The Private Oracle

I found this quote from Seth (via Jane Roberts) which made me go "Hmmmn." Last night.

The private Oracle: what does that mean? [...] The Private Oracle is the voice of the inner multidimensional self -- the part of each person not fully contained in his or her personhood, the part of the unknown self-structure out of which personhood, with its physical alliance, springs. Basically that portion of the psyche is outside of space and time, while enabling you to operate in it. It deals intimately with probabilities -- the source of all predictable action. Because of its position it has great powers of communication, both as a receiver and as a sender.

So this morning I was talking to IG when I said,

"So IG, is that the same as you? Can you introduce me to my Pr --"

"I'm your Private Oracle" said this major presence to my front right. No visual or even sense of a form at all, just 'awareness' at that location, but a whole 'part of me that is powerful'. Sort of. I lack words to do this justice.

Definitely NOT the same as IG. I was assuming maybe they mostly overlapped. I asked IG to step into me so we'd be one for talking to him. It. Whatever. I call it him for some reason.

Me: Wow, just like that? I can totally get you?

PO: Yes. I am not difficult to communicate with. You merely have to ask.

Me: I feel like now that I have you I should be asking you something big and I don't even know what. Um. Will I ever be thin?

PO: Most probably not. But you will most likely be thinner than you are now.

Me: Oh. ...um, ok. Do you overlap with IG's energy?

PO: A small amount.

Me: Will you please work with her directly to in some good way? She's the awesomest.

PO: OK.

Me: If I pray toward you can you help me?

PO: All prayer should be to God. Yes, I can help if you ask. I help even when you don't ask, most of the time, but I can be of more direct assistance if you consciously include me.

Me: Wait a minute. Why would some metaphysical aspect of self care if I'm talking to 'God', care about religion?

PO: We are all geared to God. God is not a separate identity or a religious creation of Man, it is all of us, everything. We have always been all-composed of it. We are all drawn forward to that.

Me: Oh. So... like when Archangel Michael picked up my attention praying to him and set it down "at the feet of God" was the feeling... I see.

(I tried various approaches to asking about Remote Viewing skill, finally realizing that what I wanted was kind of like, him to help me, proactively, right now, like how an archetype merges into me or something. It just didn't seem to be working.)

Me: So you can't... "help" me, physically or whatever. You're really just... information. Powerful in that regard, but just info; not 'effect'.

PO: ...basically correct. But the power is always in you. Other things do not give you power. You accept power already yours that you perceive to have been separated from you, is all.

Me: I see. Sort of.

(I find that I'm spacing out and getting lost in major offbeat daydreams like between every exchange.)

(I also find that whatever he says to me, if I don't write it down INSTANTLY, almost as-it-comes, I have forgotten it like 20 seconds later. Some of the above I was able to recapture but barely.)

Me: Why am I forgetting like that??

PO: I operate outside your linear space-time framework. In a way, you perceive me as an 'event', but not quite. So the information is --

My cat Rene crawled up on me and interrupted my attention. I looked at her and had the most bizarre impression. As if she were "a bundle of information" gathered up into what I perceived as "the shape and nature of a cat." I almost had an overlay--more my own than anything from PO -- of the movie 'the matrix' and bodies and structures being 'composed of' the computer code' except this wasn't computer in any way, but something vastly more fundamental. I had the feeling that PO perceived the cat through me, not directly, but perceived it entirely as an "energy-information construct" of which some happened to include the nature of what we perceive to be a cat. But her cat-ness, for lack of a better word (as well as her gender), was "a property of the information-collection." Like... secondary to whatever she really IS.

Me: So can I just call on you?

PO: Of course.

(He says this before I'm 25% of the way done with my question. I feel slightly irked when that happens with identities I'm talking to.)

Me: Is there...... is there something I should... should be "doing" concerning you?

(I notice that he doesn't answer until I'm done. I was thinking like, sharing energy, or whatever, a sense of trade or commitment like with archetypes.)

PO: No, not really.

Me: I think you were explaining why whatever you tell me falls out of my brain shortly after I 'get it' so I forget if I'm not communicating it right that moment.

