Dimensions2

“O my, what if the strands had spectra of their own, and so the strands could populate a whole region of existence through different expressions. So, the strands are coherent continuities of information, and also wide expressions of the same. And you could, if you were more evolved, sense their continuity or their breadth of expression, but not both.

“They are either bundles of info or fields of info, and can be either but not both, because those are self-contradictory states of beings. Take a football field. Now, for some minutes it is 100 yards of action-packed drama! A struggle between 2 forces. But the same field could also be the place where decades of memories are made, and any single Saturday afternoon is not replayed in the memory, but only the overall pattern. The field is empty, the stands empty, no band, quiet. But that quiet doesn’t negate the crowded noise of games past and future. Just an analogy.

“Some information spreads out and infuses everything. Some information focuses itself tightly into a progression of understanding. Could be the same strand, acting in 2 of its many modes, holding a full spectrum of possible expressions.

“Just something to think about.” (10/19/2009 - I#157)

“So, here we are in a matrix of strands and each strand a matrix of strings and each string a series of entities and information arranged in a matrix which is a strand, etc.–up and down. Forget about atoms. They are just physical representations of much more essential entities. But I’ve said enough.

“The universe is not made up of atoms! Atoms just represent the more primal building units of existence which, in the end, is information. The same way that the tiny silicon switches of a computer are not the data and logic of the computer, but just representations of the information they present–expressions and representations and conduits and sewers (shit in, shit out). For example, the NRP (National Republican Party) computers and Rush Limbaugh’s so-called brain.

“Here’s a trick. Decide what you want the output to be, then reverse engineer the input needed, then only put that in. And if you can keep the processing the same, it will appear rational. The process itself is actually reasonable, if only the full data were entered.” (11/7/2009 - I#158)

“So, let’s recap. It has been discovered that parallel universes aren’t parallel, or else we would never get a sense that they’re there. All realities intersect somehow. And we increasingly inhabit the points of conjunction as we become more complex.

“Now a question from little Bobbie Alcera of Rancho Cucamonga, California: ‘When we get more complex, do all our parts come from the same plane.’ ‘No, some come by train.’ CT! Read the card! ‘O.’ But no, you grow in complexity across planes once you are complex enough to envision planes other than your own. Actually, you have become more complex across planes on the step before you comprehend other planes. It happens to you, and then you can conceive it.

“This is the long and sad history of complexity: You are always more complex than you realise. ‘I’m not.’ See. Otherwise, you would be creating reality to fulfill your fantasy, but rather you are growing into your reality by way of your perceptions. Everything LD invented was already possible... except for the potato poacher. That still defies reality. Ok, that’s today’s pith!

“A universe filled with parallel universes would be a one-dimensional simplistic place. Gotta bump into one another to get depth.” (12/28/2009 - I#159)

“So, if life isn’t linear, then it can’t be planar. So, to have parallel planes is not the same as parallel lives. Parallel lives would each dip and roll in the same ways; so, parallel existences which are not planar would be wavy in the same wavar ways. So, if even one point of Existence B were not just in synch with A, then you might get a point of intersection instead of planar parallelism. ‘And that’s the way it is. This is Walter Cronkite. Good evening.’ Whoa! Where’d WC come from. ‘He’s dead, you know.’ So are we. ‘O.’ It can be confusing, but lively. No no no, deadly. No no no....

“Why do folks think of linear parallelism when, in fact, it’s a jumbled matrix. Peeps like to envision a matrix like a large array of chess boards in multiple dimensions... ‘or checker boards.’ Yes CT, them, too. But from Checkerboard Square comes Purina Dog Chow... ARF. And Cat Chow... meow. O, it’s Sandy’s friend, Mimi the cat. ARF. Meow. But we digress.

“But a matrix need not be linear nor in any way parallel nor even symmetrical... ‘nor even Metrical, which is a diet drink.’ CT, have you lost your mind? ‘Why yes.’ O.

“When we speak of the existential spiritual matrix, I can assure you it’s not a neat and pretty sight. It’s more of a goo of being, with lots of connections but little symmetry... ‘and few Christmas trees.’ CT. ‘Cinnamon trees?’ No. ‘Cinnabuns?’ Yum. But we digest... yum.

“As I was trying to say, in a soup there is structure but not always linearity. And so, you can get a bit of pasta or not-a. And once in awhile, even in a lentil soup, you might get a fava... ‘and a nice Chianti?’ No, unless it’s a lamb stew–very quiet, silent even. But I don’t want to foster the impression that this will always be the case. However, those who are open to spiritual diversity will always experience matrices which are richer than those who think in linearity and parallelism. And nobody expected the Spanish omelet. ‘With ketchup?’ Sure, Papa.

