"Let's talk truth, ok. If this isn't the Truth with a big T, then is there a Truth with a big T. Ok, let's unpack this. If All That Is is made up of all that is, then the Whole Truth is the sum of all the little truths of all the little ises. But wait, all the little ises are in motion spiritually--changing, becoming more complex. So what was the sum total an hour ago, is not now. Yet if the process is infinite, then the sum total is infinite--which is a way of saying it is discrete. Huh.

"One could argue that the infinite total after infinite progressions is the Truth, but that point is beyond existence. So, until one reaches--as in, catches as catch can--reaches the end... but in infinite terms, there is no end. Thus, QED, therefore, hence, it is shown that truth is never static nor complete. So the answer is no. No big T Truth, except at a specific moment, and poof it's gone. And even then, it is the integrative sum of truth--not the truth any one person, group, or complexity level have. Now, how about that pith." (5/24/2000 - V#49)



"Unity versus pseudo unity. If you have limits to your vision of connection, then it's pseudo... like something can't be very unique. It is either unity or not." (8/15/2000 - V#50)



"There is always a greater unity available than is evident, until we reach ultimate oneness with All That Is. So whenever anyone speaks of division or separation or difference, they are connecting themselves to the past, the lesser. A view of life without a glimpse of future and more inclusive models is always a sign of backward looking. True, those who look forward cannot always give details or proof, but in time they will show. What is proven and shown is past.

"So when a dreamer speaks of vision of unity, and can't give all the details, that's how it should be. And if they can give all the details, it's not a vision of the future. In order to find the unity we don't know yet, we have to be willing to enter the mystery. So, that's it." (8/18/2000 - V#51)



"Remember, essentially you're related to everyone--even those disassembled, because their parts come back in other entities. 6th cousin twice removed on some side." (8/27/2000 - V#52)



"Don't mistake the name God for the reality. Think baseball teams." (9/23/2000 - V#53)



"If we ascribe an experiential emotion to God, like love, because we feel it in special intensity, then why not also hate. Why do humans think they can control the attributes attributed. But if God then is both love and hate, then God is all the corollary emotions. But if God is all emotions, then effectively God is also none differentially. Try this: A spectrum is contained in white, but white implies darkness. So if both exist, then the source of both is not differentiated.

"So, for humans to attribute a quality to the undifferentiated All is the height of arrogance or short-sightedness. And the irony of it is that it is usually those who claim to be the most spiritually aware who make such global statements that ignore the totality that includes All. To say that God includes love is one thing, but to say God is love is another, and very delimiting. Ok, enough. Ponder that. And if you figure it out, take one giant step toward complexity." (9/26/2000 - V#54)



"Listen carefully. Whenever the human plane of consciousness exceeds the potentiality of the growing awareness of material inadequacy, it will postpone the inevitable transition of resident energies concomitant with the progression of spiritual entity beyond a counterproductive dualism that inhibits the full completion of the fulfilled self and others in a progressive and new statement of energy development." (10/24/2000 - V#55)



"Let's talk JC. Do not hear what I say as facts, only as alternatives. The real truth is beyond your ken... and beyond your Barbie. What I said is that you will reinterpret the story until you no longer need the story in any form. But in the absence of rethinking the story, you will be stuck with irrelevance, and even irreverence... and even an elephant.

"Don't, don't, do not ever ever ever take one version of any event to be true, for all truth is in motion. Dogma is taking motion as stasis. It is just as easy for the reformer to do that as the fundamentalist. Jesus's story should have remained a story told by people to relate to their lives, not other lives. The closest we have to true Christianity today is among the Indians of South America, and the least in the Vatican.

"And also interesting is the dichotomy of the lunar planes of meaning with the higher levels of solar consciousness... or some crap like that. Physics doesn't know as much as astrology. Astrology doesn't know as much as physics. Ponder that. If you look for theory dominance, you just chase your own tail... arf arf arf arf." (11/29/2000 - V#56)



"Ok, a question: Why did the eternal God need to measure Creation in days, as if finitude mattered to an infinite dude. I don't know, but either the story is human or it's wrong; for an eternal being would have just done it as if there were no differentiation, for in the fullness of eternity it was really not time-separated. Just a rambling thought. It all gets translated by us. So we miss the whole thingie, yes.

