and it waxes and wanes. You have a classic case at the moment in that peoples of poor and war torn nations have been given the ‘Dick Whittington’ concept that the streets of Europe are paved with gold but like Dick Whittington the ones that have reached there are finding out differently. Some of those will find the stress and strain of city life in the Western world too much and will return to the simpler life they left and inform others of the reality of living in those areas.

When thinking on this subject you must keep reminding yourself that you are not limited to the one life. You can afford to dip a toe in here, dip a toe in there and as we just said, if you want to compare experiences you need to experience both and to do that you may need to join two group consciousnesses at the same time or many group consciousnesses. So you will have several programs you can be switching in and out of, to make it easier for you to understand. Imagine yourself focusing in on the stage of the poor life and feeling the emotions and the pain while at the same time you could feel the exultation and the power and the gourmet experience of events in another life.

Now as we talked about with the forever becoming business each experience in each life is changing you, you don’t need to keep it in mind because you can go back and have another look. You will know what it feels like to be right there and so you won’t have the desire to experience it again unless the particular experience left such a mark that you feel it was wonderful. There will be a nostalgia, a longing, to do something again and for others there will be an instant ‘I don’t want to do that’ and you may not know why. Because you have long since learned that there is no point in dragging up old memories. Unless you want to go replay it there is simply no point.

There are always so many ideas coming along and of course you cannot replay the same life anyway. You can play a new, improved version along with other consciousnesses. Very few people want to go back and be a slave in Roman times for example. They may be curious but not want to experience a whole life time so may with others agree to re-invigorate a segment. When we say the pattern exists it is not a static pattern. Everything always exists so every frame in that life does exist so you can step in with enough other consciousnesses but in order to experience it in the full all the other characters have to as well so again you have a huge operation to organise. If you want to experience being part of the Roman army surrounded by hundreds of centurions well then you will need the hundreds of centurions. Even though you put that down to imagination you need all the other consciousnesses imagining as well.

So who is involved with the organisation?

Everybody is involved with the organisation that is the whole point.

Surely that would be chaotic?

It is simply a matter of coming to agreement. Think how your present life is organised. Is it chaotic or do some people agree to be a coordinator, listen to everybody, circulate ideas and have them voted upon? You have to vote by means of a physical mechanism but if you could vote immediately by thought transfer how fast would things happen? Then speed that up to the speed of your fastest computers and agreement via a majority would seem to you to be almost instantaneous. ‘This is what the majority are going to do, you outliers can join or you can go and find something else. Who wants to come along? All those in favour say ‘aye’. It is immediate. Just because the physical process is slow and cumbersome you have to realise the consciousness process is not, it is basically instantaneous.

Now tell me something else. If a group of you, consciousnesses, wanted to say something that David would totally disagree with, would you be able to do that?

It is not a question of David, David is the group consciousness so there is no such thing as David. There is only what the consciousness is projecting at any particular time, in the words they say, in the actions they agree to perform and so the personality, moods etc. may change by varying degrees.

So a different group of consciousnesses would not be able to speak through David and say something in opposition to his beliefs?

It is not a question of ‘he’. You have the group consciousnesses there as we say with the teachers. You come into this situation that is happening now. The ones that are focused purely into the physical aspects, which are all they want to be generally interested in, of the pattern, instrument which you insist upon calling David, are now supplemented by more and more joining due to the fact that you have started exploring this area and the uniqueness of the operation makes it very interesting and so the balance of opinion changes. You would call that ‘the mind started to open’ but a more appropriate statement would be ‘his consciousness has expanded’. There wasn’t a single consciousness in the first place, the expansion has come from the additional consciousnesses joining the existing consciousnesses already focused in the pattern. You refer to that as ‘you are now more open minded than you used to be’ but it is simply that more cows of a different colour joined the herd and so gradually it changes.

Now this is a matter of intensity as well. If you have people who don’t particularly want to listen then you will need proportionately larger numbers of consciousnesses to sway the opinion but if they are open and amenable to listening they will not contribute their opinion, they will listen to what is being said which means the teachers thoughts can then be expressed by the spoken words while the others sit back and listen. In other words the day-to-day focused consciousnesses have moved to the back of the theatre and the teachers have moved onto the stage. The teachers have the microphone and the other consciousnesses are listening  and when you decide that you have had enough or the teachers decide to leave then the others return to the stage but this time they have some more knowledge. (and if the words are convincing the worldview of ‘David’ changes, you find that your new belief seems to be eminently reasonable).

It is a question of ebb and flow, of consciousness joining and leaving the focus of attention changing the actions of the instrument.

So obviously if you had two different instruments both sitting there in a trance state you could have very diverging views from the two different instruments?

First of all you have to look at the two instruments and their already basic belief systems, the groups of consciousnesses that comprise those two particular instruments. So let us assume that there are two similar instruments with similar beliefs who presumably would have compatible views when discussing a particular subject. Let us use politics. Two Labour would be agreeing on many issues and two Conservative would be agreeing likewise. But if you put one of each together, especially if they were to the extreme of their relative spectrums, then there would be differing views and little agreement. But who would they attract and what would their belief systems allow to be spoken? When we say the belief systems this means the consciousness group which comprises the  Labour or Conservative instruments. You would need some very intense and large groups of consciousnesses to come and join in order to overpower the consciousnesses that are already there and why would they want to do that? They will join the group whose view is compatible with their own not a group with opposing views.

Think of what you would do in the same position for you are a group consciousness. You will go to where you feel attracted to and that attraction will be a product of, will be influenced by the experiences you have had before. You may not be fully aware of it but an idea will attract you or repel you and you won’t particularly know why. In some cases you may, it depends on how advanced your group is or rather what your group is interested in i.e. if it is a group that wants to understand, wants to know.

You might say you are looking at personalities so if you can attribute a personality to a single awareness then like attracts like and you will get an instrument with a personality that the consciousnesses involved all feel comfortable with. Otherwise it wouldn’t be produced in the first place. So you are back to choice again, aren’t you?