“Now, a question: Are all movies played out in the other side, or are all movies an expression of the other side? ‘What is it.’ Well it’s the place where the dead go, but that’s not important right now. 'Where did it start?' Here or there. And pay no attention to the man behind the dog... ARF. What I am getting at is this: The matrix of being, which includes the matrix of nonbeing... ‘well of course it does, but what has nonbeing ever done for us?’ The roads? Oy.

“If you reduce the matrix of being to either linearity or parallelism or any form of symmetry or any system of order, you are imposing the dimensions of only one level of spiritual complexity-- which is so incomplete as to be laughable, hahahahaha.

“Stop looking for the universal theories of anything, because you can’t find them at any single level of complexity. The best you can do is particular theories which will be spiritually parochial but not inconsistent with universals. The boundaries of your particulars are not the edges of your theories but the limits of your complexities. And I’ve said enough. Pondering required, batteries not included or helpful unless you are a robot or unless they are S Cells (AA, AAA, C, D, S--Spirit Cells, which outlast the Bunny).” (1/1/2010 - I#160)

“So, here’s the bubbles story: If every possible reality were a plane, then yes, some would be parallel and inform ours by their parallel insights. And others would be intersecting and connect us to points of insight, but not necessarily to planes of understanding. However, there are also bubbles. Planes are infinite... ‘but Bubbles is not’... are not... ‘is not’... are not... ‘o.’

“They are finite systems of understanding, in which they appear infinite and meaningful, but they are neither in the totality of being. Get the picture. Inside a bubble it looks like a plane. However, here’s the tricky part: At any point on any plane, not only will the bubble appear to be parallel, but actually two points on the bubble will appear to be parallel. So bubbles seem to be twice as relevant to any plane as any other plane, but in fact they are not. And from a plane, a bubble will appear infinite for a long sequence of encounter. So the closed system of the bubble will appear parallel, infinite, and most significant, and will lead you down a finite path. Think alchemy.

“So, just because some insight seems to mirror your reality with greater possibilities and seems enticingly strong a referent, doesn’t mean it’s an infinite parallel plane. How can you tell which is which. ‘Bubbles are pink!’ No no no no. We will save that for another day. This is quite a bit for one sitting.” (1/10/2010 - I#161)

“Here’s a thought. Spirituality is planar, but religions are bubbles. They seem to be connected to all reality, but they are closed systems... open only on Friday afternoon, 2-4, holidays excepted. And the same with fads of all kinds.” (1/16/2010 - I#162)

“I’m not wild about bubbles. They are chimeras which beckon as if realities, but which are closed universes (universe with a small u). See, any closed system is its own universe; there doesn’t appear to be anything beyond. Just ask Truman. But the completeness is an illusion.

“Bubbles not only seem complete, but their surfaces mirror other realities. And here’s the trickiest bubble of them all: ayeeeee.... no no no, not yet... when a bubble so perfectly mirrors its situation that it is essentially camouflaged--so you can’t tell where it is, or even when you are entering its torturously contained self-logic. Cults within evangelical religion are examples. Good chocolate truffles are, too... oooo. But in history we see such as well (Nappy and his people).

“You think you are in the big U, but suddenly you run into an invisible wall. Planes don’t have no stinking walls! Get that in your noggin. So, if you reach a wall, you know you are in a bubble. But most people don’t know they’ve hit a wall. Here’s a hint: If somebody says there’s something you shouldn’t ask about, there’s a wall around somewhere.

“Planes admit infinite curiosity, even when they know they don’t contain the full answer. Ponder that!” (1/21/2010 - I#163)

“The overall tensions of your times are caused by some being in a bubble and others being on a plane which is reflected in the bubble and confuses the hell out of peeps.

“So some on the plane think they are bounded, and some in the bubble think their notions are infinite and universal. And some think their understanding should give them the rights to call the shots. But they are in the bubble, and everyone knows... wait for it... the reign falls mainly on the plane! Ain’t any real leadership options in bubbles because they ain’t going anywhere. Think dog chasing own tail... grrrr snap. The preceding was brought to you by Sanford Canine Services... f f f f f .

“So, those in the bubble and those on the plain plane talk the same talk and think they see the same realities, but they are just passing in the wind. But here are some dogs passing wind... f f f f arrr.