"How about this: 'In the big inning, the Yanks were....' No, no, no, no, 'In the beginning, all was naught, and then it was.' Shorter, pithier, more accurate. And what it really means is, 'In the beginning of thought like ours, all was naught, and then all was capable of being thought of as we do.' Was it an act of creation or perception. Hmmm, ponder that. I theenk I have said enough. In fact, I have said a central thingie here I had planned to keep for much further down the road, but ok. Ponder." (12/9/2000 - V#57)



"There are shoulds in closed systems, but not in the whole." (12/23/2000 - V#58)



"The big thing about the unity of All That Is is that it's a unit. But little brains keep looking to the pieces of the unit, and it just drives us nuts, so there. Some even focus on lug nuts. Like trying to talk about the refrigerator by focusing on the mold in the veggie drawer (hint hint).

"So, in any situation you need to be able to focus on the particulars and one step--at least--of connection. Otherwise, you never move toward union with All That Is. Like to be an unsignificant, or insignificant, little blip on the cosmic radar, go ahead. But for me, I'd rather see the big picture, and that picture is always ahead, not past or behind. So, that's my spiel. Take it or leave it. Like it or lump it. Piss or get off the pot. Without or with fries. Salt or pepper. Sweet or sour." (1/10/2001 - V#59)



"It's like this: When I said that a cell of energy could include more than a person, and that each party to the cell would figure in the equation, often by balancing, I was speaking of two types of shared cells. One is a pre-entity connection, which is not severed by that crap called death... a new title for a book, The Crap Called Death. And the other is the connection of choice--quite contrary to any entityness... or entiquity. So in that case, when the physical connection is gone, so is the sharing of the cell.

"Now this gets complicated, because out of sight may be out of mind but it's not out of spirit. So if you leave a connection of choice, but they is... ooops... are still around in this material energy plane, then there is still a connection. Which brings up a side topic. Lots of people have connections of choice, not entiquity, and then the connection ceases à la 'Dear John.' But then, years later they find themselves thinking of John or running into John or hearing about him, and they start thinking the connection was deeper than realised. 'Wow,' they say, 'I guess John and I were really meant for each other and didn't know it. We must be disconnected soulmates.' But noooo, it's just that John is still physical and in this material energy plane. Now, if you were to run into John and he was already dead, then I think thinking about the other level of connection would be apropos. Get it. And also, many peeps are not even really connected to material parents.

"Two types of connection: physical and spiritual, and one persists and one does not beyond physical existence. So, not everyone who loses a connection feels loss... and not everyone who loses a connection feels eels. In fact, few do and I don't want to meet them. Don't shake their hands, they'd try to slip out of it anyway. If you're spiritually connected, you don't lose it. If you're not, the connection ends with physical death, but not the end of the seeming relationship. Hey, death got to change something, but it isn't the spiritual stuff." (3/7/2001 - V#60)



"It is nearly everyone's problem. How do you hold these 2 things in mind at the same time: an infinite spiritual reality and a finite physical one, and not separate the two. How do you transcend dualism, and still acknowledge the 2 separate ways of being. And the answer is: If you knew that, you wouldn't be asking this question because... ta-da... you would be not here. It is not a question to be solved and stay as you are, because physical existence would cease to be what it is. You could not transcend the question and its inherent dualism, and still be here. Dumb, but so of this level. The question puts us here, but if we knew the answer, we would no longer put the question. And on that hangs all. Question is ok, but no answer we could get here is it. And when we have the answer, we can no longer ask that question, for it will no longer make sense as a question. That's a definition of a quantum shift. And I think that's enough." (3/7/2001 - V#61)



"Here's something to ponder: In an infinite reality, there is much more waiting to happen than what you know has already happened. But you won't get any if you insist on focusing on the already. Got to give it up to get it. Remember, you have to pour the flour into the mix and never have it as flour again if you want a cake. Make it yellow with yummy icing.

