"In the sure
resurrection of Jesus Christ... sure, like we
didn’t but he did. Sure. I
don’t like dead people who don’t play dead.
What’s all this afterlife life. Eternal
life, you want that? Not me. I opt for eternal death!
It’s easier.
“Ok, let’s look far into the future. Ok, but
it’s now because there’s no time.
Anymoo, you are just before One with All... ‘Hold
the mustard’... CT. You are at Level
Minus 1--it’s the penultimate level... just before
the rooftop garden. Ok, one more upgrade of complexity,
and All and you are One--end of the cycle of Eternity.
Now, what do you have to do? Be ready to move on from
what you are by combining into the All. But wait,
aren’t we participating in the All now. Yes, but
with a sense of separation, but then it is so
close. But what you have to do is not--in any
sense--live in differentiation, but ultimate
integration. So any part of you which is still
differential must end or no longer be meaningful--in
other words, die. So the ultimate existence is after
all lives, and is not a life, but an eternal death, QED,
So Be It... so there, blech.
“Life, at every level of spiritual being, is the
necessary prelude to moving beyond
differences. And who wants differences for eternity. I
want to swim in the eternal unity--backstroke and float
as part of all meaning.
“Ok. I came, I saw, I pithed.” (6/29/2006 -
V#113)
"Nothing is ever ultimately and eternally hidden. If
it is, it is.
“I’m dead! which is damned fine but for the
disconnects. But the connections are always there, even
if they are unrecognized and unused. Ponder that.”
(7/12/2006 - V#114)
"Again, picture the infinite-dimensional matrix: All
the dimensions with different points connecting in an
infinite number of ways. So anything which was, is, or
will be is connected to anything else. Now, picture a
journey from one point to another through an infinite set
of junctions. That journey path is a probable parallel
reality to any other journey between those points,
and is a probable adjunct reality to any other journey involving
either of those points. And there are an
infinite number of probable realities which also do not
involve those points primarily and secondarily. So there
are parallel universes which are not about you,
but which are as valid as yours. And all of them together
make up the whole. Such a mess!
“But just as there is no single way to get from A
to B, so, too, for any 2 points. And every path
of connection is equally valid, but we may only recognize
the most direct or most probable.
“From where you are to Utica, there are many
routes--some even by way of Calcutta, but you are
unlikely to use that one. Or are you?
You drive to Albany, fly to New York, and on to Calcutta,
then fly back to DC, take a train upstate to deliver a
lecture at Utica College about your trip. So you went
from there to Utica by way of Calcutta. Our paths are
often like that!
“Understand the connections more than the
complexity, and marvel how the more complex reality
offers more potential connections.
“The shortest route between 2 places may not be the
most meaningful. And in spirituality, efficiency is not a
virtue. Pith done, let’s play... ARF.”
(7/20/2006 - V#115)
"Ok, let’s think about this big entity
thingie--All That Is made up of all that is and being
more. But All That Is changes with the changes of all and
each part. Does that mean that the more than
changes, too? Yes! The whole, which is the All and the
more, is as organic as any entity. Why, because if any
portion of existence were either static or bounded, then
that feature would permeate all existence, and so every
part and particle would become static or bounded in the
fullness of being.
“There are universal qualities which must be,
or their opposites become universal. That’s the
problem with most religions: They say ‘This is
dynamic and that is static.’ Wellll, boys and girls,
it has to be one or the other. And since I am existing in
an evolving, dynamic universe, I guess the static
loses. But of course, since change is universal, you
should have known this.
“Ok, class, what about specific entities. Sure,
there are many which are dynamic, but are there any which
are not? (CT not included.) So, are there. Right, can’t
be. Even the slowest change is change.
Yet the smallest amount of static reality could bring the
whole shooting match to a halt. But it hasn’t, so I
guess we are on a roll, which then raises a question for
next time: Are the laws which govern
change dynamic or static? Do we change in predictable
ways or are the ways dynamic.
“Homework: Draw a straight line which is not
straight.” (10/4/2006 - V#116)
"So, put together the strings and threads and
strands and cohorts and entities, and what do you get,
complexity or simplicity. Just say ‘yes’ and
ponder it.
“Nothing fundamental can be any more complex than
basic and any less basic than complex. If the All is in
each, then both and all are true.
“Complexity is a state, not a quality of comparison.
Ponder it.” (10/13/2006 - V#117)
"It’s not sunny here,
because we’re not physical. Now, we have already
learned that the physical is just a vehicle for
the spiritual, but I think you are ready for
something more. The spiritual is just the
reflection of something else. And that something
else is connected to strings and threads and
etc.--patterns which are experienced spiritually but
which are not spiritual.
“Yes, the spiritual transcends the physical, but
something else transcends the spiritual, and I have no
name for it because it is two steps beyond the physical
realm of language. It can’t be expressed, only
hinted at. And it grows in complexity toward wholeness,
just as does spiritual thingies, but it is more than
spiritual, yet spirit is part of it.