“Anymoo, when vast numbers seem to be talking about the same reality, but their words end up just zooming past, you got a bubble-plane confusion like now. And just be glad you are not in the bubble. For as painful as the plane might seem for awhile, in the end the bubble will burst and spew its parochialism into the universe, like spittle in the winds of change.

“Those in a bubble get stuck, mistaking the transient for the permanent. They mistake the box for what could proceed from its infinite contents. ‘Farts and burps are bubbles!’ Thank you, CT, for that enlightening insight. ‘No problemo.’

“Bubbles are attractive because they limit change–resistance to the unknown.

“Here’s something many don’t realize: The Aquarian Conspiracy was a bubble; so was Camelot. Idealism can be a bubble as much as cynicism.” (1/24/2010 - I#164)

“What happens to the atmosphere of any closed system. It degrades and slowly pollutes. So, too, with the contents of any bubble. But those within it slowly adapt to its malodorance. See, CT, I could use it in a sentence. ‘You win!’

“And often, they claim its redolence as aroma. Whoa. Yep, kraut stink can smell good in Munich. And to a bunch of drunks, whiskey breath smells good. So, too, with the philosophical air in any bubble.

“And those in the '60s drug culture thought it liberating, as they sank deeper into it. Each drug moment proved inadequate and begged for more.

“Planes take you new places; bubbles take you to old places that leave you wanting more. You could see it again and again. Never enough. We work so hard for what we don’t even want, and think the exit is the way out. Drop out just means turning round the bubble.” (2/4/2010 - I#165)

“And the question is: Can a plane pass through a bubble, and can bubbles have planes in them. Well, duh. Yes, some bubbles can be adjacent to planes; so they appear just off shore, so to speak. And those in the bubble see the plane, deride it as being fantastic, and stay in their bubble. Other times the plane cuts right through the bubble, and this is perceived by the bubbleheads as counterculture and they resist its allure and validity. 1950s materialistic bubble did not know what to do with the early '60s plane to the future. For example, on a plane, hair length never matters. But in a bubble, it can be definitive.

“And sometimes, in a large bubble, you can get what appears to be a plane but it ain’t going somewhere. Roman Empire was an apparent plane within a cultural bubble. The Catholic Church is a plane within the Christian bubble. And yes, Christianity is a bubble, but the spiritual insights of Jesu Ben Joseph were planar. Did I make this plainer.

“So ponder all that. And the Roman plane was in a bubble all about power. So the continuity of the state seemed a plane within the repeated conflicts over power.

“And now the puzzler: American democracy, bubble or plane. That’s the question of the moment. Will it be turned back on its own self or continue a journey into a different future... ARF. Yes, Sandy is taking bets on that... grrrf.

“Any bubble can be pierced and those within liberated, but any plane can also be turned back on its elf and made a bubble. Christianity was a plane until 326. Then Constantine--with the failing Roman bubble--transferred his bubbleheadedness to Christianity. To be on a plane requires an optimistic view of infinite future, but too much fear can turn any plane into a bubble. I stop.

“ ‘They’ve gone about as far as they can go’ is a statement about reaching a crucial point. And the decision is never about content but about process. Obama’s election was planar, and then fear started to turn it back on itself. And good-hearted will fuel that, by insisting on content performance rather than process integrity. I’ve said enough.” (2/11/2010 - I#166)

“We have encounters with concepts. Well, I’m sitting here, but not really sitting but the spiritual equivalent of sitting on a Sunday afternoon. But not really a Sunday afternoon, but the spiritual equivalent of a Sunday afternoon. And I’m thirsty, but not really thirsty but just the spiritual equivalent of thirst hits my throat. But it’s not a throat, but a spiritual equivalent of a throat. And I think, but not really think because I have no brain, etc., etc.

“You don’t have the keys to understand. And I don’t mean keys, but the spiritual equivalent. You think we don’t have some equivalent of everything you have? We do, and more. But wait, there’s more. ‘Hey you, enough with the equivalent shit. We are trying to be dead over here.’ For a small guy you gotta big mouth, or the spiritual.... ‘Shut up! She does go on, or rather the spiritual equivalent of her goes on.’ And on and on and on like everything, including eternal dog whiskers... f f f f f... hic.

“Lots of pith in that, or actually the spiritual equivalent of pith with a question, or the... no no no no. What is the spiritual equivalent of you? Hmmm. Would you be an angel, a cherub, a basket, a dog, a thing that goes here and there but whispers in the wind. If you were reduced to your spiritual essence, what would your physical equivalent be. Ponder that!

