here is the text of this conversation:

“Ok, let’s talk combining into more complex entities. Does that mean your spiritual entity connects with other entities? How physical! Think about it in more sharing terms. All that you are spiritually is open and available to the other elements of the greater complexity, not individually but collectively. It’s not like a frat mixer, it’s like an anthology. And the identity of the new entity is only real within itself. So the elements can sense and know the totality of the other elements but only within the reality of the greater complexity. If any entity were to step outside… and I don’t mean that literally… they would cease to have connection to all that.

“I give you a flawed analogy—flawed not in being wrong, but in being incomplete. A group of people decide to dine. Each person decides on their own. They arrive at this little ristorante on a side street in Firenze. Si si. And they find themselves at a big shared table with a common meal and magic happens. Communications cross languages, lives mingle. There develops a common and familiar story. The new unit has its own identity. But if anyone were to step outside or even go to the WC, the new entity would no longer be and while they might remember being there they would no longer be part of that new whole. The new combination exists as meaningful only within itself and as others observe it, but not as qualities that can be separated.

“The model I have used is of molecules but that is both too simple and wrong. Too physical. It is the knowing connection of being, not the being itself! Unpack that.”

here it the text of this conversation:

“And now, a treat. Eri will pretend to be Rachel.

“Hi, folks at home. This just in and I don’t know what to make of it. I think I understand but then I get to a point where the best I can do is just shake my head. So here goes:

“It seems that we all are locked in finite existence. I know I am and assume you are, too. What I have been told is that of course the physical realm is finite but hold on to your hats… the spiritual realm is, too. But there’s more. Only at this complexity and those simpler. We can’t say for sure about more complex levels. So this is what we have obtained from reliable sources of more complexity. I have the transcript and I will try to read it but I have been told it has been dumbed down for me. They really know me! I took three weekends how to use a paddle. Susan was screaming at me ‘Like a spoon, not like a knife.’ I finally got it and let’s see if you get this.

“Can we have the graphic. Of course, the graphic is in 3D. Height, width, time, and we will see how much depth there is. Could get to 4D but I have my doubts. Ok. Here goes. The concept of the infinite is unable to be understood completely by finite beings. So, they create concepts like Creation and God--things which transcend finitude. But if you and I as mere finite beings try to fully understand infinity, we are like Buzz Lightyear: ‘To infinity and beyond!’ We even make infinity finite.

“So, the report continues with some redactions. ‘In the beginning’… then something redacted… ‘and it was good.’ And then in a footnote: ‘There was no beginning.’ I think that ‘in the beginning’ was part of the dumbing down.

“So, here’s what I take away from this. I and you cannot perceive infinity because we are locked in finite existence and understanding at this level of development. And I am guessing this means that at the most differentiated level of being finite means just one. We are now where we can talk about billions of stars and even trillions in debt. But the distance from one to trillions is just a start on the journey of infinity. Stay with me here. If this is true, and our next guest will tell you why it probably is, then at some level of complexity greater than one and less than infinite, we begin to get glimpses or cracks through our finite understanding. I’m not good at math so I’ll leave that to others but the question I have: Are we now at one of those glimpse moments or are we just at a level that is cracked? Stay with me and I will come back after the break with our guest who is an infinite spirit and you will hear me ask them if they can stay for a few more questions and they’ll tell us they’ve got all the time in existence. Lawrence, we may run over. Watch this non-defined entity existence.

“You take something for your joints and you take something for your mind, but what about your spirit? And so it goes.

“I hope you can dig out the pith in there. [Thank you, Rachel!!] You bet. Anytime.”

This conversation is based on five questions which Rikkity had posed to us so we could prepare:

• What is the essence of existence.?
• Does existence have comparative states?
• Does complexity imply better?
• What if all existence is combined but there’s one piece missing, or one piece left over? The Jigsaw analogy.
• How does an entity progress in light of the answers to the foregoing questions?

and the text of the conversation:

“Yes, I know we are attempting the daring, trying to do pith while Merc is on the rampage. I saw him leaving town.

 “Ok. Have you pondered? [E: You might call it that] [R: Well, my mind meandered a bit – is that good enough?] [E: I tried I did real well for a few minutes lol] Have you printed out the questions? [twice! Three time] Show me. I just wanted to refresh my mind, ha. What mind. Let’s get started.

 “What is the essence of existence? Anyone. Buehler. [E: connections] Connections to what? This is going to be an idio-socratic model. [R: a long time ago you said the essence was information] I did! I did? But information about what? Ha. [E: meaning? ] No. [E: Facebook?] No no. Vladimir. They say Facebook, haha. [E: I thought of information, also meaning. Meaningful, enhancing connections.] Meaningful connections of what? [R: It’s going to be a long afternoon, isn’t it.] It is [E: Of spirit] Spirit is an expression. [E: energy?] Energy is an expression. [R: Hot fudge?] Don’t I wish.

