Convalescence: The Connection - What It Is Not
On the Beach
This is Essay Nine in my series ‘The Antidote’. All previous Essays may be found here.
After my last essay it should be clear that in every instant we are always operating concurrently in the physical as well as the non-physical - and these two aspects of ‘Self’ are actually in constant communication. We don’t need to connect to Nature for this to happen. In fact we don’t need to do anything to make it so because this is our natural ‘nature’. But somehow we have now completely forgotten this fact.
The state of mind that separates the physical thinking ‘Self’ from the non-physical ‘Self’ is actually a false artifact: there is no separation at all. This false artifact, created from our conditioning here in the physical, is keeping us from knowing the larger part of ourselves. Connecting directly to this larger Self and learning about it is exactly why I want each of us to work on connecting to the greater consciousness of Nature, a consciousness clearly outside the individual self while, at the same time, deeply inter-connected with us at all times - whether or not we recognize or accept this as so. For most humans, trying to connect directly past the control of our improperly developed Awake Mental Voice while in our currently weak and artificial state is almost impossible.
Just for the sake of discussion let us assume we can make some ‘point-of-reference’ statements about the nature of the connection we have with a larger non-physical aspect of ourselves, and also to the larger universe all around us. These statements are based on my own lifelong explorations and experiences. And my intention in stating them here is to reveal some very basic elements of the nature of this new relationship I hope some of you might have created with the non-physical. Of course, these are my own subjective observations.
Sharing My ‘Universal’ Insights
In Essay Seven I gave a list of the characteristics of ‘my’ universe; now I want to briefly discuss what ‘my’ universe simply - isn’t. Some of these are common ‘universal’ misconceptions I wish to elaborate on. While I said earlier these are my observations only I now want to enhance this conditional statement even further:
The observations I share here are all my own observations and are completely subjective. They are mine and mine alone.
Observation One: Having said this, there is no other statement anyone can ever make about any event they observe in the universe, anywhere in the universe - even in our own little physical world right here, right now - even if such observations are made with a group of people who all claim to have ‘shared’ the same experience. Regardless of any ‘shared reality’, all such observations are personally subjective. Always and only. There is no such thing as an ‘objective’ observation or statement of intent. Every single thing we think or do, that anyone thinks or does, is personally subjective.
Every single experience each of us has is also absolutely subjective, both for our consciousnesses and for our perceptions - and that is the way it should be. Being alive is a totally personal experience, with personal exploration and observation being at the very base of all life. Rules and laws function mainly at the level of our capability to comprehend them, not as unbending eternal limits on us. As we grow and experience more and more life, we learn (or should learn) the limits on our behavior which make sense for the place we inhabit at that moment of time are actually only those limits determined by our own perceptions, not by something outside of ourselves.
Observation Two: ‘Objectivity’ is mainly a label used by some entities to make them appear superior to others. They pin a badge of importance on themselves and say their observations are so much more real than our observations. This makes them ‘infallible’ and moves their observations from the realm of the personally subjective into the apparently superior and impersonally ‘objective’ one.
This structure is basically either false because it is a lie, or false because it is not important. There is only one true and important thing: each of us must learn to practice the clearest perception and make the best choices from amongst many possible choices and potential results of our observations and actions on our own. Our personal exploration of the known and unknown is entirely our own responsibility. If we hand that responsibility off to anyone outside of ourselves we risk enslavement in one way or another. Doing this well takes time and lots of observations and experiences.
Observation Three: There is nothing impersonal about this journey. This is a very deeply personal universe. Each of us has to become immersed in life, fearlessly immersed, so we can experience deeply - and then experience even more deeply and learn how to make good observations, create good intentions and formulate good actions. In this case the definition of ‘good’ means actions which have long-term positive outcomes, but usually it means for a group rather than just for an individual. These are actions based upon intentions that make good, long-term sense for us as individuals, not as individuals of a group. This requires real wisdom, something which takes a long time to develop. Inside such a system it is entirely OK to say “I don’t know”, and then to treat each ‘I don’t know’ statement with humility and careful exploration. Dogma has no place in this system.
Observation Four: Currently here on earth the term ‘objectivity’ usually means some sort of consensus biased towards a desired outcome. Instead of being a term meaning ‘truthful’ observation and intent usually based upon more than one observer and more than one observation, ‘objectivity’ becomes a kind of physiological operation, a psy-ops designed to structure beliefs in some specific way. It is not at all truly ‘objective’, i.e. containing real truth of observation. If we look at life all around us, living inside the patterns of the forms and structures of life today, there is no consensus. Life does not operate on consensus; life operates on a massive, simultaneous exploration of each and all possible options, usually all at once. An action either leads to success or failure; and successes lead to more exploration while failures lead to dead ends and/or death.