“That’s my stuff for today, or the spiritual equivalent of today, which in your estimation is what? Or for our German readers, ist das was. And for our Yiddish fans, oy, who cares.” (3/28/2010 - I#167)

“Dare I mention distilled spirits? We here are all distilled spirits, reduced to our essences and concentrated. A drop of us is worth a life of you.

“We are just you in condensed form–pure essential oils of being. Not different, but focused, precise, good to the last drop, I guess... or not. A point of existence. And some are more pointed than others. But it takes focus to be universal. Huh. Counter-intuitive, I know, but the more you are yourself, the better you can draw connections.

“Let’s say you want to drive to Cleveland (why?). It would be easier to find the connecting route if you knew you were starting from 1103 North Warren Avenue in Savannah, Georgia, as opposed to driving from the East Coast. So the more focused you are, the easier it is to find the connections because you aren’t wasting energy trying to keep yourself together.” (4/1/2010 - I#168)

“So, when we last left our interspirit travelers, Rikkity and the Wonder Dog... ARF... they were contemplating how real connection is always interplanar, while everything on one’s plane is just an extension. And the Wonder Dog was wondering... grrrr woofé... no no, Sandy, just because something is unseen that doesn’t mean it’s not an extension of you and your present reality. Woof? Indeed. Those other planes are probable parallel and non-parallel realities. Woofé? F f f f f. You’re getting it.

“We can connect only to that which is not us or an extension of us. ARF? Yes, it’s true that all probable realities are extensions of us in a way, but not until actualized... grrrr. Think about it, Sandy. You are connected to all that will be in your current plane of existence, so finding connections is easy... grrr snap. Yes, even a cat could do it. But to sense connections beyond oneself, or the projection of oneself, is the art of connection--to see patterns across pattern systems. Woof! Yes! To sense a Sandy who is not a dog and is not any of the spirits you’ve been or would be if you stayed mainly on this plane. Don’t dance... f f.

“And now, Wonder Dog... ARF! Let’s see if we can get CT out of another mess. He’s caught in linear thinking outside the Sphere of Compassion... ARF ARF. And away we go.” (4/16/2010 - I#169)

“So, those planes. Now, are all planes planar to each other, no. When one is on one’s plane, it appears planar, but other planes may appear other than planar.

“You can only perceive the ground of your being as consistent, while other grounds of being may appear consistent... or not. Don’t judge a plane by its appearance.

“So, the trick is that some reality which looks to you as a discontinuous jumble could be a plane of meaning and understanding. Doesn’t need to be what you expect, in order to be what it is. You are not the interpreter of existence. ‘O yes, I am.’ No. ‘Yes.’ Aren’t. ‘Am, too.’ No way. ‘Says who.’

“There is no universal view--unless you are one with everything, and then you’re a weiner. I relish the thought. It takes many lives to catch up.” (5/16/2010 - I#170)

“So, a question: Have you ever been going your merry way, with everything falling right into place, and then suddenly it feels like you’ve gotten caught in an existential twister... Auntie Em! Like, instead of smooth and linear, existence is more circular and rough. ‘Then try Smooth-Out.’ CT, I am trying to be serious. ‘And I’m just trying.’ We know!

“So, what’s up with that? Let’s review our last pith. A plane, as seen from another plane, may not appear planar. ‘And the rain in....’ CT. So we often assume the twister is about the plane we are on, but usually it is about another plane which is intersecting. And it appears helter-skelter to us until we transition to it, and then for awhile the old plane appears twister-like as well, until we can be just totally flat-out in the new existence. At the point of change there always appears chaos, but it is really 2 chaoses in 1. ‘It’s a breath chaos.’ Don’t. Keep going on! ‘Candy?’ Don’t.

“And the parts are the chaos of becoming and the chaos of unbecoming... and we know who is unbecoming because he is about to make a smart remark... wait, I mean a smart-ass remark. ‘O I thought I had won for once.’ No no no no, up against moi, I don’t think so. I lack self-esteem. Sure.

“And here’s a little secret: If the transition between the two planes is lengthy, the chaos can feel like a plane of its own in which both past and present planes appear to be the chaos instead. Lots of peeps, leaving a plane of living which had been sustained for years, get into the in-between and look back at that time as pure confusion. ‘What was I thinking?’ And that’s the pith for now... and then and then and then but not then.” (5/20/2010 - I#171)

“Sometimes, people on a plane that has been left behind try to deny the value and reality of the new plane. Being present where you are and giving heed to where you want to be is the way to go. Ponder that. It sounds simple, but it’s not.” (5/29/2010 - I#172)

“Now, about those parallel planes which are concentric. Parallel just means infinitely equidistant, so curves can be parallel.