“Ponder that! Just when you thought that
spirituality got you out of the traps of physicality, now
I come and say you need to think beyond spirituality.
In fact, spirit is as limiting a concept as physical
in the fullness of being. And guess what, that something
other which transcends spirit is equally limited, so
something transcends it. Yep, turtles
all the way up and down.
“Total All. But at the same total, bits and pieces
and expressions and reflections and whatevers and CTs...
‘Hi.’
“Ok, either the existence is infinite and so an
infinite pattern of expressions, or finite and a finite
set. But the experience of more than the one physical
existence implies more than 1. And it’s either 1 or
All. Can’t say it’s 382. 1 or All. And from any
limited finite perspective, it is impossible to detect
any real finite definitions. Just because you can
describe the box you’re in doesn’t mean the box
contains All, nor that your description describes
reality. It only describes the box as y’all
experience it. Don’t mistake the box for the All.
And every box--until it is without dimensions--is only a
piece of the All. Ponder this shit. I do. And so do most
of my friends... but not him. ‘No, he
doesn’t.’ I know. He just is, but
maybe he gets it... or not.
“Guantanamera...
just came to me. It is so hard being linear so we can
talk. Vegematic... Pet
Rock... complete set.
“It can’t be 9345. Solidarity forever,
‘cause once you admit to more than
1 dimension but you do not exist in All,
you have a problem. You don’t know the extent beyond
your own experience. Say you live in a valley. If that is
all you take to exist, then that’s it: 1. But make
the mistake of trekking up the mountain and looking out,
if you see another valley with people in it, you can no
longer say 1 but you have to say more than 1.
And saying 2 is not good enough or honest
because once you know it is not 1, you
can’t say 382 or 9345. You have to
say All, because from your box you can only
speak about your box, or if you sense that your box does
not contain All, you have to speak about All. 1
or All. I hurt my spirit to consider this. So
let’s just leave it there. ‘No, here.’ No,
here. Put it down, CT. ‘Where.’ Here!
“Stretch the perceiving and reflective portions of
your beings.” (11/11/2006 - V#118)
"Why is it that the so-called Transcendentalists were
still time bound and looked back at a more genuine past,
when their own philosophy should teach that every moment
is in each moment. They could understand this about a bit
of the universal in every particular--as in, God
in each of us--but they did not extend this to time or
place. Pancake Transcendentalism, lacking dimensions.
“But it’s the same old story: Transcend the physical
versus spiritual dualism in one area, but not in the
rest.
“Now, of course, at this level of complexity
you’re not going to be able to do that, but you can
prep. If you can have a training
bra, why not a training spirit.
Just because it doesn’t support anything yet
doesn’t mean it won’t. Such pith. Or (in a more
acceptable form), the words we learn at 6 or 7 do not yet
open us to the works of the philosophers, but if we do
not learn them even when we cannot use them for such
lofty purpose, we will never reach those heights. By the
time you are in eighth grade, you have all the words you
need to probe the universe, but it takes decades to be
ready to use them in that way.
“So this level, like all levels, is a confirmation
that you fulfilled the prior level, and it’s its own
fulfillment and it’s also preparation. Been there,
doing this, getting ready for that. And if you don’t
or can’t balance those three... well, you’ll
get many chances.” (2/23/2007 - V#119)
"Well, we’re just not sitting (no bodies),
talking (no lips and mouth) about the bodily resurrection
of Jesus. Did you know we have no storage here. Where did
he put it, this is spirit. So he arrives and
says ‘Hey guys, what’s up. I’ve got this
body He made me take with me. What do I do?’ Damned
if we knew. 'You can’t leave it here.'
‘O.’ And so the infinite wise one misses the
boat. But wait, this is just a lesson from beyond... ooooOOOOoooo.
So, he couldn’t have brought his body. And another
manufactured myth bites the dust we don’t have here.
We also don’t have chimichangas. Damn!
But we can pretend we do. And he can pretend he has his
body. ‘And he calls it Loretta.’
No no, CT!
“And now, the news from angels: They are
just spirits like you and me... but not him. Since they
have no bodies, people imagine flight, but nooooo.
‘They are faster
than a speeding bullet.’ Wait, wait,
give that man a gag... mmmmmm. What. Mmmmmm.
Ok. They can’t and don’t fly, they
flit--spiritual flitting. I’ve got a flitting
headache. Flit you!
“Much of our nonphysicality is perceived as
superhuman abilities. Not the same, not by
the hair on your chinny-chin-chin. When
I say ‘angels are light on their feet,’ I
don’t mean feet nor light. Ok, no
mass; just energy. And when the energy becomes mass, you
are physical. But the sum of spirit and physic
are 1. And you don’t ever ever ever
want to be all physical--which implies, until the
ultimate oneness, you don’t ever ever ever
want to be totally spiritual, either.