Every option is being explored constantly, with better options gradually being chosen over very long time periods because of successful successive outcomes. This is real planning, not our fake short-term ‘planning’, which is a process biased by expected or fantasy outcomes. I am talking about real objectivity based on actual results, not on biased input. I’ve heard this called ‘dis-sensus’ and I think this is a good word to describe the actual process life uses to create choices from purely subjective observations taken without bias. We certainly do far worse with our fake objectivity and biased consensus planning for the future.
So, to recap these first four ‘observations’, our life is based upon our own personal subjective observations. The outcome for our life is our own responsibility, achieved by making the very best observations, intentions and actions we can. If they are not made well, they will lead to failure of some sort. Relying on ‘objective’ observations outside ourselves is impossible since we are personally responsible for ourselves and everything we do, not as an issue of reward and punishment, but rather as a simple matter of developing our own skills and abilities.
This last observation of the purely subjective nature of the universe and our own subjective position in it leads us to several other observations:
Observation Five: The next observation I want to make about what ‘the universe’ isn’t, is our habit of naming things. The universe works quite well without a single word being used. In fact no words as names for things are necessary at all for the proper and long-term functioning of the universe. There are a lot of things not really correct about our habit of naming things. I don’t want to say this habit of naming things is wrong, exactly; it is OK - but it is a habit which can lead to some serious misunderstandings.
One issue is discrete objects seem utterly separate to us primarily because of our habit of naming them. We are very slow beings operating in a very slow, dense part of the universe made up mainly of very slow energy. Material objects appear separate and distinctly unique to our eyes. We give all these objects names and think of them as separate from one another. If we will stop for even a moment and think about this, we will see the fallacy in what we are doing.
At some level of awareness we already know every object within our place in the universe is steadily falling apart with some completely disappearing in our own short lifetime. The energy used to hold these objects together is constantly flowing out of them and into other parts of our universe. If we could see this flow of energy we would see these supposedly distinct objects are always simultaneously flowing back and forth, one into the other. They are not so distinct after all and we could actually watch this energy flow from one object into another if only we knew how. It is much more difficult for us to philosophically separate ourselves and such objects, one material object from the other. Our focus from this energetic point of view should be on the flow of energy and the rate of that flow rather than on some static and separate state of being that has a ‘name’.
Observation Six: If we could see this energy flow in our universe, instead of using nouns to name these items of matter - or ‘things’ - we would use verbs. And we would be much more careful about how we created these things in the first place. We would not only see this energy flow - we would also be able to comprehend how much energy might be used and lost over a period of time when creating any of our material things. If we did so we could live in a manner much more closely attuned to the flow of energy which is really taking place around us. This would allow us to make much better material things as well as social structures. But most importantly we could learn how to make much better choices regarding energy use.
We can see and sense this energy flow when we connect to Nature. We will see one object flowing into another and know the fallacy inherent in naming ‘separate’ objects based on our observational bias by using our material eyes only.
Sure, we can develop machines and instruments to measure this energy flow. But using such artificial tools prevents us from truly comprehending energy at a deeper, more personally intuitive level. Once we have personally experienced energy at this level we can properly appreciate its use.
So - this universe isn’t a static box made up of a finite bunch of named things; it is actually a dynamic, systemic process, one much more verb than noun in nature.
A corollary to this observation should be obvious, but in our current state of separation it needs to be stated. When our larger ‘Selves’ are also expressed as physical beings in this universe, our physical bodies then become things as well in this energetic universe - but still not separate from it in any way. Our bodies follow the same chemical rules and are under our direct conscious control. We are not separate from Nature at all. We and our bodies do not need to utter a single word in order to function - or even to function perfectly.
At this point I wish to mention an important caveat relating to my earlier essay explaining how to re-connect with Nature, expressed as another observation.
Observation Seven: The entire issue of translation from the non-physical to the physical is an example of another huge problem with the use of words to convey an experience that is ineffable. There are many experiences and observations in the non-physical which are simply beyond words. One might describe those using words, but we don’t have a big enough palette of physical words for such non-physical experiences. So our physical mind tries to convert these experiences into ‘words’ or existing concepts since that is what we must use in this physical place. When we do so, lots of important details are lost in the translation process.
We physical beings are limited by our current physicality to the use of mere words to describe things that are, quite frankly, beyond the capabilities of our physical languages. We really do not have any other choice but to use the words and beliefs we already have inside us when we finally do experience the larger part of our non-physical consciousness (or other parts of the non-physical universe) and want to communicate about them. This limiting effect creates an unsatisfactory outcome - which is very understandable, if not totally frustrating. A person describing their near-death experience(s) is a very clear example. In almost all cases the physical person is reduced to using their own very limiting and ultimately inaccurate religious beliefs to describe something far beyond any religion.
