[Yesterday I/we had an internal dialogue (unpublished) , about this word “though-bullet,” and how I really do not like it for obvious reasons (Heather was killed with a bullet through the head). Some suggestions were kicked back and forth, but no real resolution came from it. I pick it up again now.]
H: After yesterday’s dialogue I sat down and tried to find the right word for “thought-bullets.” Basically the idea is that these contain “the essence, the gist, the substance, the nucleus” of the thought. As if the totality of a thought is in it, conveyed at once, enfolded, and as it then unfolds, words are wrapped around or come out of it.
So all these words would be pretty good, like “thought-essence, or thought-gist, or thought-nucleus.”
V: Well, which one do you like?
H: I thought nucleus was pretty good, as a nucleus is 1) made up of subparts, so not its own entity, 2) the word means seed, so it can grow out of it.
V: But? ….
H: I don’t like the idea of how a nucleus is more stable, because these “thought-bullets” just flash into existence very briefly.
V: So then thought-particles (like electrons, photons).
H: Yes, I guess that would be OK.
V: Now look, the problem is, you are operating here at the limits of language. Essence, nucleus, “thought-bullet” all have some meaning and you are just trying to find the right access. There very well is no perfect word. So don’t get hung up on it. Just use one, or any interchangeably. Actually, to use them all, makes the whole concept more fluent, because that’s really what it is: fluent thinking, structures arising out of little vortices in thought. And these “thought-particles” just flash into existence very, very briefly. They just pop up on the radar screen, and if you don’t notice are gone already.
H: OK, so let’s then leave it at that, thought-particle, through-nucleus, thought-essence, whichever makes most sense at a given moment.
V: Or in a given total situation.
H: OK, is there more today?
V: If you want, but we sense you are preoccupied a bit.
H: I admit to it.
V: Remember, we need an empty space, receptive, in which we can place, locate, a thought –particle.
Take the notion of a wave and particle [as an analogy]. The wave aspect is then the substratum of thought, all tacit knowledge in a given situation. It needs to be loose, not tense (tension) or a thought cannot come up undisturbed. This wave then momentarily collapses into a given thought-particle.
And if your perception is attuned properly, you will recognize it, have a proprioception of thought so to speak. And the particle then unfolds into language.
Yesterday, you had another idea. State it.
H: Yes, so if we read a text, the information of that text is spread out in time as we read it. So when we read, we “gather together” the meaning of that thought, one letter, one word, at a time, and reconstruct it in our brains, minds, consciousness. But in the thought-particles, all the meaning is contained at once. Enfolded.
V: Exactly. The time aspect is taken out of it. The gist, the essence, the idea is there at once, and then your mind has to wrap words around it to make it fit. So nucleus is pretty good a word, because the nucleus does attract the electrons around it, bind them.
So let’s back up. When you first talked to Heather after you had her celebration of life, her funeral, you did notice how sometimes the answer was there before the question was fully posed in words? That’s the same idea. Your question also first is a thought-particle, which has to unravel into words. But mind to mind communication really does not need that. That’s why the answer was just there already, fully formed. You see?
And a thought already contains the seed of the next thought. As the thought unfolds into words and language, it unfolds into the whole situation, the condition, “the talking together,” and this then will contain the next thought as a seed, a thought-particle, to come up. It is a very fluent process.
H: So why then are there sometimes gaps or pauses?
V: If the total situation either produces too many probabilities, or if nothing can be brought up. Then it has to pause, to collect itself, to gather. You know? Especially since you operate in language.
And it does have to do with state of mind. Right now, you are semi-receptive. Compare that to the other times.
H: Yes, this flows not as optimally as at other times.
V: And then there are pauses. There is nothing to connect to. You see, there has, underline that, to be something to connect to, for us to locate/place a thought-particle for you in the substratum of thought. And if there is none, then there is a pause. Then it does not flow.
Remember, it is not that we 1) have all the answers, but 2) more importantly, you need to have something inside of “you,” well, your 3D mind, that can server as a thought-particle. We can only tie together existing stuff into something new. So if it is an “affect.” Not an “effect,” but it affects you.
H: I just learned this: an affect works on something existing, rearranges it. An effect produces something new.
V: Well, to affect may also create something new, but it works, here, on the already existing mind. So, it is just connecting already existing thought, “sub-thought,” information. And that has to be in place. Then something new can be created, a new understanding, even a “paradigm shift.”
H: Collapsing existing “wave” into a new thought-particle.
V: Yes. And if you are perceptive, and attuned, sensitive, relaxed, you understand, you can sense these coming in. That then is a proprioception of thought. In normal thinking, you are too agitated for this. Like right now, there is a lot of background chatter. But you have sensed what we talked about here.
H: Yes, very much so.
V: And we feel your willingness waning. Time to stop.
H: Probably yes. I was not sure if I had the right state of mind to do this, but it turned out OK.
V: We very much “think” so.
H: OK, thank you.
Namaste — I bow to you and the Divine in you.
Copyright © Hanns-Oskar Porr