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.”
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 idea of acceptance 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?
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?
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?
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, you can easily see that losing the focus through one wouldn’t be a big deal. Would you agree?
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?
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.