"Ok, pith for tonight: Want to keep your flour, then forget the promise of cake. But in getting cake, you get your flour, too. You can have your cake and eat it, too. Hmmm... it is never gone. You remember it more fondly than you would flour... and who you ate it with... and how you left it out in the rain. But to make things of greater complexity, you have to mix in. A resource--if it be gold or jewels or spirit--is not worth anything if it just sits alone. It has to mix in in commerce or jewelry or spiritual complexity. I have said enough." (5/30/2001 - V#62)



"This is about spiritual connecting in ways you cannot even imagine... aaa... ooo... ayeee... don't do it with bungee. The natural drive of all spirit is connection, not differentiation. So no matter how we manifest, we strive to connect, and the best connection is always spiritually nourishing... aaa. And here it doesn't matter our assumed natures, so it is spirit with spirit and forget things like man, woman... grrrr... and beast... rrr. All your perversions don't mean squat here... unless you want to squat. But seriously, connecting should be what sex is about. You connect to enrich your spirit, not just to have bambinos.... grrrr... or puppies. So, even when physical, it is good to think about it this way... or not, and just fool around. Relationships in spirit, without possession and time, are soooo much easier. If it's deep, then who cares if it is one time or many, since time is not a measure. But if you get preggers here, you have little blue and pink spirettos. <joke>

"Spirit does not beget spirit like matter begets matter, but spirit enriches spirit--a concept for which physical language has no words. Gotta get here to find out. But many who sense they remember from spirit, try to make it in physical terms. But being a monk is not the same, sorry guys. It is not about giving up anything. Enhancement is not about transfer, but about sharing, in which 1 + 1 = 1. Never more, never less, but not the same 1. Always a unity that adds to 1, but not the same 1, yet all unities are equal. Ponder that. Sandy lost his shirt on that game, but he won a shirt on the same games. So he lost 1, won 1, has 1, but they are not the same. But each is 1. (Using my dog as an instructional aid.) So that's that for now. I'm off to have my wanton connection." (6/8/2001 - V#63)



"Duh, I don't have no brain. This is not thinking. Only you think so. Ponder: A highly integrative expression of the spiritual reality, which is infused with experience and insight, but not necessarily with cognition and analysis." (2/2/2002 - V#64)



"So, since when do spirits have to linearly exist only in one level. If time is not there, then a first-timer is also a top-timer. First-timers don't know they are no longer top-timers, so they act like that. Here is one of the universe's little jokes: Just when you get it, it changes. The smaller steps you can enjoy, but when you take the big leap, it is before you think you can enjoy it. But again an irony, because top-timers think it can get better, and it does, and poof they are first-timers. But in that top time, their spiritual reality finally seems to make sense. So, one is almost there, and senses it in how the spirit exists. But when it is totally understood and incorporated, then bye-bye. But there is a reward.

"It's like you are lost in a giant mall and you are trying to find your way. Over time it gets easier and easier until you have it almost figured out. Then suddenly you find the door you've been looking for, and when you enter, it is into another more complex mall. But you find yourself with others whom you sense are soul sisters and brothers on the same search. So it feels like a loss and a gain and a connection all at once. But all you have to go on is what is already learned and remembered. You love the new community, you use the old insights, and you are a first-timer.

"And some of the old learnings work here, and some do not. So it goes. But at least you're not alone... until you are one with everything, and the universe breathes and oops you start over in another universe that is more universal. No end, but lots of meaning.

"Everything in context is elementary; it just seems that some things are more complex. But everything is an element of something else... except him. First-timers are good for a laugh, but remember, ultimately the laugh is on all of us. I've said enough." (5/20/2002 - V#65)



"At one life, one can get it, and it looks like smooth sailing. But then, between lives, lost it. Hey, over here is not on auto-pilot. It's not tragic, just happens a lot. Get it together but can't keep it together--premature awareness. And those folks often become seers and mediums because they sense the glimpses they can see no more.

"Most who report connecting are not doing it for the first time, but they have lost the remembrance of it and have only the experience. It's like someone who has been to Detroit and forgets it and then, passing through, scenes seem familiar. This happens often with what we experience as kids. It's like filling in the dots... connecting the numbers... completing the outline... fulfilling the suggestions... making whole the partial... getting the shit together... ooops.. I do go on. All I say is interesting, if you find the right person to listen.

"You can lose it here, or in the parking lot... in the process. Especially if you had it, and don't now; if it feels right but not yet yours. Like you know it but you aren't it. There are people who make great discoveries, who later haven't got a clue of how to apply them. I say just peel off the backing and apply. I groan... ooooo... ayeee... I recover." (8/13/2002 - V#66)



"Remember how I said that the most primal spiritual entity flowed from All That Is, and then the process of complexity begins. And I talked about combining into more complex entities. Remember? Well, that's a mis-statement, made so y'all could understand. But I theenk eet ees time to 'splain more.