Yes. A point that you could expand upon is playlets within plays.

As we said you can construct from the top down or the bottom up but most will be a compromise between the two. Some will see the big picture others will be interested in the detail. The big picture may not suit everybody and there will be points which are inconsistent and those inconsistencies will need to be ironed out. You will reach a position where you agree that the idea accommodates the possibility of all the desired experiences of the majority.

If there was a completely constructed plan with a system of time embedded and this, that and the other will happen at certain times, that wouldn’t leave much room for uncertainty because you are still the same consciousness whether you are on the stage or off the stage and you have to effectively use your focus to blot out your knowledge. You do not bother to remember that you know. To have that complete uncertainty which is part of the idea you need to forget your original choices and let them surface as feelings and desires. If you think about this, when you are a teenager where does your desire to get married come from? Your desire to have children or not?

It must come from the group.

Yes, but it must have come from an aspiration, a group aspiration which was probably outlined in the original idea that all decided to manifest into the physical. Due to the effect of experiences from childbirth to teenage the original idea, rather than the veils of forgetfulness, just seems to get lost in the midst of time, you might say. These agreements are agreed to because you know it’s not real, you know it’s just an experience, so you just agree to a whole lot of things quite quickly because at the time they don’t carry any particular import.

I can understand that.

‘Yes, that sounds like a good idea. Let’s go to the pictures.’ Five years time. ‘Do you remember that film we saw on your birthday five years ago? Well, um, er, no. Do you remember what we did that day? No, no idea.’ If you can’t remember your physical experiences you’re hardly likely to remember your non-physical experiences are you while focused in the physical. And even when you come out of the physical and you look at your life review you often don’t realise you had agreed to all that in the first place. Later on you know that you must have agreed to all that because that is what happened. You may not understand why you agreed to some things ‘I’m sure I wouldn’t have agreed to that but it’s all over and done with so it doesn’t matter anyway, I’m still me’.

Like there are strong characters over here are there strong groups over there who wish to experience certain things and because of that are other groups almost coerced into playing parts which otherwise they would not have chosen?

How many realities do you think there are that you can experience?

I should imagine enormous numbers.

Sure. So can anybody bully anybody?

They certainly can here.

Can anybody bully anybody into experiencing this reality?

That is what I am asking you.

We are just asking you to think. If you have the choice of all different realities you will choose that which appeals to you, an experience you want to go through. As we have said before and as Seth has said, “nobody dies unless they agree to it”. Now that is pretty final as regards an instrument, so when you talk about bullying nobody can be bullied unless they agree to it. No part is played unless  you agree to playing the part otherwise you simply switch your focus. If somebody comes along with an idea, or an idea floats by that you like and are happy to do, then you do it. If you don’t you merely look somewhere else. Do you understand?

Yes.

There cannot be coercion, there can only be consensus.

So you don’t have groups that are stronger than other groups?

You have groups that prefer certain activities. You have awarenesses that prefer certain activities and so they group with others that prefer those activities. Just look at your own society and see how like attracts like. Who are members of Bikie gangs and who are members of the groups that care for disadvantaged children? Who are the volunteer workers in the hospitals and who are they that belong to the drug cartels? Do you understand what we are saying?

Yes.

These people have different ideas, different groups they want to be involved with, but of course it can be the same individual consciousness belonging to both of these groups. It can be experiencing opposites if it wishes to do so and merely comparing the experiences. Everybody can be involved in everything. If you want to keep switching from one group to the other to the other to the other you can do so but most find that they don’t like to be whipsawed between one feeling and another because experiences change who you are. You don’t want to experience something which turns you into one way of thinking, focus elsewhere and find yourself feeling differently because you start questioning who you really are. So you tend to go where you feel attracted to. Ideas that do not appeal do not generally get focussed upon. There could be an instance where one may desire to experience how, say, a jihadist thinks but that would require a deal of courage knowing that those feelings could affect you. On the other hand some find camaraderie and purpose in fighting for a cause and don’t consider whether their actions are justified or not. It is just an experience they find thrilling and enjoyable.

You can be in an idyllic mansion with untold wealth and yet feel very much alone and perhaps envy someone who has a strong support group and involvement in a consuming cause. It is a comparison of values. Some prefer a simple life with family and friends while others prefer achievement, power, prestige etc. and all shades in between.

You perceive from where you are because you are in the process of forever becoming and at present you are what you have become. It is the same old business about walking a mile in another man’s shoes. You would have to experience, fully, what the other life was like. How many in the physical are prepared to say “I am going to give all this up and I am going to go and live with the natives in the jungle where they basically have nothing and live from hand to mouth”. So once again, as above so below as you are only a projection of the consciousnesses that have the feeling of what they want to do. There is no separation. You feel that you are separate from those who run you but as we have said previously it is difficult for you to understand that you are what you are, there is no other. You have to look at what you are and say ”I am a single awareness and part of the group consciousness that holds these values that are being projected to form what I see as Jean and so the way that I feel is “me”. There is no separate me that feels differently, while it is focussed on the pattern of Jean. Now it is focussing on all these other patterns as well but in each instance it is a separate “I”.

It is impossible for you in your present focus to say I am all these things because you cannot experience your separate “I”s as an observer and yet you are being changed by those experiences. Everyone is being changed all the time. It is not a question of you deciding what you want to be because that is changing all the time. To a certain degree you are at the mercy of your own particular choices. When you make the choice to participate in an idea you adopt beliefs arising from experiences in each one which are continually changing you as an awareness but you are not aware that you are being changed. You are merely aware that your preferences have changed somewhat. On another level you are aware of the process so you don’t bother to examine why your preferences have changed, you are happy to rest in the who that you are now knowing that you may be a slightly different who tomorrow. Just as you are aware that you were a slightly different who yesterday, in your time terms. So you just go along opening the oyster and making choices.