(I suddenly in the last part of that sentence remember stuff I was reading the night previously from Win Wenger about the importance of saying data out loud to a tape recorder or another person, literally that it was important that it be not just objectified but sort of said so that "someone else hears it". As I finished the sentence and association, PO said:)

PO: I am always part of that you know. Intuitive and psychic information. I am varying degrees of that information, depending on many factors. My nature is one reason it IS worthwhile to have it "reflected back to you" -- in doing so, it is being created inside your reality construct. That gives it the space-time anchoring that is needed in order for it to remain clearly as something innate to your reality, and not vanish from you as soon as a sufficient few moments of perceived-time have moved your attention past where the information was present with you. Words don't explain this very well.

(But I understood it in my head somehow, as if he was helping.)

Me: So in a way it's like... um. Like, when you say something to me, it's not that you are giving me that info, like it is becoming as you say innate to my reality. It is more like I am momentarily present 'with' you which is 'not' within my perceived sense of time, space and reality. So I get the info while I am momentarily 'there'. But I can only hold that there-ness for a couple of moments before I naturally move on and then the information is gone. Like I was looking at it through an open doorway and then I moved onward.

PO: Yes.

Me: But if I communicate it while I'm looking through that doorway, the information is then in the room with me so to speak. In my world. So it doesn't have to get lost. I created it.

PO. Good. Yes.

Me: But so why would my "being aware of it being heard" by another person or tape recorder (I know innately that if I were not aware and it was secretly heard this would not work at all, 'awareness' of it is the key), matter more than my just writing it down?

PO: The reflection is the important part. The awareness. You are remembering this more clearly because you are typing it in your blog and you have this 'awareness' that other people are going to 'see' it. It is functioning the same for you.

Me: So I don't have to say it out loud?

PO: Some people might. You do not. Your 'awareness' related to written communication and your sense of others' perceiving it and reflecting that back is very strong.

Me: Like when I'm typing and I get the 'impression' of the questions and arguments that people will make to what I'm writing so I adjust it for that. That is my 'awareness of the reflection'.

PO: Yes. Good.

Me: Yeah but still, I don't get it. Why is the 'awareness' important and not just the communication? If I write it down it's real in my reality. So why does my sense of someone else perceiving what I write down, change something about it?

PO: Because information does not exist in a vaccuum. Reality, as you yourself have understood it at times, is not about individual things, like objects and properties. It is about relationships. {A subthought arrives AS he is saying this, and somehow I perceive them both simultaneously: "A single point in space-time has no inherent meaning; it is the relationship of that point to other points, which make it mass or emptiness, which make it a right-angle or the apex of a triangle, that give reality 'meaning' to you."} This is like a circuit, like a loop. You must make the connection. The energy needs to flow through the circuit-loop and return to you.

Me: And then it is... "feedback", literally -- like a combination of physical feedback like a microphone screeching, and psychological or brain feedback, like when you can "see" in your reality the result of some action you have taken and learn from it. It's like both combined, and a little more I'm not getting, but I sense I'm getting enough. It is not "fully vested in me" when it is merely going through me; it becomes so when I "move that energy through my reality" and it comes back to me sort-of from the outside--or my sense of from the outside, in a way.

PO: That is correct.

Me: I have the feeling this might actually relate some to the power of ritual or prayer in groups. That it's not just that there is more than one person's energy involved. It is that every person has awareness that every other person is perceiving them and that bounces back to them and that amplified awareness within each person becomes exponential sort of.

PO. Yes. Good.

Me: You don't feel like The Narrator did to me really, but he was also an information source.

PO: Everything you can communicate with is an information source.

Me: Well yeah but I mean he gave whole lectures and so on. Are you part of him?

PO: He is part of me. And something different as well.

Me: Casteneda said it was like a symbiote inorganic or something like that. Like we were paying some price for the information maybe.

PO: All relationships are a trade.

Me: So... somehow, there is something that I am giving to you, that is the exchange for you giving me, this conversation.

PO: Yes. That is always the case, not just with me.

Me: Even with Inner Guide?

PO: I said always.

Me: But -- well ok. So but maybe with IG she is part of me and so whatever I am giving her is good for her, but not bad for me, and --

PO: I did not imply that this is a negative trade or a payment that results in a loss. You are modeling this in the way your culture perceives money, as if it is a limited thing that, once shared, you are then deprived of. That is not part of it at all. You are unlimited. {At the same moment he said that I got a subthought reminder: "Every number is infinite."}

Me: I just had the weirdest abstract 'sense' of something. That I am as much shaped by what I share as by what I take in. Like in art, like if you erase some tiny part here, and add some tiny part there, you have changed the picture equally as much with both actions.

