Journal Entry: 28 December 2017

“We co-create with the Universe.”

Reproductive components of a desert plant. Possibly aloe.
Not technically a tree, but it was so beautiful I couldn’t resist adding it!

I found another book to read that is a channeled message from beings far from our physical location here on Earth. The group of beings goes by the name “Frank,” which I think makes it easier for us to consider what they have to say. Their names (individually and collectively) may be too difficult to pronounce, or so outside of our bounds, that we would be unable to keep them straight. This is the way I think about Russian literature – all those names of all those people…. geesh.

That’s an interesting thing to ponder – “alien” names evoke fear in some people, many people perhaps, and the name Frank (in American English) is sort of low key, nonthreatening (at least to me). So if you are a group of beings who are gentle and want to make contact without frightening everyone, then selecting a name like Frank would probably work ok. I’ve only read the preface by Mike Molloy. I guess he’s a fairly familiar well-known spirit teacher from here on Earth, though his name is not immediately familiar to me. I’m interested in seeing what the Frank is going on!  🙂

Listening to Mythosophia podcast with Jeffrey Kripal talk about the many experiences Mark Twain had involving clairvoyance – his brother’s death and funeral as well as several others. Twain had enough experiences that he wrote an anonymous essay for Harper’s Magazine about it. They rejected the article because he wouldn’t put his name on it. Well, they didn’t reject it outright! But in the end, he didn’t put his name on it and I don’t believe it was ever published.

Twain became very interested in communication technologies of the time – the telegraph and the burgeoning study of radio. He thought these were parallels to his telepathic experiences. Then Kripal said something really caught my ear – he said that it could only go so far in parallel because energy of the electromagnetic spectrum degrades over distance but thought-energy does not. It is interesting that the two types are compared at all – one being in the realm of science as provable fact (electromagnetic spectrum) and the other being thought-energy which is known but still cannot be proven. We don’t have any instrumentation that can detect or measure thought-energy. Actually, that may not be entirely true – if research is correct, there is a correlation between types of brain waves and recordings of jumps of a needle responding to those brain waves. Scientists seem to think there’s a connection between brain waves and thoughts, though the mind may not be concerned with the brain at all!

So I think I had this in mind when I was cruising around Amazon (not cruising around THE Amazon – the other Amazon) for a book to read. I know I have a lot of books already but… that’s how I am. I should get rid of some of those I will likely not read ever. But I digress…

So in Frank’s book, they are like eight billion or trillion light years from Earth and are making contact with an Earthling who can translate or transfer knowledge into written form. Physically, for us, the degradation of “physical” energy would be such that we could probably not have contact with Frank from our side. Eight billion light years is a long way. But energetically – with no decrease in strength of signal – we could have communications with other beings. If we knew how to do so. I guess having a book shows that someone knows how to do it!

Continue reading Journal Entry: 28 December 2017

Journal Entry: 27 December 2017

The following needs citations, which I will find and add:

person holding string lights photo
Photo by David Cassolato on

Listening to the podcast, “Mythosophia” and an interview with Jeffrey Kripal. He said some neuroscientists believe consciousness is actually a product of mind. That mind is a by-product of physical activity or phenomenon in the brain. There’s a belief that consciousness does not include choice.

OR… consciousness is filtered through the brain and interpreted by the mind. Greater than the sum of its parts (gestalt?) – the “Greater Consciousness” that filters through to individual consciousness per being, yet is not diminished in totality by the division into individual experiences. It is collecting individual experiences of consciousness to either grow toward something, or to simply have those experiences, or both.

[Using the word] “It” would imply an entity. “It” is having individual experiences, but what if “It” was all of us? “Hive” mentality for the entire universe?

[Using the word] “Hive” – would that mean no individual consciousness? Is a hive without pluralism? That is, is going with the collective thought (consciousness) mean without dissent? Is there choice, free will within the Hive? Maybe I’m thinking too much like the “Borg” (from Star Trek TV series) for understanding this mentality. And it is, in this case, “mentality” which may not be the right description.

Sum Consciousness – has anyone written about it as a sum of all consciousness? Instead of using the word Greater (as in Greater Consciousness), which might imply an entity, Sum used in this context could signify a gestalt. The dictionary defines gestalt as a unified whole, which would mean that the whole has parts. Which does lead back to the idea that there is a collective consciousness that is not a singular entity but is all the entities AND “greater” than individual entities. I’m having a problem with the word “greater” because it can imply superior, which is a judgement of other.

When it all comes down to it, the Universe is always telling us it is about love. This thought returns to me again and again while I’m writing this but also just when I’m thinking; musing; having a thought experiment (thank you, Ursula LeGuin). Love is what is carried on light, filtered for individual entities because it is bigger than what we could take in. So the Sum Consciousness is bigger than what we could take in as well! And encompasses love. It must also encompass the opposite of love because we could not know love without having what is called “foreground/background.” This, I think, is also a Zen principle. Love and not-love. How could you distinguish what is love if there also wasn’t not-love?

I think I need to take some time to see if my ideas hold any weight. So I’m going to stop writing for now. This not only needs citations, but it needs refinement.

Blessings, S

One Tree One Forest