As long as you feel happy in who you are. It is the same here, as long as you are happy in who you are you don’t change much. If you don’t feel happy in who you are you go looking for something that will change you, even though you may not realise exactly what you are doing. It is all rather simple actually and rather sort of ho-hum in that there is no big plan for attainment, there is no big secret to just being who you are, no big secret to just being an awareness.

You have to create the diversity and the separation to make it exciting. So you can go back if you wish to your concept of god sitting there thinking what on earth am I going to do with myself? Well, I’ll create all these different experiences, different organisms, give them free will and watch the show. Of course that is exactly what you are doing. Again you can come back to the concept that “we are all god”.

Do you have any idea what is going on with David’s head?

This is an eruption. You might say that this is something that wishes to leave, one way or another. This is not easy to explain to you but when it has been removed what would you say has been the motivation of the cells that comprised the particular piece that was going to be removed?

Well, you can only say that they were fed up with being there, but surely an easier way for them to leave would be just to slouch off.

But would that have been the same experience?

No.

And would the consciousnesses that are involved in the whole pattern have experienced these feelings and the interaction with other people. Although these are what you might call nuisance factors, they are still experiences and if you are going to have a play or playlet, especially in the fashion of a human life and you have to maintain the vehicles, then you have to go through an awful lot of very mundane stuff. You can’t have it all highs and lows constantly. You have to have the ordinary pedestrian experiences along the way, all minor challenges in one way or another and when it comes to expansion of knowledge do you know more about this subject than you knew before?

Yes.

Would you bother to go looking for this knowledge otherwise?

No.

So you are experimenting with self- treatment and if you find something that works you will tell other people won’t you? You may be able to help and also you are giving others employment. All sorts of things need to happen to make the wheels go round, if nobody got sick then there would be a lot more unemployed people. When you look at the playlet you are involved in, rather than the word society, you have sub-plots all over the place. The main plot , you might say, is surviving from birth to death but you have sub-plots everywhere in how this one survives and that one survives and all the different personalities and events that are constructed and experienced. Diversity is the source of interest and is absolutely necessary to keep the whole show continuing on. Necessity is the mother of invention and the necessity of maintaining interest in the physical reality requires an ever-changing parade of new events and items of shock and awe, if you wish. As you turn the stones over there are new and exciting things underneath. Just look at the flow of ideas that are coming past you at the moment in the physical. If you sit at that computer how many new things will you see if you search?

Innumerable.

You could be on there all day, couldn’t you? Now switch yourself to a point of awareness watching ideas come by. You can’t see them all, you will choose some to focus upon. Much in the same way as you browse the internet you will choose some sites to read. Meanwhile there are thousands more out there. Do you think you could ever get around to them all?

No.

No. As above so below. Exactly the same. So imagine the possibilities here and imagine the possibilities in consciousness. As an analogy imagine the possibilities for someone living deep in the jungle compared with the possibilities you enjoy. So, the possibilities are endless and you cannot possibly know of them all and you never will. New areas are being dis-covered continually. That does not mean to say that they are not active, it just means that you haven’t come across them.

So when you dis-cover something it is not as if you have taken the cover off something which is inanimate, you merely switch your gaze and put together a particular combination of senses, shall we say, and something else appears. “Well, I didn’t know that was there”. No, because you did not know where to look, and you did not know how to look. As you move from one to the other the degrees of commonality …… let us say you are enjoying a particular aspect, you become a particular group of experiences that feels in a certain fashion, so when another idea comes by you feel attracted to it. But it’s all degrees and as you feel attracted to that, let us say you see the ghostly image and as you focus closer and you communicate someone says “if you change the frequency to X you will see a lot better”. Suddenly it comes into focus and you pick up the settings, shall we say, that are needed to fully appreciate that reality. Then you can make the decision whether you wish to join in with that reality.

Just like looking at a night sky that is full of millions of stars where the intensity of the light is continually moving between the stars. Your focus looks at the different lights doesn’t it noting the brightness of some against the others. Now imagine if there was a different intensity in the event scenario there and you could focus in and you could see what was going on, what would happen to the rest of the night sky?

You would ignore it.

Yes. And there would be another over there and you would focus into that one, but if you found one that held your attention you would notice that the span of attention that you would need to afford that particular scenario is such that you can afford to turn your attention to somewhere else and then just shuttle backwards and forwards basically getting two continuous pictures as we have explained before.  The tiny fraction of a second that passes between when you left and when you come back is insufficient for you to notice any difference. As we have said before you can shuttle between 8 or 12 or whatever number you wish to keep continuous contact with, such is the speed of cognition, even though they are all separate focuses and mostly because they are so different you don’t bother with comparisons. You are focusing in that particular one, you are looking at what is going on and adding your thoughts to what is going on, you are on the stage, part of the action. The minute you are focusing you are thinking and your thoughts are combining with others who are similarly focused to produce the reality you are experiencing. You, and all the others involved, are creating the reality you are experiencing without realising it, without knowing it.

Except, as we are talking, we accept and understand that we are creating that reality, but it doesn’t mean anything to us, we just simply know it is. We go along with it because we understand that we couldn’t create it on our own anyway so what is the point of thinking that we alone create it.

We experience it, we know we experience it, we know we are going along with a majority. We like it or we don’t like it and at some stage we decide that we like it enough to stay around and keep focusing backwards and forwards into it or we decide we will just focus in now and again for curiosity’s sake knowing that we will understand what went on anyway.

Are you beginning to understand more how you are just who you are?

Slowly.

Forever becoming, changed by your focuses into the realities that you are co-creating, but not creating them with aforementioned intent, you are co-creating them with instantaneous response to what you are seeing and at the same time you may be looking at the unfolding events and wish them to go a certain way. You may have a desire to see a certain outcome because that will come from the who you are but whether the majority will have the same desire will become apparent. It may or may not turn out to be to your satisfaction but you will change. You may decide not to focus there anymore. That doesn’t mean to say the play stops. The pattern goes on, the play goes on, you are no longer interested in it but you haven’t died. Nor has the pattern died. Jean or David doesn’t die because certain consciousnesses decide to focus elsewhere as other consciousnesses come in. It is not until there are not enough consciousnesses to sustain the play that the pattern is discontinued.