“Spiritual evolution: Becoming a small little speck
(as opposed to a big speck) of matter. Read John 1:1 to 3. It is
hinted, but then they go off on this Jesus rap. Word;
word becomes matter; matter becomes spirit. Eternal
struggle for stability of each, resolved when all becomes
spirit--which is to say word, breath, spirit, same. I do
go on and on. ‘She does... mmmmmm.’”
(4/8/2007 - V#120)
"Sandy’s
going to corner CT... grrrr... and shake him
down for a bone... grrrr. But little does the
dog know that CT has talked with TL and it will be a
rubber chicken bone. Let’s watch.
"ARF ARF grrr. ‘Good boy’... grrr.
‘Good boy’... snap. ‘O dear,
would you like a bone’... ARF ARF. ‘Here.’
F f f f ... grrrr... wooo.
‘What’s the matter, doggie.’ Awooo.
‘Bone got your tongue’... wooo.
"Another day on the other side.
“Now let’s replay it: Woe unto the deceivers,
for theirs is the mighty pain of God. Those who hunger
shall not be given a stone. Thus warneth the Lord. Is
that more believable?
“A central question: Is what we expect more
believable than the unexpected. If so, we might just miss
the whole point. Expect the mighty God and get a rubber
bone-eating dog, and which is more believable. But which
will bring you insight. Even though said dog... wooo...
seems nothing more than trivial, his unexpectedness is
better than the same old same old.
“Why have a Heaven which is just a more perfect
Earth, when marvels could entrance you?” (7/7/2007 -
V#121)
"Once again we address the third harmonic of the
electromagnetic plane... no
no no no... well, in a way. Why are all the theories of spirit
physically based. Of course, SP sounds like it,
too--atoms to molecules to complexity--but remember
always, I use that as a metaphor, a model, a teaching
tool, something to hang your hat on. Complexity of spirit
is not the same as the complexity of a carbon-based molecule.
“The physical gives a hint, a glimmer, a point in
the right direction, but it is not it.
Nope, not it... you’re it. So, what’s the
problem with all the spiritual systems? Nada.
But when the spiritual system is subverted to the
physical analogy, you got trouble in River City.
“This is the absolute, concrete truth:
There is no absolute, concrete anything.
“So, be aware that when you stop an idea and put it
into words or symbols, it is now in the mausoleum of
human thought. How many pinned butterflies can fly.
“The trick is to see the picture but not be obsessed
with the paint. Method means squat with the eternals;
methods have to do with what has been. Teach a person the
fundamentals of Renaissance painting and what do you get,
copies of long ago. But let a person use the media of
choice, and something new might happen.
“Why, I ask, would you want a Heaven which is just a
better Earth, when you could have it all. People
don’t dream too much; they dream too little.
I’m pithed out. Pithburgh.” (8/1/2007 - V#122)
“Energy, as you experience
it, is a different expression--what is needed for what
you call reality. What is real for you is what
is real for you. You can’t experience that which is
not in the construct which depends on that facet. But you
will experience it, but not as you but as super-you--you
more developed, more complex.
“This [channeling] is just a natural extension of
your physical world. Otherwise, why would we need this
phone or dreams or sessions. All you are doing is more
deeply and widely exploring the same facet. You
wouldn’t know another facet if you experienced it,
so you can’t experience it. Ah, pith number 2.
“ ‘You
can’t handle the facet. You
don’t know what it’s like to be a spirit on the
edge of facets, patrolling the border with those alien
enemy facets just over the line. But it’s spirits
like us that let spirits like you sleep safely at
night!’ CT, you ramble on. Back to your guard post.
“If we experienced it, we wouldn’t know it
because you can’t experience what is beyond your
base of knowing. Quick, think of a number system that
doesn’t use numbers. I’ve said enough.”
(9/6/2007 - V#123)
"Ok, back to knowing and experiencing. If
all possibility is contained in all existence, why
don’t we know it all... ARF! ... and that handsome
stranger who is standing right here and looking
perplexed.
“But having all possibility before us does not mean
we know it all, just as having all ingredients before us
doesn’t mean we know how to cook the rage dish of
2187. There was a time when folks had grain but
didn’t know from flour. Hard to make a cake with
wheat berries, but the potential is there. So you have to
know something to get the experience of experience.
And that’s that. Pack up the show. We’re done
forever... or not.” (9/10/2007 - V#124)
"Covered with pith pits: the kernels of truth that
grow in any fertile experience, not reliant on
complexity. ‘Aha,’ the wise say,
‘she’s giving us a deep Point to Ponder.’
And the rest say, ‘Huh.’ Ok, I’ll
elaborate, illuminate... I’ll regurgitate... barf...
ARF. No, barf... ARF. No. Woof. Ok.
“How many, she asked, of the things that are
regarded as truth are dependent on the human condition?
Probably most, and certainly on the physical condition.