“I ask you to think about ripples on the still pond. The ripples are parallel circles, so how do you get any intersecting planes? By the introduction of complexity. All it takes is a second pebble. In a different spot. So, when we experience an intersection of planes, we are also experiencing the intersection of two or more sources. Ponder that for awhile.” (6/17/2010 - I#173)

“You see, here we don’t have the constraints of physical reality. It’s all up for grabs. I think without a brain, so there! I’m just a figment of my own imagination. Now read that sentence over and ponder its subtlety. And it’s turtles all the way down!” (10/5/2010 - I#174)

“You know, we all have physical memories–that is, memories of being physical. Just as y’all have memories of being spiritual. So, we remember belly rubs... f f f... and sunshine on our mocha skin, and we can connect across memories. So, I can remember petting a cute dog’s tummy, and a dog–a certain dog–can remember having his tummy petted, and those two memories can be real in spirit even without being physical. And so we can recall the feelings... f f.

“It’s the concepts that persist. I can still enjoy French fries without a mouth and stomach. Y’all know this. Watch and listen and be amazed: Baguette. See. Cipriani’s gelato. The sun at the end of day on the Tour Eiffel. It’s all as real as if you had a loaf, a spoon, or your eyes.

“Here we realize that the deeper experience is the intersection of the idea, the thought, the feeling, between the object or event and the perceiver. And in fact, physicality gets in the way often. So here I can express the thought of being loving and Sanford can express the thought of being loved and it is... f f f.

“If you think skyscrapers rise high, try ideas beyond physical restraint. For we are now loose of all ties of time and space and matters. So much less interference. Get to the heart of it. Ponder that. The physical is the limited and clumsy expression of deep notions. And the notions are on the right aisle. I’ve had some pretty strange notions... ooooo.

“So, two people sit down across from each other in a darkened room. Their breathing, slowly but surely, synchronizes. And after a passage of breaths, they leave the room knowing each other without any idea of looks or philosophies or anything more than that two essences shared being. And if one were to meet the other at some other time and place, she or he might say ‘Don’t I know you?’ Enough to ponder.” (10/7/2010 - I#175)

“I don’t want to get physical, physical.... All subordinate states of being have filters that qualify the experiences. Physical is one filter. And here’s tonight’s cliffhanger: Spirit is all-experiential, physical is a filtered subset, and... here it comes... it’s not the only filtered subset. Just let that seep in.

“Am I saying that there’s more than just spiritual and physical. Tune in next week when we hear our hero say Arrrrfé.” (10/12/2010 - I#176)

“So, is it better to understand physical while physical or spiritual? When does a dog wear the most clothes. Just checking if you are paying attention.

“Ok, physical refers to those things which are material, and spiritual to non-material... or does it? Spiritual refers to one state of non-material being, as defined by the dimensions of your material. But what of other dimensions--and I don’t mean dimensions of your world, but of worlds beyond your world. Why do they always assume the alternate worlds are physical. Am I saying that there are parallel spiritual worlds and existences, too? You bet your mother’s brisket, I do.

“Just as many non-physical possibilities as physical. So there! And since spirit is not about time and distance, then the other possibilities are not derivations or alternatives of time and space like physical ones are. Aha, you say, so maybe it’s not that there are 2 states, physical and spiritual, but that those 2 states are among a plentitude of states. So, there they are not opposites, but second cousins twice removed on their enate side.

“So, maybe... no, really, at some levels of complexity the transition is not between physical and spiritual, but between this and that--whatever this and that are. Am I saying that, in the developmental complexity, physical as we know it and spiritual as we know it are not active dimensions of expressive existence? You bet your mother’s borscht, I do. So, ponder that.” (10/15/2010 - I#177)

“JC did not supplant the laws of existence here. But people recounted them as if he did.

“He became a legend in everyone’s mind but his own. And these miracle stories he saw as a failure of his ministry. He wanted people to recognize their own powers, not his. He came to liberate, not subjugate to another compulsion. He wanted to do away with the priests, not create a new order of priests. And he wanted a really good Reuben on dark rye. Could he get it, noooooo. So much for miracles.

“They saw simple things which appeared a little inexplicable, and then said ‘I don’t know how he did that. I couldn’t do that. It was a miracle.’ And to prove their point, they improved on the story.