You will need to turn this over in your mind and apply your reason and logic to begin to understand.

It is like a whole series of plays, all the time the audiences are sufficient to sustain the actors the play goes on. When there is no longer sufficient paying audience the play is discontinued. Now just scale that up into the zillions of consciousnesses that are needed to portray the playlet you are part of in just your local area let alone the rest of the world. And the whole thing has to mesh because there is a ripple effect from every action and so you can begin to see the vast intricacy of the whole exercise. In the end you can say ”Yes, I can see how it all happens but meanwhile this is the focus I have got and it seems to be set up so that apart from the occasional bleedthrough I can’t experience anything else I may be involved in while I am focusing in this reality and if I focus in another  one I can’t remember this one”.  It may be frustrating but by now you can understand why.

Yes.

Without you being aware of it there is some effect of your actions and feelings in one focus that has a limited effect on how you act in another. An aura effect, we will put it that way .Because of the ongoing nature of new ideas, new ideas, new ideas you are not in the position of being able to sit back and compare your, say, 10 lives. You may be aware, in some cases, that you are leading these lives but you are not in a position to compare them. Not for a long while any way. Even then you realise the futility in comparing them because it is how you feel, not how you judge. Do you understand that?

Yes.

When a new idea comes along you will not examine it and judge whether you want to get involved or not, you simply will want to or not want to. Your feeling will automatically guide your decision, you will instantly sense yes or no. In much the same way as when you taste something you immediately know whether you like it or not. Now ask yourself why do you like one taste but not like another taste and you will find it quite difficult to give yourself an answer. You may search for some comparison but you will find it hard to find a comparison. How often do you say to yourself “Why don’t I like that taste”?  You don’t do you? But in your life somewhere something taught you, something you experienced, gave you the impression or the feeling that “I don’t want to taste this”.

That is pretty much how you can view experiences. You might apply that to sound as well. Certain sounds from a violin can sound hauntingly beautiful or extremely harsh and jarring whereas someone else might feel that the gravity and power, thunder and lightning of what you would call harsh is appealing and so then you can see that in the light of your good and bad.

It is how you view things, who you are, based on your experiences.

Quantum Entanglement, Non-Locality and Interconnected Consciousness. 6th February 2018

All verify that you are eternally connected to those you love.

Rosenblum and Kuttner: “In principle…any two objects that have ever interacted are forever entangled.  The behaviour of one instantaneously influences the other.  An entanglement exists even if the interaction is through each of the objects having interacted with a third object.  In principle, our world has a universal connectedness.”

Sir Charles Sherrington  1857-1952 Neurologist, Nobel Prize winner, President of the Royal Society: ” How far is the one mind a collection of quasi-independent minds integrated physically in large measure by temporal concurrence of experience?

When quantum particles are entangled they cannot be described individually. They form a single quantum object even though they may be located far apart.

Is there any further information that you can give us that possibly we might not understand but somebody accessing the website might understand?

You will have realised from your own searches into the current theories and philosophies that are propounded at the present time and from your membership of the Scientific and Medical Network that the information we have provided so far is what you might call at the outer limits of conjecture as regards the general attachment to the notion of self. Even though we feel that the process as we have described it is quite readily understandable there is a reluctance on the part of most to, if you would like to say the word, “accept” that it is a question of even understanding the acceptance of the idea of decision making by majority after a lifetime’s believing wholeheartedly in the fact that you are singularly responsible for your thoughts and actions. Even though you may wonder where your thoughts come from you still believe that your actions derive solely from your own decisions; that you make your own minds up albeit influenced by others and by circumstance. Even so you believe that when it comes to the crux that the sole responsibility for a particular decision rests with yourself.

Now to have to give up that control and simply sit back and wait for the decision to come to you takes some understanding because you will still feel that “Ah, I think I’ll do this”.

What is happening? You are responding to what you might call the mass decision, the majority of the mass of consciousness that is, at that time, focused on, what you might call, your particular instrument or identity and its position in its surroundings. So it would be quite difficult for you to stand aside and see a decision made from taking an objective point of view because you are part of the decision making process. The nearest you can get to this particular position is feeling that you have to do something, that this decision to a certain degree is being forced upon me. “I’d rather not do it, but I simply have to do it because I can’t see that there is any other action I can possibly take”. You will blame that on various factors, relationships, circumstance and other strictures but you are unlikely to think to yourself “Well, it’s simply the fact that the majority want to do something else, they don’t see it the same way as I do’.

So you will still take them (decisions made) as your own because really the decision is your own in that you will go along with the thought even though you don’t wish to. Because what is the alternative? The alternative is to switch focus and to do that you will leave the present focus into the physical. Now, of course, you can take the attitude “Well, I’ll sleep on it and so I’ll make no decision and see how I feel in the morning”. Can you speculate yourself as to what might happen during the intervening hours when you are no longer focused into the physical as we previously told you? Would you care to give an opinion on that?

Interaction with other consciousnesses which could give you an answer.

Certainly change your opinion or show you alternatives but point out that “this is the best way” or simply, “we know that may be the best way but we are quite interested in trying this other avenue”. Yes?

Yes.

So your indecision may last for some time but if the overall life of the instrument still holds its attraction then you will stay with it. You will decide that it may be interesting to see what would happen if that course was followed. Normally I would do this but what would happen if I did that?

Yes.

So this is the tough part about taking you any further because in order for you to understand more you would need to understand the feeling of the intensity of thought and the flow of thought and you are really not in a position to do that. You have to be in the world of thought in order to do this, to be aware of all the thoughts that are out there. At the moment you are only aware of the thought as produced by the confluence of thought, shall we say, the thoughts that emerged to which there is a consensus agreement. You are not aware of the multitude of thoughts that goes into that. This is one difficulty.