But real truth is not dependent on the situation but is
transcendent. So for example, ‘all living things
have DNA’
is a statement but not a truth--unless you play with
definitions so DNA is a requirement of living beings. But
if living beings mean the capacity to sustain
and enhance oneself... ‘Hi.’ Don’t get him
started. ‘Hi.’ Sandy... grrrrr.
‘Bye.’ Wow, he has 2 words.
But we continue. What are we, chopped liver? We can
sustain and enhance with the best of them... ‘not to
mention dance.’ CT!
“There is no ultimate truth in any statement based
on conditions. So while it is true that people in the
desert are thirsty, that does not mean that people are
thirsty. If it only applies to you at your complexity,
you can’t say it is universal and eternal. Always
look at the edges. See if there is an exception or a
larger inclusion--like Galileo, who
looked at other stars than just the sun.
“If you grow up in New York City, you might think
that an egg cream is
universal. But ask a tourist and you get a bigger view.
Now, do the same spiritually. Everyone connected to a
specific spiritual path--be it religion or nature or
mediumship--should, on a regular basis, explore deeply
with a person or spirit of another conviction or
practice.
“And so the pith for the day is: Don’t mistake
conditionals for universals just because the conditions
are yours or seem global. Global is not universal;
timeless is not eternal.”
(9/13/2007 - V#125)
“It’s all about differentiation and connection
at this level--complex enough to know difference, but not
complex enough to transcend it, and even transcend
connection. But I’ve said too much. Next time.
“Why transcend connection? Ponder, compare and
contrast.” (9/27/2007 - V#126)
“Just remember, this level is the solution and
improvement on another level. So it can’t be all
bad. Seriously, ponder the small pith I brought.”
(10/1/2007 - V#127)
"Now, I have a leftover thread to tie up. I talked
about transcending connection, right... indeed... verily.
Thus:
“Connection is not really a goal but a
means. ‘Huh?’ you say. As opposed to difference,
it is a goal, but it is an operational and intrinsic
goal, not a terminal goal. A terminal goal is a shot that
gives you a 2-point lead with 21 seconds to go. That will
kill ‘em... but I digress.
“Connection is only sought to say you are connected,
but as a prerequisite to inclusion. That great
multiple-dimension weaving that is full of nexuses... or
nexi... or whateveris--seeing those matrix points is the
start, not the end.
“So you perceive the points of connection, see
meaning in more than a personal thread or noodle, and
then suddenly realize that there is something made up of
all those nexi... or whateveris... and it’s that
more inclusive whatever that is the end. Or is
it? Not quite so fast. What about the points of
connection of that inclusive whatever with
another whatever? Those connections are sought,
but are not the goal. They are just another point of
connection toward an awareness of another larger
inclusion. So we focus on connection, not difference--not
to connect, but to perceive more inclusively, with no end
in sight to the
particular-connected-inclusive-connected-inclusive
process.
“And inclusive is a better term than complex
when speaking of these structures, while spirit is better
termed complex. The structures of being
inclusively hold the more complex expressions of spirit.
Ponder that!” (10/3/2007 - V#128)
"The landscape of that which transcends connection
is like a sea of jello in many dimensions. In other
words, no edges; hard and fast don’t cut it there,
because everything is fluid and organic. All That Is is
eternal and always on the make... make
‘er move.
“There is nothing lost or outside or not yet,
but it is all becoming. Like the picture of a
flowing stream: It appears both static and flowing. And
for those still caught in a few dimensions, it
doesn’t make sense. But things that are real often
don’t make sense. Did I hear you say 'aren’t.'
It is 'are.' Sense is a relative term. I can
prove that. How much sense do your relatives have? See.
“So, true and real and actual sometimes don’t
make sense. And that’s when awe and wonder come in.
All known truth is retro-oriented and is based on the
known sense. But revelation goes beyond the sensible to
the prophetic.” (10/6/2007 - V#129)
"Entropy: The
strange notion that all systems wind down without the
influx of energy. But here’s another take: All
systems are inherently unstable... which does not mean
they are without stables. And so every system is in the
tension between becoming more or less.
And some seem stable only because those two forces are
balanced.
“But here’s the problem. A system can become
less organized... and not with less organza. But--in
order not to fall totally--in becoming less organized, a
system can become less inclusive. It does not need as
much or as many constituents as before. Watch any system
in decline and see this.
“Smaller organization is smaller in scope. But what
of the other direction of a system--that is, enhancing.
Every system enhances in complexity, but only to a limit.
When the constituent elements are all bound in a highly
complex relationship, a limit is approached. Can’t
enhance anymore. Complexity limit reached. So now, the
most highly complex entity or system is at another
balance point, but with only one option and that is
decline. Can’t get more complex, can’t stay at
stasis forever... or is that the only choice. No.