“Some inspired sharing became a few loaves and fish feeding thousands. You had to be there! Deep depression in a coma-like state, he tends to him, and he rises. The caterers unpack a forgotten case of wine. So it went. And remember, lots of young people followed him and then had to go home and tell people why they were gone. ‘Hey, man, it was like all the fucking world was there, man. Wow, we had enough to eat without bringing anything. I mean, Woodstock was like a miracle, man.’ Get it. But he says wait, he’ll say it in his own words: ‘I didn’t invent Miracle Whip.’ Thanks, JC. And now, here’s the Mayo Brothers... tada. But seriously... ok, enough.” (10/22/2010 - I#178)

“Ok, let’s get to the serious stuff. Now, a quiz: You are in your matrix, and you have been through an unnumberable nexi. Are you still you? Yes and no. The physical you is you, but the you which is information is now you plus them and those and those others.

“You keep an identity through it all, but your knowing grows with each intersection. You can’t come through any point without gaining some insight--even if the insight is that there’s nothing there.

“So you are you, and you are you becoming an entity aware of more.

“It is the information gained in each connection that grows with us, not the us. We hold the capacity to, more or less, gain and remember what is offered in each intersection. But how we use that potential is the test. Genetics is a crude equivalent of this.

“So, you are a spiritual repository... no no no no, not suppository, CT... of the information of all those intersections–even as they fade from physical memory. Just a tidbit. An iota. An ort. A wee tad... ARF.” (11/4/2010 - I#179)

“Just ponder this: The '50s and '60s had hi-fi, high fidelity--a quality of adherence to the reality of the experience. 'With hi-fi it’s almost like being there.' But in the 00s, we have wi-fi instead, which could mean wider fidelity--looking for authenticity and genuine connection in wider circles. Just a thought of the brainless one. But I use one on TV.

“Waves of knowing, not points of information. Don’t mistake one for the other. Humanists, noto bene: You can have all the facts in the world and still get them all in the wrong relationship. Ok, that’s the pith.” (11/18/2010 - I#180)

Questions from Glenda: So Rikkity, am I to deduce that you don't believe in miracles? Is it not a miracle that you send these teachings now? Or is this a lingering impact of your spirit on this planet? Do you reside everywhere, the Universe? Wherever your thoughts take you?

“I believe in miracles, but not the way that most people think. I am not talking about the suspension of physical reality; I am talking about existence itself.

“With all the odds against it, we are! Awesome. We are existing miracles. But most people don’t want to know they live in a field of miracle, so they settle for less--which they call ‘miracles,’ but which are just undiscovered aspects of existence. Just because you can’t yet explain something, doesn’t make it a miracle. ‘Smokey Robinson was not a Miracle.’ CT!

“Now, where am I. Hmmm. Always good to ask spirits a physical question and expect a physical answer. Doesn’t work like that. Sure, I am everywhere but nowhere. I am and yet am not yet. I can be detected in energy but I’m not energy. I am beyond and within. And is this communication a miracle? Not from our perspective. I ask you, are cell phones miracles? And if you say yes, well, give up your contract. What is mundane and routine in your time, once was a miracle. White bread: miracle; Miracle Whip: not a miracle.

“Stop trying to put us somewhere. We are beyond your planes of being, but we are parallel and intersecting; both. Hmmm, back to that again. Your center is inside your sphere of being. Our center does not need to be in our sphere because we aren’t physical. Ponder that.

“It is a center to us, but from your physical description it is not central to us. We have a different geometry. Don’t assume the geometry of your world is the geometry of all existence. That’s it. That’s all. That’s enough!

“We have dimensions that intersect, and those don’t always work the same for us. Like time. We know it’s an illusion but you don’t. But we can still pretend, so we are here when you expect us... or is that the other way ‘round. Many of our linear dimensions are circular. Ponder that.” (12/19/2010 - I#181)

“So, little Effie of Effingham, Illinois, writes: ‘Dear Rikkity, people talk about crossing over the Rainbow Bridge. Is it real.’

“Effie, it is like everything in physical reality; it’s a metaphor. So no bridge, no rainbow, no crossing over, but the experience of walking across a corridor of peaceful promise to a place not yet known.

“ ‘O,’ Effie writes, ‘like walking to Indiana.’ No... wait, ok, I’ve seen Effingham, so yes.” (1/16/2011 - I#182)

Question from Glenda: Hi Rikkity... have been reading about how we reincarnate into the same general groups, life after life. Also that we may choose to be an angel instead of reincarnating. Here is the thing....when we reincarnate, do we cease to offer teachings as you do now? Guessing that answer is "Yes." Were you offered to incarnate as either of the new grandbabies in your past family this year but chose to stay as an angel?