Now when it comes down to other aspects, as you have seen various scenarios propounded, in the “simulation” hypothesis for example, what is imagination but a simulation?

Yes.

Except for the fact that the imagination is, shall we say, somewhat spontaneous. Spontaneous within prescribed parameters, a certain framework into which you have to operate, in that you can’t expect to operate as if you were at sea if you are on land. Different procedures may be necessary. So you could easily say that simulation could marry up with imagination and the same goes for virtual realities. It makes sense to imagine that somewhere you are wearing a virtual helmet, watching a virtual screen.  After all, what is it inside your head but a virtual screen? You have no idea. We may just as well say that what you are looking at is this, to make it easy for you, sea of moving waves, this 2 dimensional surround of “pixels” and wherever you look then what you see is the mass imagination, the majority imagination.

We are now moving into an area which is slightly different. We have touched upon this before when we were talking about a leader going along and as they do the imagining then you pick up on that imagining and accept it and go with it. See the large mountain on the right, yes, see the small mountain on the left, yes, and so you gradually set your environment up as you go along. We have said the same thing about the shoals of fish and the flocks of birds in that one sends a thought out, the others instantly get the thought and so instantly turn left, right or whatever.

Have you thought in terms of the fact that these flocks of birds or shoals of fish, in regards to gestalt consciousness, are all involved in the decision making? It is not just the leader saying “here’s a picture, go left, go right”, it’s the whole lot simply because of the speed, actually it is instantaneous but that is beyond your present comprehension. (The concepts of quantum entanglement and non-locality are the nearest equivalents to instantaneous communication). Everybody gets to say go left or go right and of course in the speed of things when it comes to say shoals of fish evading predators then that may be panic stations, resulting in left and right being yelled out all over the place. Whereas with flocks of birds do you notice the fact that the movement of flocks of birds is quite graceful. Now why would they do that do you think? The feeling of their movement against the air, would it be enjoyable?

I would imagine so.

If they were stopping and starting, dropping like a stone and having to start up again. You don’t see that do you? You see long graceful movements in the main. Maybe some turns. Pilots involved in acrobatic displays do the same thing, they do manoeuvres and loop the loops, rolls etc. but it all shows control and a certain pleasure in executing a manoeuvre as far as the birds are concerned and to a degree the fish when they are not being pursued may take pleasure in performing rhythmic movements much as you do when you are dancing or Tai Chi or whatever. But then you are entering into a mass agreement because the mass may decide in its imagination that it wishes to experience x, y and z. Once you think of the fact that even though we said before that there are different gestalts of consciousness, which indeed there are, doing their own thing, then due to the interconnectedness of consciousness there will be contact between all consciousness.

Just consider that all are aware of everything that is likely to happen (this would account for premonitions) because if they care to survey the “ocean of thought”, shall we say, much as you go to the internet and look at the world news, then you decide which interests you and which doesn’t interest you. When you are aware that an earthquake or hurricane or some other disaster is imminent, even say the plane or ship you intend to travel on or the turning you were going to take, you are aware of the likelihood of the outcome of taking said action and taking alternative actions because all probabilities are weighed and explored in one fashion or another. That doesn’t mean to say that all are experienced but one can certainly extrapolate them to their likely outcome and then you, your gestalt that is, can decide whether you wish to take the instrument into that particular environment with the knowledge that it may not come out of it or in other cases it definitely will not come out of it and that will be the exit that is planned. Although from your point of view this is seemingly against the run of reason, from another point of view, in that you may also be focusing through many of the gestalts that comprise your family and acquaintances etc., you will still be fully aware and fully focused into the physical but simply through different eyes. You actually don’t lose anything particular except a certain point of view from the one instrument no longer around, but you are still surrounded by the same environment and people except for the one. (Perhaps this is where the proposition arose that we are all one another )

Now if you had been focusing through all these, you obviously would not be aware of it, but you can easily see that losing the focus through one wouldn’t be a big deal. Would you agree?

Yes.

You may miss out on a few experiences but in general the experiences will still be yours to enjoy.

We have covered a small part of an area into which you can look further. Whether it will have any practical value to you other than theoretical projection it is up to you to decide because what you have learned so far has given you a certain amount of peace in knowing that there is no question that you will survive the end of the physical body but you understandably would like to know more about your own physical trials and tribulations prior to your intended departure and also as to when that is likely to be. Of course this is all purely looked at from the point of view of the focus into the physical, because in order to take on the viewpoint the individual consciousness focuses into the gestalt and then one has to simply go with the flow and accept what goes on and just live one day at a time. That has got to be the goal of all those who wish to relieve themselves of worry and anxiety about the future. Simply wake up in the morning and “what shall we fill today with?” Put on one side the fact that this may or may not happen.

Now David likes to be in control of the day-to-day and the future. What is the point of buying this plant if I am uncertain as to whether I will see it mature? But if he took a moment to think about it then he would still see it wouldn’t he? (This puts another meaning into “the futurity of present decision”).

As we have just said, through somebody else’s eyes or simply by just focusing in. So how do you feel about those back in Europe who planted vast estates with no likelihood, from the physical point of view, of ever seeing them to maturity? Did they somehow know or did the gestalt know, and of course it did, they would see the end result of their efforts even though they may not be seeing it through one particular instruments eyes. For those who seemingly plan for developments outside their projected lifescale you must think to yourself that the consciousnesses doing this are involved in creation that by nature of the physical takes longer than the human lifetime. So why not? Why should you limit yourself to a human lifetime when it is only a focus through an instrument?

Now, you sit back and think to yourself “well I’m going to focus through several sequential instruments”. Yes?

Yes.