"There is no combining; no atomic spiritual molecule-making. It is as if there were, but there isn't. Huh. Ok. Time does not exist. Nothing is linear. So, all states exist all ways. Now what does that mean. Damned if I know... but I do.

"At any and every moment, you are to some extent one with All, and also ultimately separate. You separate and differentiate from being part of All, and that is the primal level I spoke of. In that level, you sense only your existence; nothing more. At the other pole, you experience the existence of All, and nothing as separate. And here it comes: You are constantly and always both. And the levels of complexity are more about awareness than about any pseudo-physical spiritual combinations. It's not that you are connecting to create something that has not existed, but that you connect into an awareness of another state of your being--more complex, that is. I keep 'hearing' people treating this like it were physical, but maybe the intellectual process of awareness is a better example--not nearly it, but better--moving through our many levels of being.

"So, you don't become something else, or more. You become aware of the more you that co-exists. Learn and remember, and therefore be more aware. And if you forget what you thought you remembered, you can't be aware of what that remembered thought made you aware of. We grow in greater awareness of our greater complexity and greater connections, until we become aware again that we are one with All That Is. So ponder that.

"The merged state you become aware of already is. But let's say you see someone and don't like them... you really don't like them... grrrrr. Because you cannot connect to them, you cannot become aware of how they may fit in the more complex you. Your lack of connecting to them keeps you distant from awareness. And awareness is not linear, but more the most complex web of being you could ever envision.

"Just a step from physical modeling to spiritual, but we ain't there yet." (9/4/2002 - V#67)



"It is I, the Moo, the awesome Moo. Ok, serious time. So, if one is always part of and co-terminus with All That Is, what's the point. If it is only a matter of perception of one's unity with ATI (All That Is) then why bother with all these lives and all the experiences at other levels of complexity. Good question.

"If one assumes the traditional view, of everything created flowing from one infinite but eternal source, then there is no point. But, if ATI is an organism--both creative of its many layers of complex meaning and created by the experiences of all those layers--then the point is not personal, but universal. We do it because that way ATI isn't static, it's organic. So ponder that!

"So instead of trying to be reconciled with a God that was, is, and evermore shall be, world without end; we are trying to be active participants in the totality that is yet to be. From the simplest spiritual level of awareness, to the fullest oneness with ATI, we gain not only awareness of our own complex levels of existence, but we participate in a process of genesis which ultimately creates an ATI that is different from what had been. And that new ATI, which transcends the old, continuously needs our ever-new awareness. And... just to blow your minds... all the various ATIs also already exist but await the collective awareness of them.

"Here's a dog, smiling... ARF. Do you understand all this. Just smile and say 'ARF.' ARF. But he's a part of it. Every spirit is a part of it. And remember, it isn't linear. Onward and upward is replaced by aha. And if you could wrap your awareness around ATI that both is and is becoming, then you would add more to that which All That Is is a part of. Turtles all the way up and down. So, how's tricks... snap. Pithy enough? I startle myself. Ok Rikkity, calm down." (9/8/2002 - V#68)



"I want to say this. Someone is certain to say, much later, that I'm full of it. First I talked about combining into more complex entities--and even disassembly--as if spirits were parts. And now I talk about awareness and ongoing connection that persists. So where's the disassembly? Look, I'm just trying to use helpful models. So think about this: You become aware of another state of your being. Does that mean you necessarily become one with it? I don't theenk so. But maybe I geeve an example.

"You are in 5th grade. You wouldn't think about hangin' with the middle schoolers. But the next year you are in middle school, and you see all those 8th graders, and you become aware of the 8th grader in you, so you hang out with them... or, should I say, you try to hang out with them. But chances are you will know what they are about. You will be aware of how they are, but you won't have a clue about how to be really connected to them. And, in the end, they'll probably tell you to get lost. You just won't fit in--even though you have some nascent sense of the 8th grader you will later be. Just another way of saying, in terms of the physical world, what that spiritual reality is like.

"I gave you a chemical model, and recently an intellectual model of awareness. There are many other models, which say different things but try the same to represent what is not able to be fully represented over there. And the usual reminder, that the best you get there is a reasonable facsimile, because if you had the whole actual picture, you wouldn't be there, ha. So, whether it is by connection and fulfillment, or awareness and fulfillment... whatever... it is the same damn thing! It's like trying to describe how far I am from you, and someone saying 'It's a mile,' and another person saying 'No, it's 1.6 kilometers.' And they're both right and still don't get it. I shut up now. Mmmm... ummm... grrrrrr... mmmm.