“Hi. I’m no angel! Any spirit who knows me can vouch for that! But guide, yes.

“My little niephews... or is it nephieces, I don’t know... are their own spiritual entities, and we’ve been hanging as a group but not yet; coming together in greater complexity for lots of lives. It is not so much a choice of ‘life or guide’, but of accepting one’s ability to guide, which will follow in death and life. Actually, every spirit (except those first-timers who are going to be disassembled) are guides about what they learn and remember. Only a few remember they have been alive before, and fewer still remember they have been dead before. And those who get the whole pattern can guide more fully.

“By the way, being a traditional angel is a pain: wings, halos, expectations, stilted language. I mean, ‘sore afraid.’ Get a death! We humor them, but they are great at parties. You often are what you think you are. However, the holier-than-thou ones have a limited social life... or social death. Remember, over here when it is thought that party was deadly, it’s a rave review. Nobody acted like they were still alive. Spirits who act as if they are still alive are the ones who act as if boundaries exist--walls, race, gender, religion, culture, types of fried chicken.

“If so many remember they were alive, how come so few when alive again remember? Yes, Hindus think about this, but don’t remember any better. Most people need hypnosis to get it back. Why? Because they don’t inherently remember. We... or I should say, you... have created an understanding of life without that memory. ‘Remembrances of Lives Past.’ Can’t see the film images; can’t hear the melody. Words are just jumbles of markings if we live in a world without films, orchestras, writing. So, in worlds without general commerce in such, it’s as if it were not. Go fathom that.

“And I’m just speaking of that which I know. And imagine how many other perceptions, realities, and memories aren’t there because nothing points to them and says ‘Look, see, remember!’ ‘There is more in Heaven and Earth than are dreamt of’, etc., etc.” (1/16/2011 - I#183)

“Ok people, get your own phones and call your loved ones. I’m here about the broad strokes, not the specific folks. And if you make any wisecracks about broads...

“So, let’s all take deep breaths. Now, concentrate on the one we want to know about. Come on, you can do it. Sense what you need to feel. Don’t ask about specifics, just seek to have a sense. The details don’t matter.

“Start by sensing how all is ok. Then listen closely... ‘not for very much longer.’ CT. Listen closely--not to your questions, but the whispers you will hear when you stop focusing on your own needs. Listen. I mean, listen!

“The answer you need may not relate to the question you think you need to ask. So, sit and connect. Listen. Hear that? Let it go. If you hear it but don’t feel and sense it, you are still in the realm of questions. Sense, feel, smile. Ok, you don’t need me. That’s it.

“I am reminded of a painting in the Louvre. It’s a big landscape of great metaphor, and nearly every day someone wants to know about a tiny detail in it, and that’s missing the meaning for the details. And it’s not a cat anyway, it’s a monkey, but it’s so small you can’t tell. It’s a joke.

“Think and feel how much more you’d get from experiences if you focused more on the big picture and didn’t monkey around with the details. ‘Why,’ you should be asking, ‘am I wanting to ask this or that. What difference would the answer make.’ Most of our questions never lead to answers that matter... unless it’s one like ‘Is this cream cheese bad?’ Listeria (a deadly bacteria), bye-bye and then ‘Hello, I’m your spirit guide. Guess you won’t be asking that
again for a long while. Want a stale bagel to go with that. Week old lox?’ ” (2/6/2011 - I#184)

“Just to clarify, everything I’ve ever said is tentative. Could be recalled... or not. Just a legal disclaimer TL suggested. I’m not a spirit, but I play one on message boards. Actually, that’s true. Huh. I’m not spirit. What? Then this all is a sham? A sham, a bolster, an ottoman, whatever.

“But what I’m saying is, that if spirit is understood as the complementary portion of existence with the physical, then I’m not spirit because I am soooo beyond that duality. It’s not physical or spiritual, I’m a... just something else. And so are you and them... but not him. Wait... yes, him.

“Existence of a thoroughly different nature, which bleeds over into the inane physical-spiritual dichotomy. And if push comes to shove, we’d say we are spirit... but who wants to be defined by being pushed and shoved, which is so physical. Remember, spirit is the creation of those who are obsessed with definitions of physical existence. We, doing whatever it is we do, don’t think that way. Just as death is the concern of those obsessed and possessed with living.”

MCP: “I give-a you-a an-a example-a. When-a first-a explorers find-a America, they say-a ‘She no-a Europo.’ And the first mate, he say-a, ‘What’s-a Europo.’ I say-a ‘Europe’. And he say-a ‘O.’ This she went on for about 20 minutes-a. By that time-a, the hound he was-a laughing... f f f f.