Even though some of those may be alive at the same time. For example, you could be focused through several instruments, all of different ages, all in the same location and all aware of their environment. For you, your sequentiality of experience can be to you, provided you see it from that angle, basically unbroken. You can be looking at it through the eyes of the grandfather. The father is an adult as well, you can be looking through those eyes. The son is reaching adulthood as well and has memories of his childhood and so we go on. You don’t have to stay in the family line either.

You can be the tree.

You can even be the tree if you wish, yes.

If you are part of the person who is doing the planting and you wish to be part of the environment, you could give the instrument the idea of planting. It doesn’t matter whether it is for his lifetime because it is for your (planned) lifetime(s).

You make a good point in that it is possible that a group of trees may want to arrange themselves in a certain order. Now we could come back to another area of your previous mythology, you might say, that the god Pan is responsible for the flora.

I’m not aware of that, I don’t remember.

Let us look at gestalts which are not focused through physical eyes and are simply wishing to design the beautiful vista, shall we say. But in order to design that particular vista, yes, they can have it in the imagination like everything else but you all can work in different ways. You can draw or paint a vase or you can actually make a vase, two different experiences, different sensations and satisfactions. Painting a vase is more akin to an observer status but actually fashioning it and feeling the clay forming in your hands is being fully involved although you won’t be aware of the finished product until it is finished any more than you are until you make the final brushstroke on your painting. Different dimensional experiences, the virtual, the 2 dimensional and the 3 dimensional aspects of the actual vase.

If you wish to experience all three dimensions then you have to use different levels of involvement, different focuses and work with different numbers of participating consciousnesses according to the dimension you wish to create in.

So although you may be focused into a tree gestalt you may still need another gestalt, be it a human or an animal to plant these acorns, shall we say, so that in 150 years time say you have this wonderful avenue of oak trees. It is very unlikely that you would use a squirrel to bury these to the desired pattern so you would give the idea to an instrument that understands measurement. You can see that interaction and cooperation is necessary to co-create. One can never understand where the thought first arose. It is basically impossible to determine which consciousness produced the thought because that consciousness didn’t know where the thought came from either. How can you claim ownership when you are noticing thoughts all the time, from everywhere? How do you know whether your thought is original or not, you simply don’t. All get used to the idea in the end. It doesn’t matter where it came from, it looks interesting and I think I’ll follow it along because it looks like it could be an interesting experience.

This is one area worthy of further thought, trying to understand your own position in this web of interconnectedness and seeing the various avenues that are open to you.

You are getting to the edge now where you will need to experiment and have at least a mental experience of the maybe. We can use words and words and words but nothing in the end is going to substitute for your understanding through deduction and experience.

We suggest that you listen to this over again and see what major points you can take on board and we will revisit this at a later time.

11th June 2018 Consciousness and Memory

Does the unit of consciousness have a memory, how does it hold its memories and does it hold its memories in the order of experience given the absence of time?

Would you agree that memories are thoughts?

Yes.

We have spoken before about thoughts being held in a repository, shall we say, where they eternally exist, and so would you think that memories being thoughts could also be held in that fashion? (Morphogenetic fields come to mind.)

Yes.

On that basis therefore would you agree that the thought store can always be accessed?

Yes.

So memories can always be accessed. Now would you also agree that the memory would be entangled (connected) with the unit of awareness that had the experience?

Yes.

Therefore if the unit of consciousness wishes to access its memory store it can do so merely by focusing?

Yes.

With regard to the sequentiality would the thought that is wished to be remembered as a memory be that of a particular instance?

Yes.

That particular instance would commence at a certain point and successive thoughts would follow, much as we said before when focusing upon the sequential patterns. The history of your life is there in, we must say for your purposes, is there in all its sequentiality and that it runs from birth to death, so wherever you start your focus running it will then go on in that established pattern. Yes? So if you wish to go back in that pattern you can of course do so.

Now when in the physical you find it difficult to remember in reverse order. You may remember something that happened on June 4^th when you were 12 years old because it stands out in your mind but what likelihood is there of you being able to remember what happened on June 3^rd?

Little.

Exactly. Why?

Because it needs to be something that made an impact, that made a difference.

It does not stand out in your memory as it was not of any importance to you, of any particular note?

Yes.

So would you be bothering to try to try to remember it, for no reason?

No.

We think we have answered that particular question.

Comment:  Now consider the NDE’rs accounts of experiencing their life review. Additionally if we give credence to the doctrine of quantum entanglement then it becomes apparent why one also experiences the feelings of those who you interacted with.

Another question. Can a unit of consciousness re- experience a gestalt which it was previously part of but has since dispersed e.g. a human physical instrument?

Once more we go back to the store. Everything that has occurred in the experience of that particular gestalt during its passage from birth to death has been recorded. If you, as a unit of consciousness, wish to recover that memory then you can insert yourself into the pattern sequence. You can focus once more upon the pattern sequence. It is simply that you will be more in the position of an observer because you only have the sensations, the emotions portrayed, received. You will be able to re- experience those stored memories but at the same time you will not be able to experience them from the unknowing state (the state of uncertainty as to what will happen in the next moment) you will experience them from the knowing state. Do you understand?

From having been there before?

Because when you were focused in the physical instrument you had blotted out all information as regards your provenance, let us say, you were focused entirely on the stage. Now when you access the store you are no longer on the stage, are you?

No.

So although you can watch the action, perhaps recognize the action, recognize the feeling, you cannot not but be aware of the fact that you are following a process of recall. Do you understand?

I think so.

You have accessed the memory. The intention was to access the memory in a bid to relive the moment, but in that bid to relive the moment you are aware that moment is not, to use your words, of this present time. So how can it have the same impact because you are effectively in the same position as being in the back of the theatre? Do you understand?

I’m getting there.

It is as if you are reading your autobiography. You can remember, maybe, the shock or the pleasure as set out in the particular paragraph within the autobiography and yet you are fully aware that this is not happening in your present moment.

Yes.

It will no longer have the impact. In other words you see it from a point of detachment.  (not involvement) You can “experience”, relive the moment but from a different point of view. Can you understand what we have said?