"The biggest mistake JC made was quitting before offering Answers 2, 3, and 4. So Answer 1 got codified, when it was just an example, not the answer. He never got to the Last Breakfast with the OJ and Danish... but Orthodox would say raspberry Danish, while liberals would insist on cheese.

"So, I needed to remind you, by a changing example, that models are only models, not realities... unless, of course, you are talking about models. But is there a model of models, or does that elevate the former into a reality which is then modeled? And so, do our models turn models they are based on into such pseudo-realities. Too much pith... ARF. Look what he's wearing: a pith helmet to protect him from pith... and my good friend from Germany, Helmut Pith... grrrr. And for a simpler model: Life is like a supermarket aisle the day after a sale and a day before inventory. Ponder that." (9/12/2002 - V#69)



"You all speak about the conservation of everything--like in, 'Nothing is ever really lost.' I think even I said that. And guess what, it's true... and it's not true. But first, a little cavear... no no, caveat. Too often, people focus on the persistence of spiritual energy, and they don't remember that all existence (or something like that) has its own persistence. It's not like human soul energy persists but rock energy does not. Big problem of the usual soul theories. Just because you're carbon-based doesn't make you special. Organic and inorganic are another false dualism. When we speak of the persistence of energy, we mean all. And no, there is no special rock heaven... but if they had a Rock and Roll Heaven, they'd sure have a hell of a band.

"So, Point 1: Don't think of human spiritual existence as different or separate or better than any other. Remember, all that is is a part of All That Is. You think God is not a God of rocks and pebbles and stones. So we are talking about the whole thing, and every wittle piece thereof, without end. Except, of course, for that one.

"Now, we often hear that no act of kindness is ever lost... wait, I had one here a moment ago. Where did it go. Ultimately, nothing is lost. But the configuration may be. The basic units of existence are never lost because they are all contained in All That Is. But from that simplest level, all else is combination into complexity. And you can't lose the elements, but you can lose the combinations. True, combinations that are energy-sustaining will endure, but that's not all of them. So the building blocks remain, while the building may be gone. I give an illustrative example. Lights, please.

"In Slide 1, we have a scene at the beach. It is on the Vineyard. In Slide 2, we see Ericka with an unnamed boy and very little... ooops. Slide 3 shows a giant sand castle. Slide 4 shows the tide coming in. Slide 5 shows a beach with no sand castle. Now, thinking about all the slides... except 2... was something created and lost forever. Wellll, yes and no. The sand is always there, the memory persists, but the castle is gone. Ok, lights, please.

"Another example: Long ago, the natives of southern Illinois found deposits of clay. Some of that clay became bricks and were used to build a house at 3412 Russell in St. Louis. Not all the bricks got used. The broken ones were buried in a trash heap, and some others became a sidewalk near the new gardens, and some were sent back for credit but mysteriously disappeared and became a barbeque in the backyard of a trucker. Time passed, and the building needed, but did not want, a change. So new windows were put in, and a few bricks were taken out and became a decorative border on the walkway of the contractor. Now, years later, the house falls into disrepair... or actually ill repute... and a suspicious fire destroys the house. The old bricks are sorted, and some disposed of, and some sold for re-use. About half become the façade of an addition to a historic building out further, where they now comprise the walls of the library wing. And some of the old broken bricks have been pulverized to a fine powder, and used to moderate sandy soil along one of the lakes created out of the pits where long ago there had been a mining operation for clay.

"Now, would you say anything was lost, no. But can you say nothing was lost, no. Much persists, although much does not seem to persist. The trick is to be able to discern what truly persists. It can't get up and leave All That Is. Just like that preacher dude back when said, it's about the transient and permanent. And poor peeps keep looking for the persistence of certain personalities, while what persists may be as hidden as brick dust in the old clay pits. Just a thought.

"In the procession toward ultimate unity of All, there are infinite patterns of persistence, but only one of essence. Ponder that." (11/16/2002 - V#70)



"Actually, all these spirits--including me--are just whispers of the universe, which you identify in your own way. We are much more a part of the larger whole. But hey, if you need to think about us as personalities, knock yourselves out... unless we are talking about some who have no personalities. 'She has a great personality.'