“Complex systems can continue to enhance if they
provide more constituent elements. The stasis complexity
can avoid decline by incorporating other constituent
elements not excluded by the complexity but not yet
incorporated into it. All complex systems which are
growing and enhancing will not only be becoming more
complex, but more inclusive. This is observed, and
must be so logically.
“All That Is is inclusively and is the
inclusive all of All, and the complexity beyond which
there is no more complex without the addition of more
All. Ponder that!” (1/4/2008 - V#130)
"So, on the contiguous
plane of the experiential complexity, the sum total will
always be 1. Huh. I continue briefly.
“At any given moment, a person has a sum total of
understanding. But it is like energy--kinetic and potential. You
have understanding, and you have experiences which are
not yet incorporated into your understanding. And
together they create a unit. But few at this level
operate as a unit of 1. While the oneness is the reality,
we live above or below it. How?
“Above means we create systems of meaning
whose complexity are greater than the experiences we
have, and, to keep them going, we have to add energy. And
below means we maintain systems of meaning which
do not account for all of our experiences, and it takes
energy to exclude something.
“Too complex and it isn’t real, and we project
some of our presumptions on reality and meaning to get
what we want. We create super reality, as it
were. And it takes lots of energy to keep 4 balls in the
air in a 3-ball world. Or, we undervalue reality by
excluding something, and our complexity only appears
universal and comprehensive by the use of illusion.
Can’t do the Three Card Monte with
just 2 cards. But lots bet you can!
“The struggle is to come as close to 1 as
possible, taking account of everything and assuming
naught. There, fast pondering. Pith to go.”
(1/8/2008 - V#131)
"Sometimes, as spirit, it
is possible to immerse oneself in spirit and know no
differentiation. If we are holographic
representations of All, we can sense Allness. Physical
senses oneness; spirit senses Allness. Old
people eat All
Bran. We eat All Brain, and
don’t you forget it! Huh.
“So, 2 pigs were walking along the boardwalk at
Brighton. That’s it.
“We all are holographic representations. Each spirit
entity contains its own learning and remembering... as
opposed to leaning and dismembering... and also the
information of what other entities could form with it in
meaningful ways.
“Now, at one end of the continuum--the
ultimate connection of the most complex entities, just
short of being All That Is--every entity must know the
outcome, or else it’s not the ultimate step from
pieces to whole. And therefore, on the other end of the continuum,
the most elementary entity must know of this potential as
well, or else it somehow just plops or drops or poops
into existence at some level of complexity. But it
can’t be at the ultimate, because then it
wouldn’t be ultimate. And it can’t be
the penultimate or else the ultimate
doesn’t happen, etc., etc., etc. So it must be in
the information held by the most elemental. And so, every
entity is holographic. Otherwise, some spirit would get
left out of the whole--which would render All That Is
incomplete. And this is especially true if time
is taken out of the equation. Ponder that! I think I have
said enough.” (1/21/2008 - V#132)
"At each level, you are
always spilling over into adjacent levels. What was
and what is to be slop over into what is.
A progression, not a point. So when someone seems to be
either a little regressive spiritually or a little
advanced, it is just a portion of the slop. And you have
to own it but not take it too seriously because the two
edges are not the core.
“Seek the center and understand the edges. You
don’t move on by pretending to be more complex! You
move on by being thoroughly as complex as you are.
“A binomial
can’t pretend to be a quadrilateral. The
trick is to give up the simpler focus on the being,
and allow the glimpses of the more complex to illumine
the present complexity. That’s the pith."
(2/19/2008 - V#133)
"We were just hangin’
and discussing the whole concept of transitions from one
level to the next, and the need for a birthing medium at
the higher level. Always come into being through
the level which is to be. All levels appear to
be generative. And at each level it appears that entities
of that level produce more of the same, but they are
conduits, not creators. Mom, you didn’t make me; you
made that body, but not me. Yet so much culture
focuses on the creation of being.
“So, to take this to an ultimate and troublesome
level, God--as in, the Jehovah of the Israelites--did not
create the Earth, but was a conduit for it to come into
being, and the
story that gives credit to that God
misses the whole point. Because even All That Is, which
contains God and much more, is only a conduit for being
and not the source. It is the conduit and product and
summation, but not the source. Just push that
at theological school. See, I promised pith!
“And the product is the source and the conduit. Turtles all the way. It is
the All through which All passes into being, and all being
creates the All that it passes through.
“A river creates itself. You don’t have a
source, because the rain is not the source nor the
evaporation that causes rain nor the prior river that is
evaporated, and if you built a river bed, it would not
create a river. Only the river can create itself, but it
also creates its potential and fulfillment. It is the
conditions, too. It’s all of what it is, and it is
becoming through itself. Tomorrow’s river is created
by today’s, but today’s is created by the
promise of tomorrow’s. Pith?” (5/2/2008 -
V#134)
“So, a question: If everything is in All That Is, is
All That Is in everything. Yes and no. Everything has
knowledge of All That Is, but is not All That Is.