 “Ok, the essence of existence is potential. There are an infinite number of possibilities and also an infinite number of constructive connections of those possibilities. But it is the potential. The information is about what to do with that potential. And meaningful info is about what to do with that potential that leads to more potential. If possibility is limited, then the info is limited. Remember your physical AND spiritual being are just singular examples among an infinitude of potential existences. It’s not all about you! Ok, onward.

 “Comparative states. [R: Does existence have comparative states? E: My thought was no, not unless they’re subjective.] ‘Or unless they’re West Virginia.’ CT! [E: There are less enhancing, less self-sustaining possibilities.] Come on. [E: But that’s largely subjective except the way they affect those around them.] Really? This is a trick question because the answer is yes and no. No, basically because all existence flows holistically from the same potential, so you can’t say that is more real than that. But yes, as you said, expressions of potential are comparative not based on complexity but rather on enhanceability. And the simplest entity and the whole of All are measured by its enhancement of possibility. Next.

 [R: “Does complexity imply better?] I just answered that. I anticipated.

“[R: OK now - What if all existence is combined but there’s one piece missing or one piece left over? Jigsaw analogy. [E: Do you want to answer that? R: I do! Can’t happen, it wouldn’t be true to its definition. So if there’s one piece leftover or one piece missing it means the construct has not been totally achieved. E: It’s not all combined by definition.] Righto old chap. Which is one of the struggles at every level of complexity. Come together into a new entity and if there is some aspect missing or some aspect not fitting into the realization of the fullest potential, and existence strives to be self-correcting. At each level of complexity the entities are either whole and complete or they do not become more complex. And the process at the first connection of totally separate entities and the ultimate connecting of All That Is abides to this. All That Is must be all–no holes and no leftovers. And to get to that grand unity, all elements of it must also be thus. O boy, I used ‘thus’! CT told me I would never use thus, and I...

Here is the text of this conversation:

“What were we going to talk about? [protopian models, thoughts, examples] Ah, protopian. Ok.

“At any level of complexity of spirit there is a pattern of fulfillment and understanding and when an entity gets that, they move on. So. the implication is that all those entities at a level are somewhat unfulfilled—not getting it, work in progress. And there are a few which are works without progress, but they can’t sustain so in time they go bye-bye. So the overall reality is entities capable of fulfillment but not there yet.

“Dystopian models focus on the ‘not progressing’ entities—the ones that don’t get it. Mainline Western philosophy and theology focus on the gap between possible and real, so theirs is a sort of… hmm… metatopia with a focus on the failure side, not the possibility side. So given that the great mass of entities are capable of fulfillment, why focus on failure? Protopian models focus on the great potential. Give images of spirits getting it. Coming together. And let me differentiate between disaster movies and dystopian ones.

“In most disaster movies people rise to be more than they knew they could be. Poseidon Adventure not dystopian, that ship has a minor problem… grrr… ok, major problem. But how the people deal with it is inspiring. Grim survival stories in a basically hostile world are not protopian. It’s a Wonderful Life is. [So ‘The Revenant’ is not, ‘The Revenant’ is dystopian] Revenant is about many getting to their lowest levels. How about models which encourage the best? Imagine how the world could be on the pro side and tell that story. Sing that song. Make that movie. Create that candy bar.

“That is the basic struggle of your times. Defend against the worst or create toward the best. And all I’m saying is the world needs more protopian stories. Get out there and spread them.”

Here is the text of this conversation:

“There may be two paths or more to a conclusion of meaning and the meaning is the same but one may be derivative and the other initial. Chuck had an initial meaning of Mach One plus, and there were others who speculated on it and thought it so, but they approached it from the side of not more than Mach One.

“Ok, I will try another analogy. Someone who knows her herbs makes up a sauce based on their knowledge of herbs and their cultural traditions. Another person just tastes and cooks.

Wintergreen. Would you eat a wintergreen candy? If you were a Brit, you would consider it a disinfectant scent. So if you were a Brit, you would never use it in cooking, but if you simply tasted it, you might.

“So you could reach a point of meaning based solely on external understanding that was the same as experiential, but one would be derivative and inorganic and the other original and organic.

“Now, conflict can arise when people talk about the reason why something is meaningful and the disagreement usually is based on whether the understood meaning has its own origin or is dependent on other systems of thought.

“ ‘People are basically good.’ For someone who bases this on their own experience to be told it is true because of the infinite goodness of the Creator creates a conflict. Both may say the same thing, but ascribe it differently. ‘Don't tell me it's not about my experience, but about your God.’ ‘Don't tell me, you think your experience is better than my God.’ Slap, slap… guns drawn… 100 Years War. [And they agreed as to the conclusions, but it does make a difference in your experience] Because organic is radical and inorganic is traditional. [So from inorganic, you can't go anywhere. It can't lead to anything else or develop into anything else.] Stuck."