I think so.

It is like watching a film of your life. Much the same way as the NDE’rs will speak of their life review but it doesn’t have the same impact as the NDE’r is still seeing it from a, let us say, semi-detached point of view. Once you are fully in the next focus shall we say, or in the elevated focus above all your subsidiary focuses, then you are seeing it from the detached or interested or academic point of view. Now do you understand?

Yes, thank you.

Comment: It makes you realise how precious each moment is. You will never pass this way again, each moment is unique in its perspective. This life is precious, it is our only chance to experience it in this fashion so make the most of it, treasure it, give it your full attention. Consign yesterday to your personal history and live in the now.

Consciousness and It’s Sense of Self. 3rd July 2018

Can one unit of consciousness, having been part of a billions of units co- production, recreate the physical body or its image?

Does one atom exist on its own? Does one electron, one quark?

I’m assuming yes.

You know that an atom is composed of multiple electrical charges?

Yes.

How far do you wish to go before you decide that anything smaller cannot be aware? Yet it is in motion and it is communicating with others?

I have no idea.

If photons are communicating with each other can they be units of awareness?

They can be a unit of awareness but could that unit of awareness e.g. recreate me?

In what fashion?

I am not talking about the physical body, I am talking about in another reality.

In its imagination. If the photon is aware, is in communication with another photon, which is able to be demonstrated in a laboratory, then you have your quantum entanglement. Let us say that entanglement assumes that the observer can no longer distinguish the individuals within, so let us put it that they become like identical twins in all respects because they are sharing the same knowledge, the same information bank. One’s knowledge is the others knowledge. Alternatively you could say that they have merged, become as one.  Yes?

I am finding it very difficult. For example we spoke about remote viewing and how the remote viewer can be aware of information and images not locally present but when I asked if I could mentally send something to you the answer was no.

We are in the physical.

Well surely the remote viewers are in the physical or one part of them is in the physical.

Let us go back to the telepathy experiment. There is a belief and the belief is that you can get some information but you cannot get the full clarity picture (as seen through the other persons eyes).

Yes.

When you are in the non-physical you know, you do believe and therefore you can say “I am sitting in a café in Capri overlooking the Mediterranean”. Yes?

Yes.

You entangle, both are sharing the same image. Now do you understand?

Yes.

When it comes down to you somehow needing to see an objective unit of awareness, being able to visualise or understand in some fashion “This is a unit of awareness”, can you understand this wave, particle, electrically charged unit going in and out of existence called an electron?

Sort of. We are told about it.

We are told about it? So let us go further down the scale, all the way down to the supposed limit of the Planck scale and would you agree that there may be orders of magnitude smaller than that theoretical limit?

Yes.

Then imagine that these energy pulses, let us say, are all capable of communicating with each other. When you are a unit of awareness you will join whatever group that you wish to feel you are. You will adopt an identity. At the present moment you sit there feeling that you are “I”, (Jean) but you are also aware that you are part of billions of awarenesses all thinking the same?

Yes.

Does each cell in your body understand that it is partaking in the physical instrument called Jean?

I presume they do.

Exactly. So if we assume that the consciousness that is focusing on the cell is a unit of consciousness, then you can say that unit of consciousness is entangled and is receiving all the same impressions that you are. Yes?

Yes.

So as the cells split and you breathe molecules in and out and likewise eat and excrete, then you can say that your composition is constantly changing?

Yes.

But each time as they join they pick up, they have access to, everything that you already know, have ever experienced and they immediately assume the “I”. Because they are connected to your memory store. They say “This is me, I am Jean”. Now you could turn around and say “But you have just joined.” And they will reply “No I haven’t, I have been here as long as you have”.

Now talk about time as regards this last statement.

“I have been here as long as you have”? Because there is no time, as you can access all the memories?

It is not a question of “I can access all the memories” it is “I have all the memories”. The minute you join, you focus in, you are totally connected, you are entangled, you become as one.

So then the minute you leave you still retain all those memories? (See Entangled Minds)  

Yes. But do you, as we said before, even though you remember something from June 12^th can you then recollect June 11^th?

No. Going on from that, say a unit of awareness has just left me and has gone to the next life. Can that unit of awareness, that is now in the next life and knows that is has been me, can that recreate me to those people who have left the physical before I leave the physical?

The awareness leaves the physical?

Yes.

It then is able to be in knowing contact with others in the non-physical, in other words both know they are non-physical. The consciousness (awareness) that leaves you then is able to talk to your mother and father on an equal footing, they are aware of each other.  You have the memory store. Can that unit of consciousness, that considers itself “I”, access the memory store?

Yes.

And can it see what it was like?

Presumably the answer is yes.

So as it brings that into its mind, it is communicating with your mother and father, they entangle, they become as one, they see the picture and the picture is completely clear. (We must remember that all parties to the encounter are recreating their appropriate image as in remembering, returning to acting, parts played in a play. In other words you become that person again)

Now you have to realise that this is a plane of separation. When you leave here there is no separation of anything, everything is interconnected. It is merely where you wish to be.  (What you wish to focus upon.)

You can be with anyone, what you call anyone, any imaginative representation, whenever you wish.

But in order to share that representation you have to activate the entanglement. Do you understand?

I know what you are saying.

If one side does not want to respond it turns its focus away and you no longer both share the image, but if you both wish to share the image then (automatically) you are both sharing the same image. (The intention is the key – to the reality of Capri; and to all other realities you care to focus on)

Such is the imagination that when one says “I am sitting in this chair” “Well I’ll sit in this chair then”, you just simply adjust the images accordingly.

Yes.

You create your reality.

Now you have to assimilate all these different things and think them through. Then you will see that once you get away from this separateness you will realise quite quickly that there is no (intrinsic) you. There is only who you want to be.

Yes.

“I am this, now I think I’ll be that, and that, and that”. So you are always speaking from the position of an adopted or created “I”, of an adopted or created identity. Do you understand?