“So it contains the knowledge of the whole, but not
a piece or presence of the whole. You see, physical
thingies (like peeps) like to think that God is in
everything as a presence. But it’s more like there
is an awareness than a presence. A shade of difference,
but a big one.
“It’s like memories. You go to Duluth and you
wisely leave, and you remember Duluth despite yourself.
And then you might even say ‘I have a little Duluth
in me,’ but what is meant is a memory
of Duluth, because you moved on and Duluth moved on and
what you have is not Duluth, but a memory. It is an
awareness, not a presence--unless you caught the Duluth
virus, and that’s a presence. Ok,
that’s quick-time pith for the harried.
“It’s an awareness of what All That Is was in
the past. By the time you realize it, the whole shebang
has changed. You make it and you are aware of it, but it
is not making you. It is informing you, but knowledge in
your time-based existence is always past tense.”
(5/6/2008 - V#135)
"So, about intertwined energies. Or concomitant
realities. Or recumbent Italians... 'Hey-a, he invented
the hammock, so I use-a her.' Why doesn't he use it.
'He's-a too busy-a, but not-a me.' Ok, digression over.
"Intertwined. Do you know what holds up the Brooklyn
Bridge? 'Slow traffic?' CT. A wire
about the size of your lamp cord. Yep, that's it, and
that's all! How, you ask. Because there are millions of
them intertwined into a cable, and the cable's twisted
into a rope, and the rope's intertwined into the
supports. This is like our energies.
"We have our own distinct energies, but when we
allow them to intertwine, they are much more powerful
than if alone. If you took all the metal in the supports
of the bridge and melted it down, and cast a single...
not married... strand that used all the metal, for the
same length so it would appear to be the same, the bridge
would collapse! Fall down, give up. The combination of
energies into complexity generates energy--even if it
appears that it takes energy--because the energy of
complexity is not the same kind as the energy of
fabrication. And a prelude to complexity is intertwining.
"Now, for Dad, a railroad reference. Once upon a
time, there were many parallel railroads between New York
and Chicago. Each alone, parallel lines, each somewhat
weak. Then they began to work together but remained
separate. Then they began to interline (which is a
railroad term for intertwine), each with
separate identities but helping to carry the loads. Still
not complex, but strong. And then, in the end, the
parallel separate identities were replaced by a new
complex identity, and Conrail was
born. Out of many bankrupt parallel lines came one strong
complex system ready to deliver America's goods to the
world. Play the background music... ARF ARF ARF ARF ARF.
"Intertwining is a step between separation and
inclusion. Without the spiritual experience of
intertwining, incorporation into a more complex entity
would feel like aggression; like a takeover. But with the
experience of intertwining, it feels like a desirable
next step. So there to the rugged
individualists. Stand proud and alone and you'll get more
chances to get it.
"People on a wagon
train were further along than the
solo scout. Each phase and role is necessary, but don't
mistake any for fulfillment or completion. I'm done and
feeling fulfilled. So there! And that's the pith.
"And it's not really intertwined, but in some sense
it means you are together spiritually, facing the same
way. Not bound, but ready. Don't take such words
literally. You use words to try to discover a key, when
the key is never in words. And if you become frayed and
frantic, you need to intertwine your own threads before
your thread can be intertwined with others. And just
because you have it together doesn't mean it can't
unravel. It is a tendency toward intertwinancy, not an
achievement of intertwinitude. A nancy not a tude.
An adverb, not a noun. Mounds,
not Almond Joy." (5/16/2008 - V#136)
“Until we move on in complexity, the pattern of
intertwine is in flux. So, some strands cohere, and then
go there, and for awhile they don’t seem to
intertwine because the bundling is not apparent--like a
strand that touches now, but is then so
far removed as to be invisible. When you look in a junk
drawer and see a tangle of wires, you
can’t tell which ones are just messed up and which
are related. But as the purpose of the wires become
known, you begin to see the patterns, and the needed
strands seem so evident. And when the detritus is
removed, it seems like a single set of wires has been
revealed which are like a cable
set.” (5/24/2008 - V#137)
“There is this great push and urge and call to be
able to discern and name what is at the core of things.
For example: What is the core of the American experiment?
What is the theological core of UUism... or, if you
prefer the workout, Unitarian
Universalism.
“Ok, let’s talk cake. Now, a basic cake has
flour of some sort, some form of leavening, some form of
fat, milk, eggs. So what’s the core of a cake.
‘Icing?’ CT, no. ‘Twinkie filling.’
No... NO. Now, different parties could argue for each
element being the core since, without eggs you get bread,
and without flour you get an egg cream with eggs, without
fat you get matzos, and without leavening you get mush
matzos. But if you take the matzos and mix them with
eggs, and fry in the fat, you get Matzo
Brie. But that’s not cake. The
core of cake is... ta-da... cake!