PO: Very good.

Me: That was from you??

PO: Yes.

Me: So these 'subthoughts' and 'overlays' -- they are you communicating with me too, not just my mind bouncing around on its own.

PO: Yes. But as an aside, your mind is never bouncing around on its own. It is always both giving and receiving information, at all times.

Me: So when I'm thinking about something, it --

PO: I said at all times. Whether you believe yourself to be thinking about something or not.

Me: But when my brainwaves are quiet, how --

PO: Your mind is much more than your brainwaves.

{I had several simultaneous overlays at that moment. Some related to the mind being capable of perceiving more than it can actually translate and bring into this 'reality' so to speak, this body, but still being able to 'act upon' such information, almost like saying the subconscious has its own subconscious. Some overlays related to the brain being 'the entire body' and particularly the whole nervous system, which I'd heard before, but to a lesser degree, literally the entire body, and then also other things that we don't consider physically manifest but that are actually part of our body, just energies not physical in this ... whatever it is. Dimension.}

Me: For some reason I'm suddenly thinking that the difference between what I call information channeling, vs. identity channeling, is really just information. That like how you perceived my cat. That the cat-ness and all parts of that were just information too. Like information that by its nature 'packaged' the information-bundle-of-cat.

PO: Yes. Identity is a type of information.

Me: So when I allow myself to get energy but -- with exceptions -- not identities...?

PO: You are filtering the information to exclude the information specific to the identity.

Me: Does this mean it is any less coming from an identity?

PO: No. It just means you do not perceive it that way. And that how the information is organized may be a little different for losing the identity which, in its own way, organizes information into a certain structure. This can cause some loss of the cohesive relationship of the information which means more work required on your part to translate it correctly within your reality model.

Me: Um. So... so maybe the information would be more... better in some way... if I allowed the identities?

PO: There is no better or worse involved. Just different.

{I fell asleep! I wasn't remotely sleepy and I've been up for awhile. Awakening again...}

Me: Where was I. {Reading blog.} I see. OK but -- I don't want to channel, I want to remote view.

PO: They are different interpretive, experiential frameworks. They are both basically asking for information.

Me: Well yeah, but -- but remote viewing 'directly perceives' and channeling is like... asking someone else for the info and them letting them possess you while you they explain it.

PO: Your psychic process is asking the information to come directly, and you translate through your body. Which is not in all cases adapted to or trained to all the information's potential need -- neurally mapped, as your readings {--from Ingo Swann} might have put it. Channeling information is asking the information to be translated and organized by parts of yourself not fully physical as you think of it, and then brought directly through to what you consider your mind. Channeling identities is like acquiring a translation and organization filter which is also serves as the... case, or skin, of the presentation.

Me: Weird. So like... I'm thinking of the other meaning of skin, like with computer software. So like, as an analogy... my viewing is like doing an http GET, stripping all the text and files from the code, logging them in my database, then feeding all those text and file inputs directly into my own browser window in the most simple html way possible. On one hand, the information is local, and more... er, literal or pure. On the other hand if it's a flash file and I'm pulling it directly without a player or script it needs, if my own window/page has not got the "translator/player" setup for certain types of media, I wouldn't be seeing it, or it might be garbled in some code cases. And while I might be getting things more literally into my database, I'm getting them without full context on my screen display and sometimes things are interfering with each other, so how I interpret them might be quite different. {In my head as I say this I see an "interference pattern" like technology.} And I can only really grok so much at once and for some reason I only have 'the moment' of its reception, so I'm using memory and constantly refreshing the page to re-experience it again to remember more.

PO: OK.

Me: Info channeling or 'streaming' is like running a script that in the background, gets the information, then parses it into xml as best as it can, then presents that to me however the parser is written to do. Except maybe it's like, presenting everything as print so I'm not getting the many facets of audio/video or whatever that is the raw source, so it may be more organized but it is less literal and more translated and missing some... "dimensions" of info including specifics one might get if looking directly. Identity channeling is like using a third party software application that spiders out its own version of the data, does its own xml translation, does a custom, proprietary format for presentation, still mostly in text but--um, annotated differently, unique to that software--and then shows it to me in a DRM format. (I crack myself up.)

PO: That {analogy} could work... mostly.