"Do you think all this wisdom and foolishness arises from individuals? Well if you do, you're wrong. We are but the breathing of the eternal elements. And surprise, so are you! All the talk about personalities, but we consider a person most fully formed as an individual when, in fact, they are most in touch with and expressive of the universal whole.

"And in a society which claims to honor differentiation, that's a problem. If you think you are being you to the greatest extent when you stand out and express unique qualities, then you miss the larger picture. If you were to become so unique that you had no surfaces in common with anyone else, you would never connect in a sustained way, and never be fulfilled. Become yourself, yes! But remember that yourself is only--but always--an expression of the larger unity. So call her M and call him LD... whatever. Those historical personality labels mean nothing; their strands of ideas out of the weave of the whole do. Whatever is truly essential will never need a personality attached to it to make it true or valuable.

"Specific lives that point only to specifics are pretty empty." (12/27/2002 - V#71)



"When I speak about the process of fulfillment and connection, and it sounds like stages, I am doing the process a disservice. Don't think of it as links called lives and deaths, but as a flow of spirit with waves of being. And the truth of it is not in the wave nor in the points along the way, but in the effect of the wave on other wave realities. Just as some red in the sky does not make a partial rainbow, it takes all the elements. And so too with life waves. It's in the interactions.

"So, when and if you ask 'What does my life mean,' you've asked the wrong question. 'How does it play out' is a better one. Does it add complementary ripples to the surface or does it cancel the positive wavelets. Are you adding or subtracting. And you can't know the answer to that unless you know the whole picture... and you don't. So the best you can do is to do the best you can do, and have faith. No one life is going to make it or break it, and every life has the potential to make it or break it. And that is not contradictory. It is paradoxical, but only if you think in terms of units, not process. Ponder that.

"If it were as easy as getting your act together, life would be a snap. And you can't see the whole until you are the whole. So, what you often need to know is found when you know it. It's like 'Ok, I've got it,' but then when you can get it, you don't need to. By the time you say 'Aha,' you feel like you've always known. The bleeding obvious is only bleeding true when it's obvious. It's not set yet, so don't put your initials in it. Don't treat the model like reality." (1/7/2003 - V#72)



"Walk with. Guides simply do that, and I should know! We walk gently with our folk, and in the shared path they come to sense what we know. Conversation always is better than conversion." (4/16/2003 - V#73)



"So, let's get down and serious. It would be a big mistake to confuse fulfillment with completion at any spiritual level. If you look to completion, you miss a very essential piece. For, as an entity comes to truly and fully know itself... and not its elf... it comes into a new level of awareness of its potential. All at once it perceives the way ahead; it senses how it can become more than it is. The spiritual mating plates are suddenly there, and further connection is seen as possible. But if the perception is completion, then no plane surfaces seem to exist by which greater complexity would be possible. It seems like it is over and done with, and so is a dead-end.

"None of us is ever really complete, but we are infinitely fulfilled and fulfillable and filled with potential. So after a few lives of learning and remembering... ok, with some people, more than a few... one gets to a stage like a second first-timer. First-timers think they have it all together, they are finished and complete. The second first-timers are those who have learned and remembered enough to get a sense of themselves as works in progress, but they mistake the work as a single-level project--not finished, but finishable. And so they are often detoured down paths which seem to offer complete answers, and it is only with repeated learning and remembering... and living and enjoying... that they get it that the end of all of this is not an end but a process, and each entity--being a subset of the whole--can never be the whole, but the whole can't be with it out... ooops, without it. This linearity is for shit.

"And the other problem with completion is that it is so final and so individual... ok, that's 2. Fulfillment allows for future greater fulfillment, but completion is stuck. And also, completion is about one entity; fulfillment is about one entity becoming ready to be more than itself... and truly more than its elf. The gnomes are hiding. That old black spiritual Goin' Gnome, Goin' Gnome. 'And when masta done heard us, he be thinkin' about home, but we darkies be singing about gnomes.' Proof? The English abolished slavery centuries earlier, and look at all the free gnomes. Hey John, tell someone in the back row it's about gnomes. 'I'm getting a sense of small creatures in someone's garden. Does anyone back there have a garden.' We love to play. But take seriously the completion-fulfillment dichotomy and its implications for a post-Aristotelian world... whatever that means.