I can understand what you are saying. It is just that because I now consider myself to be composed of billions of entities the mind boggles especially when they may all be thinking of different things.

You are concerned about losing what you consider is your identity.

No, I am not concerned about that, I just find the whole thing confusing.

Do you consider that there must be utter confusion in the ocean with all these untold molecules of water?

All these molecules of water have come together and are now called an ocean of water…….

Where is their individual identity?

It isn’t all the time they are part of the ocean, it isn’t, they are just part of the ocean.

Have you got an individual identity amongst the 7 billion humans?

Yes. So they should all have their individual identity. I take that back.

Exactly.

I take that back. They all retain their individual identity and when the wind blows or the sun shines they go off to be something different. (To experience being part of something different)

And your billions of awarenesses? Comprising your particular “I”.

They can do the same thing, they can go off and be whatever.

But do they still retain the access to that particular sense of “I”?

I suppose so via their memory store, by focusing on the memory store of that “I”.

Now you have already established that you have your identity amongst 7 billion others and so if we take 7 billion molecules of water, say a couple of drops, you would accord them their individual identity within those drops of water?

Yes.

If we now reduce those molecules to their component parts and keep on dissembling until we get to the limits of our comprehension then can we determine the state of the primary unit of consciousness? The consensus of opinion amongst the scientific community is that consciousness arises  at a certain point, but can that be demonstrated, what can they be certain of, or is it just speculation? Does it arise at some point during conception, after birth? The jury is still out. How many scientists would agree that consciousness is present before conception?

Probably not very many.

Exactly. It is the old business about when does the soul join but if you say that the soul exists before and actually plans all this then you won’t get much of a hearing from science will you?

No.

Soooh. You have to just be happy with what you feel and decide if it really matters to you if you know what a unit of awareness is because “what have I got at the moment? I have a sense of identity” and from all that you have learned you will have a sense of identity when you pass over as do the NDEr’s. Can they see themselves? Have you ever read or heard of a near death experiencer saying “I could see myself” and describe their non-physical appearance?

No one has ever been able to see their ”Self”, as how can you stand outside yourself without being a separate “Self”?

You cannot.

So you can only be the “Self” that other “Selves” tell you, you are. What they reflect back to you from your own thoughts and their interpretation of same. Those selves can only tell you what you are by what you project. Now you either project your imagination to another “Self” in which case you are entangled and they will have your knowledge of what you think you are, how you see yourself. They can then pass that information back to you. At that stage they can tell you what they think you are. From all this information you will derive a sense of what you are like.

But what are you getting? You are getting what is termed “reflection”. So you don’t have a mirror, you have a thought reflection.

Yes.

Your sense of awareness of “Self” comes from the reflection of your own thoughts back to you. As you send thoughts out regarding your belief, your attitude, your opinions……Let us assume that you have this thought-form of a physical body as you pass over. (Think of yourself as one unit of awareness amongst many.) You contact another unit of awareness, you are entangled. You, in your imagination, have this picture of yourself, from a photograph, say. That immediately becomes the knowledge of the entangled party so then they can send a thought back to you “This is what you look like” but they may have their own attitudes and beliefs so whereas you may see yourself as beautiful they may see you as not so beautiful and they send that back.

What has happened? You have sent a picture and they have sent it back and that is where the term reflection comes from. We talk “reflection” but we don’t think about, how is this promulgated? When we say reflection, and when I say “we” I mean from the physical, it involves the receiving of varied responses from those you interact with from which you gradually build up a conception of how you are in other people’s eyes.

Yes.

You then decide or not to amend the way you present and conduct yourself to achieve the effect you desire. To be seen as loving, caring, humorous, impartial or maybe strong, dictatorial, an achiever or whatever mix you think is comfortable for you. You do this in response to data being received from other units of awareness. Of course in order for them to be aware of you, you had to make a presentation.

Now when you haven’t got a physical body and you have only got thoughts, and thoughts being imagination, you are broadcasting all kinds of images and information and it is reflected back to you. So consider that the other units of awareness are various distorting mirrors and all the sensory perceptions you put out there are then reflected back to you. So they come to you as thoughts. You attribute those thoughts to others and then you accord them whatever you wish to accord them in terms of importance to yourself. Can you see that?

Yes. Much the same as we respond to the opinions of others here. We either take notice or not depending on the source of the opinion and if we think it is valid we may change our behaviour.

Exactly. The process of forever becoming is continual, you exist, you are forever becoming.

Do you see that each time you make an adjustment you are creating your own sense of “I”?

Yes. I can see that I create my own identity continually, at every moment actually, every time I change my mind or amend my opinion or attitude. Who I think I am is who I think I am.

And it is whether you create that in a singular or a multiple capacity depending on the experience you are involved in, your current focus. You are merely joining in and accepting a sense of ”I” derived from the co- production of whatever reality you are involved in but at the same time you can happily imagine your own sense of ”I”. Now think of where you got that sense of “I” from in the first place. From something you experienced. Yes?

Yes.

There isn’t a start, but let us start from the birth, let us say, of a unit of awareness. At that point it has no memories, it starts to acquire memories. Now you may equate this to a child, it cannot remember before it was born. So what does it do? It starts to accumulate experiences and memories.  You can compare this to a unit of consciousness. What we don’t know is, was it ever born and we won’t know, will we?

So we simply enjoy the fact that “I AM”.

When you consider the philosophies of millennia most thinkers arrive at the same conclusion, because that is all that matters.

It does not matter “I am what” it merely matters “What I am”, how I think of myself at the moment.

So arises the “I”.

Comment: You cannot find or lose your “self” because you are continually creating that “self”, that sense of self. 

Perhaps this explains how a “grandma” appears in dreams or to NDE’rs as she was at a much earlier age. Simple really isn’t it.

Gives a new meaning to “I think therefore I am.”   i.e. My thoughts regarding my “self” form the representation of who I think I am.