“So let’s up move to... *dope* (that was a dope
slap)... let’s move up to the universe.
What’s the core of the universe. ‘Uranus?’
CT. Like a 4th grader. He probably thinks the word titillation
is titillating. ‘I do.’ So there.
“Ok, but what is the core of the universe.
Chocolate, deep dark chocolate. Hot fudge over coffee ice
cream at
Schrafft’s... but we digress... whipped
cream, chopped nuts. Well, the usual response is about
some god or goddess as the core. But that is too limiting
for the said god or goddess because it implies the
universe is bigger than the god or goddess. The sundae is
more than the fudge. So, in essential things, the core is
never something smaller than the whole. So let’s
give up this search for the core, the nub, the center,
the axis, the prime, the start, the cuticle... no no no
no.
“We mistake core for source at our
peril. Perhaps the source of potential is infused, not
central; that every bit and tiny thingie and ort and mote of
existence has potential. It’s not at the center, but
is of the essence. People like to think about cells and
their nuclei, but potential is not a nucleus of being.
“So, here’s a brave new SP thought: The search
should not be for the core, but for the whole. Sort of a proof
is in the pudding theology. If you look
for a god or goddess that is the core, you will never
find the god or goddess which is the expression of the
fulfillment of All.
“And seeking the core is looking backwards, while
seeking the whole is looking forward, ever forward.
“So ponder this, because it will turn everything
upside down. Ponder, because then all consideration moves
to the whole, the general, the universal, the organic,
and away from the embodied, the parochial, the dead...
wait, wait!... no, I don’t mean us, I mean that
which truly only was but isn’t–which
isn’t much, just some crazy notions that never had a
life anyway.
“I rest my case!” (6/27/2008 - V#138)
“So don’t forget the concept of holism.
So, the whole is potential in every part, and every part
is expressed in the fulfillment of the whole, but the
whole contains more than just the sum of its parts. So
you can glimpse the whole in each source, but you get
more than the sources in each whole. So why look to
sources and miss the little something extra, because
usually it’s not so little.
“For example, a human body. Anyone got one?
‘No.’ Take the parts and you have the potential
for the being, but take the being and
you get the parts and so much more potentially. And that
difference between the sources and the fulfillment is the
creative edge of being. And I can tell you, you want to
be on the cutting edge of creativity. That’s where
it’s happenin’, babe. That’s where the plus
1 is. It’s not in the source, but in the
expression.
“Ok, everybody says money can’t buy you
happiness, but some things you get with money make you
happy, even delirious. But which would you rather have,
happiness or money. Happiness is the fulfillment, money
is just the potential. So, Wolfgang Puck has a nice
brisket and grandma has a nice brisket. Which do you
want, a nice brisket, which could become his dish or
hers, or would you rather have his
dish. Now, on to meatballs. . . .
“But most religions get caught in the source, which
is a great recipe--not for brisket, but idolatry. You
can’t idolatrize the whole because it is organic and
changing; hard to make an idol out of something which is
becoming. Not without irony, the Jews chose unleavened
bread as a symbol–dead, flat, unchanging, like
rocks. And don’t get me started on crucifixes, or Kaabas (Islam
sacred thingie). So maybe the Taliban was right removing
the big Buddha, but only if they also changed
the name of Mecca to Hamtramack (which is a suburb of
Detroit). Don’t tear down the idols of others unless
you are ready to dispense with your own! Enough.”
(6/30/2008 - V#139)
“Here’s the scoop: The simple things pondered
are as meaningful as the most complex. And a complexity
built on unpondered building blocks is a façade,
not a reality. Ponder that.” (9/18/2008 - V#140)
“There’s eternal pith and then there’s
situational pith, and most people confuse the two. Most
people are confused, and confusing, and conflicted. It is
all we can do to not get up and leave, but we are
essentially existence. Booyah. We
wouldn’t stick around if it weren’t for the
glue--the ties that bind. Love is an expression, not a
quality, of it. It is existence itself, it is
YES! It is one, not zero. That’s why we stick around
and wait... and wait... and wait.
"Get used to it. Being is about waiting,
until you realize that while you have been waiting you
have been being, and then poof you will wait
never again because you will know it as being, not
waiting.” (10/18/2008 - V#141)
“Some spirits only get halfway alive, and inherently
feel cheated.
“Think about molecules–cute wittle molecules.
Ok, sometimes they are compound molecules–two
molecules that can stand on their own get together. Now,
let’s go back on the spirit’s journey of
complexity. Nova
presents The Amazing Journey of the
Spirit’s Complexity, underwritten by Enron... no
no no no.
“So, at a previous level of complexity, A B C D get
together and say ‘Wow, we are together, so that must
mean we are ready to move on. We’re complex, na
na na na na.’ And so they move on, but the
complexity that would best fulfill their potential is A B
C D E F G H I. So off go A B C D as if complete, and that
means their entity is only half fulfilled. And at the
more complex level, oy do they know it. They
feel like they are being cheated and taken and abused.