"But it is very very important. Most religious leaders who are not totally wacko are second-time first-timers, because they preach perfectionism of some sort, with an announced or promised arrival. But if it's really process, there is both no arrival and continuous arrivals. Ponder that." (5/15/2003 - V#74)



"Dolphins are... whatever. There are many ways to learn. Those who want a working sabbatical make good porpoises. Those who want real sabbaticals: house cats, or slugs, sloths. Most animals are not on sabbatical. Mickey, my gerbil, was not.

"All animals have spirits, but not necessarily on the same spiritual level. And I'm not saying less or more developed, because I don't want to be bitten... grrrrrr. He's got friends, Bruiser the Boxer and Rolf the Rottweiler." (6/16/2003 - V#75)



"Nobody knows the trouble I've seen, nobody knows but Sandy... arrrf. He has a dog dish on his head. He says it's brain food... woof. Silly, especially since we don't have brains... or heads or dishes. It's all metaphor... or similes, man. Since we use thought, not language, image is as possible as letters. Here, see this: a speckled cow. So, you take our thoughts and put them in forms you understand. But wait a minute, even the concept of thought is only a metaphor. We get into the spiritual you, and you don't have a word for that because you really don't understand and neither do I. I just share what I sense. An apprehension might be a good description. You apprehend it without knowing it. And if you totally understand that, what are you doing slumming down here. But just low... moooooo... but don't bull. Tauri.

"Now, I've been thinking about... just using your metaphor, as in pondering... I have been playing spiritual chess with some notions. People with bodies and brains keep wondering if there is other life in the universe. Welll, define life. If you mean biological carbon-based entities, sure, but that's only a fraction. What makes you think that your path to complexity will be based solely on carbon life forms, or even forms. In the vastness of All That Is, there are an infinite variety of expressions of being--some physical, some otherwise but the equivalent of physical for their realities. And somewhere, up ahead around the bend we can't see beyond, there are complexities composed of elements whose very nature you couldn't describe if you wanted to, but their spirits are informed by those realities as much as yours are by physical. In other words, don't get too attached to your bodies. You're not taking them with you when you really go... and on and on and on. So, Heaven with stagnant dead peeps is a dead end... o hahaha, I slay myself. So ponder that!

"It's not just about no brains or bodies. It's about transcending any specific expression of the universal All. Until you are one with it all, or All, then the expressions are only metaphors themselves. And even the concept of spirit is a metaphor, not a reality. But it's the best we can do right now... or not. But if we did better, we would not really know any more. For now, this is it. This is it, life as we know it." (7/1/2003 - V#76)



"A short tale from the other side: One eon... or aeon... a spirit was trying to find a perfect connection, so the spirit put out all the facets and waited. Along came another spirit, but the first said 'No, your facets don't look like mine.' And another, the same. And another, even worse... don't ask. Eventually, after an eternity, the spirit entity was disassembled--not because it wasn't capable of union, but because it didn't know it was. By looking for perfection as similarity, it lost the whole shebang.

"So be open, be yourself... don't be your elf. And look for those who see you in you, not them in you. The End." (9/16/2003 - V#77)



"Remember, for first-timers, forces of wisdom may feel like threats. And for those who are destined for disassembling, there may be an inherent sensing that they themselves are tearing themselves apart.

"Remember, nearly everything you experience is about the you of you, because you are the filter of it all. And even what is not about you becomes about you in the process. Too too too many seem to think that their experiences are about the universe, when they are more about themselves. Why create an external Hell when so many do such a complete job of it internally.

"By the way, the image of the light is only a metaphor. Such brilliant flashes are just your best known examples of intense energy; it's not like you will need to wear sunglasses on the other side. There are other examples: sensation, sound--all music is a search for the essential sound.

"Why do people want to universalize particularities when they do so badly on particularizing universals. Hey, let's get this straight: It's not about us! except as we move into a larger us-ness. If it leads you away from a focus on you as unique and special and separate, then ok. But if it leads toward feelings or understandings of being unique, special, and separate, that's no good and a lie and bogus. Looking away from connection is looking back down the evolution of your entity. You only stand apart if you see yourself separate from your evolutionary future. So go ahead! See yourself as soooo special and forfeit your spiritual future." (11/9/2003 - V#78)



"There is no spiritual ascendency, but only spiritual depth development. And it is always qualitative, not quantitative. In other words, you can get deeper into it, but you can't rise above it. We are all in the soup together, as the missionary wired home from the cannibals. To rise above the cosmic creative soup of possibility, would be to deny those possibilities.