However, we probably should accept this simple fact and try to hold back on some of the colorful, but extremely inaccurate, hyperbole we might use to embellish our ‘out-of-the-ordinary’ observations and experiences so we can remain absolutely truthful about what we actually experienced.
For instance, how many times have we heard someone describe meeting Jesus or God or Mohammed in an initial out-of-body journey? Or of going to ‘heaven’ and experiencing that specific place, usually on their very first trip out of their body? Since these are the beliefs most physical people already have, it is understandable they might interpret their early non-physical experiences in this manner.
But how would we respond if they described their experiences of a hundred trips into the non-physical and of meeting hundreds of different personalities, maybe none of them similar to the great being they initially felt was Jesus? Or of going to many different types of places in addition to their original trip as something that made them think of heaven? Now - how would they describe these non-physical events? What if on that first trip, instead of meeting one great being who made them think of Jesus, they met seven such beings and spoke to each of them? What would they call these beings then? Angels perhaps? But are these neophyte descriptions of their experiences really accurate?
Every one of these individual observations will be driven by the existing beliefs of the physical person having these experiences. They are, rightly or wrongly, coloring these experiences with their existing, very limited, physical beliefs and understandings.
Personally I think it would be far better for those having such explorations to initially resist using existing physical human concepts to label their early non-physical experiences and simply give themselves time to come to a better understanding of what they are really seeing and doing before attempting to describe them in any way to others. It took a lifetime to create our current earthly beliefs; why not give ourselves a bit more time to understand what we are truly experiencing in the non-physical - as well as being open to entertaining the possibility of something entirely different as a possibility? Besides, since it is not a physical event why speak of it as though it is? And why layer physical terms on top of it without first trying to understand it on its own terms?
Observation Eight: Another area of confusion right now involves the whole idea of ‘channeling’. The common definition of channeling, or of being a channel, is the condition where a non-physical entity speaks through, or communicates through, a physical being. Let’s look at this concept in more depth and see if we can create a better understanding about this topic. This whole topic is normally not seen in positive terms at all, which is in itself quite inaccurate.
It is my firm belief we are non-physical beings with a physical aspect or component in constant operation right here, right now, while we are reading these words with our Awake Mental Voice. That is really the whole focus of these essays. All of us channel our own individual, larger, non-physical Selves - all the time. Each and every time we open our mouths or put pen to paper, we might be ‘channeling’ that larger non-physical part of our self. Since most of us don’t even know of this larger non-physical aspect, we have no idea this may be going on. Can other entities also speak through us? You bet! It can happen any time, too.
Learning how to recognize such things are happening is part of our responsibility as a living physical being, someone fully capable of such activity. Since we do not want just anyone or anything to use us or speak through us, it is our responsibility to become discriminating about controlling this potential flow of incoming information. That does not mean we should stop ‘channeling’. I mean, how does one actually stop channeling? Even if we decide to fully embrace the separation of material from non-material, we will still channel our own non-physical Self. To throw this aspect of our ‘Self’ away is not very intelligent or useful at all - and is completely impossible anyway.
Here is an experience from my past which will give you an idea of how this works in our modern world of materialism and separation. As a younger man in college, in several classes I had the great privilege and honor to have Dr. Linus Pauling as a professor. Dr. Pauling won the Nobel Prize in 1954 for discovering the helical structure of a protein molecule. The search for this structure took him eleven years of intense effort. He told us the solution to this problem finally came to him one night in a dream and he credited his subconscious with the solution.
Back in Essay Five, I mentioned I had trouble with current definitions of the parts of the human mind structure, the ones we call the ‘id’, the ‘ego’ and the subconscious. None of these concepts have any meaning so long as the definition does not include the active participation of the greater non-physical consciousness with the physical brain. This does not mean I don’t think we have a thing which could be considered a physical sub-consciousness. I am sure we do.
We are subconsciously aware of all sorts of data entering our physical minds from our physical bodies at all times. But I think the main source of our subconscious is actually in our larger non-local, non-physical consciousness. Since we don’t know we have this non-physical consciousness or even believe it exists at all, it has to sneak up on us, many times in the form of a dream. Some of us, like Dr. Pauling, are aware enough to accept such profoundly dream-embodied information when we are able to physically remember it.
So - it is very important not to be dismissive of channeled information. It is your responsibility to learn how to deal with such information in appropriate ways, and to learn how to filter this information and verify it as you must while a physical being.