Here is the text of this conversation:

June 14, 2020

“Ok. We are going to talk about organic meaning and inorganic meaning--or what might be called deductive meaning and inductive meaning, but I won’t call them that!

“Organic meaning is the meaning which flows from experiences without interference of other systems. Inorganic meaning is the meaning, which is suggested by other systems. I will use a physical reference, but it applies to all meaning.

“Everything that the prevailing systems of meaning said was that one could not go faster than sound, based on some kind of supposition. But then one person, Chuck, experienced it and meaning changed. The presumption was inorganic meaning. His breaking the sound barrier was organic. Sounds simple (pun intended). But the trick is that most entities don't know the influences which may create inorganic meaning.

“We live, and even filter, our experiences through patterns of culture, religion, ignorance, family, nation, and so much more. It is hard to know what is inorganic within a system because the system seems the norm. In fact, the pre-existing meaning may render inorganic meaning. If Einstein had stuck with Newton and his very complete theories of motion, we would not have the advances of thought we have.

“Now mind you, one of the hallmarks of organic meaning is that it is often seemingly speculative. In other words, it poses a new way of understanding that can be discovered to be real in experience but the experience follows the speculation. Almost every system of meaningful understanding that exists once was a speculation: ‘What if?’ Organic meaning is always looking beyond what is assumed to be given. And those who propose it are seen as dangerous because they do not take the givens as givens.

“I invite you to watch and listen as people try to justify actions based upon some notions of inorganic meaning, and see if you can trace the false fronts of their understandings. Lots of inorganic meaning in your world right now. And no system of understanding is immune to this problem.

“Unmasking the assumptions is the challenge, with an understanding that just because something is inorganic in meaning does not mean it is wrong or false, but just not independently grounded in experience alone. This will take more unpacking once you have pondered it for a bit. [That last sentence did not, could not compute it.] Which one, about inorganic not necessarily being wrong? [I can understand how it's not necessarily wrong, but the part after that about it being not completely grounded in experience… I think that's what you said.] Ok.”

Here is the text of this conversation:

“There is this push at the human level of spiritual complexity to be productive--one of the cute eccentricities of that state. But spirit does not have to be productive because it naturally is. So, it doesn't have to keep busy to pretend. The very act of spiritual connection is its own productivity. Being is sufficient. ‘But,’ they say, ‘Rikkity, don't we have to learn and remember?’ Sure. But without the pressure of time, what’s the rush. And I ask you, haven't you ever discovered meaning only after stopping your trying to find it. And also, productivity is such a physical concept. By that I mean, it is derivative of creating a product. Ideas are rarely products.

“Let's talk inspiration, in which that which seems outside comes in--like a breath inspired. To be inspired is not the same as making something. [It's almost like it makes itself] Poof. And it opens doors beyond the limits of the known. To be inspired is to radically let your spirit be open without goal or thought of reward.

“Spirit in connection has the openness needed if it is not busy with trying to fulfill itself. Remember, the spiritual journey is about fulfilling yourself, not striving to fulfill yourself. And that's a big difference.

“[would you give an example? Perhaps an analogy. A metaphor?] No. A tuna fish sandwich on toasted rye… without seeds. Have you ever had such a sandwich without making it or seeking it. Sure. You were hungry and someone said ‘How about a tuna sandwich.’ Remember how good it tasted. But you didn't seek it or hunger after it. So it's surprising taste was all the better.

“That is why spiritual moments can be experienced, but not sought nor manufactured. You can't will one. But a radically open spirit can receive one unbidden and unexpected.”

Here's the text of today's conversation:

“Hi. [hey, sweetness.] So, pith or business. [your choice.] Pith.

 “Ok, what’s this nonsense about life forms. They keep speaking about trying to find life forms elsewhere in the universe. What do they mean, carbon-oxygen-based sustainable entities? Or do they really mean sustainable spirit entities. If life is defined by what you get on Earth at this level of physical development, I would say two things: Who cares! and I hope not! Because to seek out more of the same as some form of validation is so limiting. And all it would mean is the equivalent to saying, ‘Hey, I found another brand of toilet paper.’

 “What if we were instead looking for systems of sustenance that persisted in diverse situations. Like really looking… and I don't mean just sight… into worlds different from our own and asking what's going on there--not as compared to “life” but in its own right.

 “Do we, can we, should we, could we find patterns of meaning and continuity elsewhere. Note, I don't say ‘intelligence.’

 “And why not recruit and use the ethereal arts for this? So don't get caught up in the ‘life form’ scam. I will ask just one question: If they were to find life of a Earth-like nature on Mars, what would that really prove? But to detect some other form of continuity, ahh. And then to ask how many other life forms are there… [opens up a whole world] And do any of the rest of them use drive-throughs. CT. [And if they did?] Taco Bell, universal or just a particular. Krypton Fried Chicken. It would allow us to compare recipes and find out if it really is a secret, the secrets of the universe will never be revealed as simply a duplication of our experiences. That's the pith.”