Me: I like feeling "in the center" when information is everywhere and I feel like I'm right in the middle of one of those cooshballs toys or whatever they are, made of rubber band strings, and a 'line of information' goes out from me in every possible direction. Jane Roberts referred to it like paths but for me it's not quite so 2-D. I have a problem getting my conscious mind out of the way enough to not be shifting the flow as it happens though.

PO: Like in your viewing, you need to hold the focus on the target, not on the information you just received about the target, or you shift your point of focus.

Me: Accidentally retasking myself.

PO: Correct.

Me: Like if you were to focus on a bridge during session and say 'metal' and then by focusing on that, retask on 'metal' which is a totally different target.

PO: Correct.

Me: But I don't understand how during info-channeling I can NOT be focusing on the data when I'm the one communicating it. I can't help but find it interesting and have all kinds of thoughts and questions as it comes across.

PO: Attachment constantly modifies the process. When you are least attached to the information you are most willing to not only perceive it as it truly is {during this I had this flash-memory of a moment in 'Anna and the King' movie where she tells the child, 'Most people do not see the world as it is; they see it as they are.'} but to allow the information itself to go where and how it chooses within you and through you.

Me. Huh. I guess that kind of fits with how the more you just 'accept without judgement' information in RV things tend to go better.

I thought for awhile, wondering, what should I be asking? I put on Avril music rather loud at the kid's request, which was a little distracting. I also started installing Illustrator software on her machine over at the side, then returned to focus on my laptop where I'm blogging this and re-considered the Private Oracle. What information is most important to my world right now?

Me: What do I most need to do or change, for the sake of best improving my viewing skill?

PO: Let go. {I had a total flash-remembrance of something the Narrator told me in what, January 1994. It's in Bewilderness or I wouldn't remember it at all. He said: In many lives you have refused to eat; you have refused to "receive" in various ways; sometimes this has been your physical death; you have an unwillingness to allow yourself vulnerability, and this lack of faith in yourself has hindered you.}

Me: That's it? What the Narrator was saying, about vulnerability, allowing to receive?

PO: Yes.

Me: Can you give some specific suggestions for things that would help me do this better?

PO: The process of "doing" gradually helps, so more consistency would help. For you, consistency is much more important than it might be for some other people. {I remember that Inner Guide (IG) told me that too, about meditating with her: 'Consistency is more important than frequency.'}

Pink is yelling and the kid is singing with her, which keeps distracting me as I want to sing along. You know I bet most people don't have to do metaphysics around a 12 year old and pop-rock.

Me: Are there any meditations or something that might help?

PO: The work you do with your guides as you call them, and your IG, is helping in ways that would contribute to your viewing -- if you were doing more of it.

Me: More viewing, or more meditating?

PO: Both.

Me: What is my biggest problem in viewing?

PO: Failure, and your response -- and pre-response -- to that event or possibility.

Me: Why must failure be involved? Why can't I just be consistently good at it?

PO: That answer is a bit complex for this conversation and setting. Suffice to say it is involved, so you need to learn to deal with it. Remember the attachment issue. Ego, attachment, and fear, are all tied together here. Reducing any of the three will help with the others.

I took a break for awhile to sing with Pink and the kid. Most girls want a man with the bling-bling, got my own thing got the ching-ching, I just want real love. Most girls want a man with the mean green. Don't wanna dance if it can't be everything that I dream of, a man that understands real love. OK nobody ever said our music is deep or anything, but it's fun.

Then I wondered if I chose to take a break when the conversation got uncomfortable for me. Remote Viewing is pretty much the worst possible hobby for a control freak, since it requires the polar opposite state of mind. If it wasn't for whatever the hell it is inside me that I feel like I'm in love with, have a huge crush on, that 'feeds a part of me' that has no other source, it's hard to imagine I'd have been obsessed with RV from the moment I heard of it on Halloween day 1995.

I'll come back to the Private Oracle another time. Weirdly enough, there is no weirdness about this for me. I mean unlike Guides which are... well it's just an odd experience for me and I tend to have resistance... unlike IG, who is awesome and "always with me" but I am not always able to hear her... this 'source of information' for lack of a better description, is fully clear, albeit of course it's 'inside me' just like anything else internally communicating with me is.

My sense of "highly present to the front right" receded after a few minutes of conversation and now I don't have any particular sense of presence.

PJ