Purpose of Life, Connection, and the Evolution of the Soul

"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.

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

Collected Points to Ponder Menu

Table Of Contents

Last Update: 11/16/2016
Web Author:
the Rev Dr Randolph and Elissa Bishop Becker, M.Ed., LPC
Copyright ©1999-2016 by the Rev Dr Randolph and Elissa Bishop Becker