Observation Nine: Now I want to discuss the idea of the infinite universe. The idea that the universe is made up of seven planes, and entities exist on these seven planes according to their personal growth is just hopelessly limited. This is another type of antique ‘heaven’ concept driven by our old religious beliefs, but being offered to us as New Age concepts. Such planes might be associated with the energetic skills we have and how they allow us to exist in many, many different places, i.e. an ‘infinity’ of places we create and maintain to the best of our abilities. Five levels or seven levels or fifty-seven levels or 57,000,000,000 levels - all are hopelessly limited concepts.
There are no such limits at all to the universe.
Our connection to the universe is not limited to any finite number of items or objects or things. The universe is an organically growing structure created out of consciousness and has no limits of any kind in any direction or dimension. And there are simply no limits at all to the potential of the universe as a place for us to explore. It is therefore impossible to logically conceive of anything that is not potentially contained in the universe. The depth and breadth of potential experience in this universe is without bounds. That makes it the perfect playground for any and all sorts of consciousnesses to learn and play.
Observation Ten: In relation to the non-physical, another item on my ‘What the Universe Isn’t’ list is the idea ‘we are all one’, i.e. that we are all part of some single, greater entity and eventually will all join up, hold etheric hands and somehow become one ‘Thing’. This idea is simply not correct. But I do know how easy it is to come to this conclusion if one has ever experienced a greater connection to Nature or some other larger aspect of the non-physical than what we are used to, and we feel that vast connection.
When we achieve such a connection we can feel other entities and objects in great detail. It is very easy to come to the conclusion ‘we are all one’ because in that moment of connection we all seem to ‘be’ one entity. And when we are inter-connected in this way outside of the Awake Mental Voice, everything is so much more intense and rich with detail than anything we are used to that it is easy to mistake ‘other’ for ‘self’ in this connection. This feeling and conclusion is an artifact of our current abject separation and isolation from each other in this physical place we call Earth. We can connect to anything and everything if we know how; but we are not all one thing, all one consciousness - and never will be.
Observation Eleven: There are all sorts of entities playing in this playground, all from different sources and all with different abilities. Fortunately, the universe is flexible and expansive enough to contain us all. This concept, that we are discrete individual entities, is actually much more complex and ultimately makes the universe a much more interesting place for exploration.
This is not to say some entities are not children of other entities and may, if they wish, re-incorporate back into a parent entity if they choose to do so at some point in their experience. But such a re-incorporation never leads to one entity. It leads to Infinity.
Observation Twelve: A contrasting corollary to the concept of pure individuality is part of the process of learning how to be a conscious Being in this universe is learning how to work together with others. Cooperation is a hallmark of this universe in fractal terms. Even sub-atomic particles have joint roles with each other that require them to know how to co-operate. We, as creatures of consciousness, even though we are unique and individual, must also learn how to work together in cooperative fashion for the best use of our own individual energies. This dynamic tension between the ‘l’ and the group is part of the great lessons we have the opportunity to learn while physically and mentally isolated from one another here on Earth.
Observation Thirteen: The idea of the universe being nothing more than pure consciousness is contained in the discussions currently raging around the scientific concept of ‘Duality’. I mentioned Duality in the First Essay when I said the current concept of materialism posits that everything is material, comes from material and what isn’t material is something else.
This idea of material dualism is now being attacked - as it should be. But many of the attackers are making their arguments in opposition to materialism, saying there is nothing except consciousness and the entire material world is a part of consciousness. They believe there is no such thing as anything separate and outside of consciousness.
I think this argument is made more as a reaction to materialism than on the basis of any exploration of the universe. I agree: everything comes from consciousness and is created by consciousness. But in many cases objects are created consciously and then exist separate from the consciousness which created them. In the physical world, these objects can take on a life of their own and exist quite well without the actions or observations of the consciousness that created them.
An example would be the creation of a child by a male and female human. This is only one example of the fractal nature of the physical universe. I am not saying everything that is created consciously is a self-aware consciousness. I am saying everything that is created is a form of energy and as such is imbued with some form of consciousness, with perhaps only a limited awareness depending on the complexity of the created object. But once created, it goes on to exist in its own unique form of creation until changed by loss of energy or other circumstances.
The universe is dual in the concept there is consciousness itself as well as all of the creations of consciousness, including all of the physical matter, things and objects in the physical universe. The issue of material versus non-material, or Dualism, is only an artifact of our strong bias toward the material.
In this essay I have attempted to flesh out our universe a bit more and add some more color to what we are as entities in this universe. I don’t want to go into much more detail at this point. That will be for subsequent essays focusing more specifically on our recovery process.
On the Beach
25 October 2014
Iba, Zambales, Philippines