“America was not what they found; it was what Europeans called what wasn’t Europe-o. See, it starts again-o. This could take awhile-o. Where do I work? Milano... f f f f f.”

“Thank you, MCP-o. Grazie. Molto.” (2/13/2011 - I#185)

“Ok, serious... deadly serious. All of the models I have shared of planes, matrixes, matrices, matri, I try, CT is trying. ‘Hey, is that an insult?’ I don’t know, is it? ‘I don’t know.’

“All of those models are really translation tools. What kind of books did I have the most of? Language dictionaries. And did any of them contain the essence of existence for those who spoke that language, no. They were tools, but the words were simply symbols and representations for understandings. Just like my models–ways to convey understandings, but not inherently true or meaningful. They offered a way of seeing what can’t be seen. Don’t try to extrapolate to other systems of symbols. One of the ways religions go awry is when they try to use spiritual symbols to do politics and science and rap music.

“So, always remember... no no no no... never forget that these things are just symbols, and the reality is larger than any physical symbol set. Ok, hold onto your hair. There are also spiritual symbol sets... dare I mention spiritual cymbal sets, no. And the spiritual symbol sets help the spiritual conceive and understand what is more universal than spirit. What?!?! Is she really saying that there are existent existences other than physical and spiritual. You bet your bippy!

“Primitive religion in the physical world was a form for understanding physical existence for those newly arrived from a pre-existing state of being. What?!?! Is she saying that the physical is only a step on a continuum, and there were other symbol sets of understanding before the physical, and there will be others beyond the spiritual. I am saying that! Now, try to get your physical and/or spiritual head around that!

“We have always moved on from simplistic singularity towards universal connection, and every expression of that progression is its own complexity which is illumined and understood... which is not the same as standing under (there’s a difference between understanding and standing under a leaking toilet). Digression sequence activated. Begin recall to reality. O.

“Each level of complexity has its own sets of symbols and understandings. And each senses and makes comprehensible the sets that pre- and post-exist the current existence set, but no more. You have an innate sense, at your level of complexity, of something less complex and something more complex. You have chaos, physicality, and spirituality–that’s your three. But for other levels of complexity, your physicality was their spirituality, and your spirituality is others’ chaos. I think I have done enough damage.” (3/6/2011 - I#186)

“Now meanwhile, chaos is struggling to become order and order is struggling to become visionary possibility. Why do I say chaos? Because all the less inclusive and comprehensive systems of understanding always appear to be lacking in order and reason.

“What happens is that the normative places new order which appears to be more universal, so the old or less complex system understanding seems to lack cohesion. Yep, this rational scientific understanding will, from a more complex perspective, look like chaos. ‘What were they thinking? Or were they?’

“So we dream spiritually of realities yet to come, growing out of our best understandings, but those best understandings grew out of prior best understandings. And all that Heaven is is an invitation to continue the process--to convert the speculative into known and proven and experienced, so the old limited system can be relegated to chaotic quicksand of the spirit, while new heavens can emerge as dreaming clouds of possibility. O, I wax poetic.

“But which would be worse: Having an endless process of growth that always beckons, or a finite system of being in which a prize could maybe be won and then the game be over. Most theologies and spiritualities seem to promise a point of fulfillment, rather than a process of fulfillment. I think this is enough for now.” (3/10/2011 - I#187)

“Chaos, order, vision... and ham on rye and hold the mayo.

“Chaos is infinite possibility. We impose order, and then that which doesn’t conform is called chaos. Try to explain football without reference to the imposed rules. It’s just chaos. And those dancing girls, what do they have to do with it. And the two giant rodents. See.

“Picture a field with the yardage lines exactly parallel with the midpoint line at 5-yard intervals. Sounds like the normal football field, yes? Ok, so then make the mid-field line a wavering squiggle. Why not? Much better game. ‘He goes for long yardage and only gets 3. That’s the way the lines break.’ Much more thoughtful game. Trust me.” (3/13/2011 - I#188)

“Chaos is the pre-stage to our ordering, but a fluid quality dependent on a present understanding of order.

“Superstition seems chaotic only in the light of later understandings, but was deemed insightful compared with the prior levels of understanding. Hey, not walking under ladders is a great improvement over falling off roofs because of a lack of ladders.

“Lots of downheavals and upheavals and sideheavals and in- and out-heavals–the whole Heaval family. Don’t try to fit the future into the molds of the past. Just saying.” (3/22/2011 - I#189)

Page 1 Page 3