But they don’t even have the first-timer sense that
it’s all about them, so they think it’s about a
group or a class which appears to include them, because
they sense they are not complete, and interpret that as
being done to them rather than being about them alone.
And they choose a group identity rather fiercely because,
in fact, A B C D doesn’t give them any clue to A B C
D E F G H I.
“So they are half-timers. And they go back and, when
it is possible, they arrive as A B C D E F G H I, but as
the worst of first-timers. The half-time experience makes
them feel that when really whole it must be all about
them with a vengeance.
“Ponder.” (11/16/2008 - V#142)
“Existence is a work in progress. It ain’t over
until the fat god sings. Now, by fat I don’t mean
corpulent, I mean whole and fulfilled.
“Why do you think the Buddha is portrayed as fat and
happy–the Divine as sated. In
the fullness of time--which is the eternal Now of
possibility--the whole is both desiccated and full at the
same time. And which is your reality is your perception.
“It’s all close at hand.” (11/29/2008 -
V#143)
“Don’t ever confuse either intelligence or
passion for spirit! Just knowing something or feeling
something doesn’t make one spiritual. Just being
does.” (1/26/2009 - V#144)
“There is no path to spirit, but there are many
paths to awareness. And some of them are maintained
poorly, but beware any spiritual toll roads... and beware
the frumious
Bandersnatch. Yum, bandersnatch sundae with
whipped feens and one butter brickle. But not on mint
chocolate chip... no no no no... grrrrrrr. An
entity sure to be done in.
“Don’t perceive disassembly as violent. If the
entity components won’t hold, they will come
apart--just like leaving a dish of bandersnatch sauce and
mint chocolate chip out to dissipate. Don’t have to
blow it up. Just leave it alone, without any injection of
energy, and it comes apart.
“Take away any energy not intrinsic to the entity,
and it disassembles on its own. Otherwise the universe
would be infusing energy into failed systems, and we all
know where that would lead... grrrr...
right, Sandy, no Sandy!
“They come into being, and then suck energy.
Sometimes they get it in spirit, but not
naturally–just like sperm and egg come together and,
even if not capable of going full term, the fetus can
coopt the energy of the womb. But at some point, the womb
cannot or won’t give the energy, and the growth
stops and the entity begins to come apart. And then, if
we are talking spirit, it’s a whole
‘nother ball of non-wax. But I wax on... wax off.
Ponder.” (1/26/2009 - V#145)
“Love is the emotional experience of connection. It
is the other side of the spiritual mirror; all emotions
are. They are reflections seen through
a glass darkly. So when one experiences strong
emotions, they are mirroring some spiritual sense--or
more likely, a spirit who embodies that spiritual sense.
Fear is a mirroring of a spirit which cannot hold its
complexity together and knows it. Love is a mirroring of
a spirit ready for union into greater complexity. But
when a spirit in the physical world mirrors the spiritual
reality but they themselves are not yet spiritually
fulfilled and ready for take-off into greater complexity,
love is felt. It is mirrored, but it will not be or seem
perfect.
“Love in the physical realm is always the mirrored
but imperfect expression of the real connections possible
in spirit development. And, too often in the physical, it
is glimpsed as a way to fulfill or fill what is
incomplete. We expect others to make us whole, but the
love we mirror is an expression of whole-ness in itself.
“I love CT... ahh, ooo, ou...
because I am fulfilled, not because he fulfills me. Ok,
that’s a statement of the future because Is still
gots a ways to go. Yes, mastah, Is just be gettin’
the hang of it all.
“Remember, in spirit, when we move to greater
complexity in a sustained form, we are
whole and become enhanced with the other spirits, and not
that we become whole with the other
spirits. We interpret it that way because, o little
brains, because you and I and him and them all have so
little faith and confidence in our own fulfillment, we
even invent gods and saviors instead. So I pose one for
you: If we are not capable of fulfillment in ourselves,
and we are parts of all Creation, then how can we assume
there is any other part which is capable. But if no part
is capable, then the whole is not, and if the whole is
not... ‘then where could we go for dinner at
midnight? Landmark!’
But... CT, shut up... if all parts are not capable of
fulfillment, then the whole collapses into impossibility.
And yet, here’s a pair of
ducks... quack quack, grrrr...
we are, as parts, capable of fulfillment, but we are
totally dependent on the other for our ultimate
being as One.
“Fulfillment is our gift and greatest possibility,
and our dependence on the fulfillment of all else is also
our destiny. We are dependent for our ultimate
fulfillment, but capable of our immediate fulfillment.
And at the same time, ultimate fulfillment is dependent
on our immediate fulfillment. The whole can’t be
whole until the parts are whole, and the parts can’t
be whole unless the whole can be whole. Put that in your
pipe and ponder it!” (2/14/2009 - V#146)
 Page 2
|