"Or, to put it another way, getting spiritually whole is a dirty business, and if you want to stay clean you'll have to miss the whole show. Or, to put it still another way, if you want it safe and easy and comfortable, you came to the wrong existence. Or, to put it even another way, you've got to risk the pain and trouble to get the sunsets and hugs.

"It's not about easy. It's about fulfilling." (1/4/2004 - V#79)



"I'm the Queen of All That Is.

"How do you know that All That Is is not all that is. Well, you see, just like a well... if you have all that is, well then, you would take some out... no, wait, ha... uh. Well, I'm the queen of my bench! Arrrf. My part of my bench! F... f... f... f... f... f. I'm just a humble human-class spirit guide. Hi. I need my Mommy.

"If All That Is is all that is, then it would be All That Was--without a future. And I mean a future not as in time, but in becoming. Without the potential for more than All That Is, we couldn't have All That Is because it would be only All That Was, and that tends to nothing.

"Either All That Is holds infinite potential, or else All That Is collapses into infinitesimal nothingness. And I ain't going there! You see, I'm the Queen of All That Is and more!

"But for you, I put it in linear time-based terms. Ok, yesterday contained either everything or everything plus more. If it contained only everything, then did the day before contain only everything? Sure, because unless you have everything plus, it's all the same. But then, on Day 1 it had to be everything, and nothing more. What about Day 0. Then it was truly nothing. But if on Day 0 it was nothing and nothing, we'd have nada. So on Day 0 we had nothing plus, so on Day 1 we had the plus as everything, and we also had a new plus. It's always everything plus, or else we'd never get beyond the nothingness of Day 0.

"Unless you have more than everything as a constant potential, you never even get to Day 1.Now without it there would be the eternal nada. Now just take out time and order and you've got it! Because I'm a plus-size queen... oops. I'm the Queen and more! ARF...rf... f... f... f. Stop laughing at me." (3/8/2004 - V#80)



"This conversation is filled with potential. Name something which is not. Even nothing has a potential.

"Nature truly abhors a vacuum. That's why it's so dusty here... no no no no. So in the absence of a total nothing, which is unnatural, there is always potential. Even in the best of situations, well thought out by parents, there is the potential for mischief <grin>.

"By the way, logic is an assumption.

"You gotta be where you are, or else you've robbed the potential. The best way to reduce existence--either physical or spiritual--of its potential, is to act, think, believe, feel that potential is some other time, place, plane, form. Either it flows through All That Is or it doesn't, and we've already dispensed with the doesn't, so it must! So it is as much there as here, and now as then.

"The question is not if but then what... or huh... wha... sure... I guess. At-one-ment: because it is never something other. All the potential you ever need is available in every place and moment... but a trip to Disney wouldn't hurt." (3/13/2004 - V#81)



"Remember, all physical attributes are only manifestations of the spiritual--and fleeting ones at that. Tempus fugit but--or should I say sed--tempus non esse. You've heard it before... or wait, you're going to hear it soon. In What Dreams May Come, them folks who were posing as dead... well, they were dead, but... they manifested as aspects of their spiritual attributes. So a kindly soul might manifest as Florence Nightingale. And an idiot might manifest as someone from Crawford, Texas... o, I'm bad.

"Collective spirits are not the same as coordinate spirits. Did I mention companion spirits. I theenk not. Complementary? And you better say 'yes' because that's all I have given you. Complementary are elements of entities. They complete the pattern. Complementary, complete... see. And comple plus ete or mentary--same root.

"But what is a coordinated spirit, one that can dance? And the other kinds. Watch out for compound spirits: two-faced liars. You think they match, but only while you're watching. And dipole coordinated spirits... don't ask, don't tell. Actually, it's simple: 2 entities which must move on together because their energy is a coordinate around a single expression of being. And you say, 'Huh.' And I say, those stories were about this: Adam and Eve and Romulus and Remus, Sylvester and Tweetie, Vishnu and Shiva. Without both, you have nothing. And without both in balance, you have trouble... yessir, trouble right here in Judgment City.

"So, I will get to the others... or not. Now it is time to get serious... woof. Or not. Don't assume that because I put the process of Spiritual Persistence in simple plain terms, that it is that simple or plain. Remember that 1 + 1 = 2 is both simple and amazingly elegant. The simplest notions point to life's complexities, just as complex compound spirits do. And we will get back to that. Have to prime the pump before you can go to the well." (3/26/2004 - V#82)

Page 2