July 10, 1999
Ark, Laura, Frank, Chloe
Q: And who do we have with us this evening?
Q: And where do you transmit through?
Q: (A) I want to start with some completely unrelated questions. I would like to know if I could have some clue about my genealogical tree: where to search because I know nothing before my grandfather; I have no idea where my DNA comes from. So, where to look?
A: Some lines originate in Belarus. Some can be tracked through the Slovak Republic. Governments in these areas are currently working on genealogical programs, in order to stimulate international tourism in the rest. Family on father's side was "broken up" during Napoleonic raid in early 19th century. Mother's side has a strong cluster in Gdansk region.
Q: (A) If I can ask a little bit more: how was my name deformed? Where does it come from?
A: The name is not deformed, simply altered, due to nationality change.
Q: (L) So, it was originally a Russian name?
A: White Russian.
Q: (L) What was the original before it was 'Polishized?'
A: Website reveals.
Q: (L) White Russian?
A: See previous answers.
Q: (L) Okay, we will be doing some checking. (A) Okay, that was one question. Second unrelated question: should we be thinking of moving to Switzerland? Is it a good idea?
A: You may think of anything.
Q: (A) Okay, no clue there. Now, next question relates to the story of creation which L wrote for the website, and I was reading it and trying to make sense, to make it not contradictory, and I found that it is not easy because many of the concepts that are used during these sessions are somehow contradictory to each other or they don't quite fit with the standard meanings of these concepts, so I wanted to ask for some explanation. First, we were told that gravity is essentially the most universal force and that it is from this that everything originates...
A: Gravity is the binder.
Q: (A) But, my question is: gravity is a term that is defined in dictionaries and encyclopedias and is a term which has a very precise meaning for physicists and mathematicians. I want to know if you are talking about the same thing or if you are using the term 'gravity' to describe something completely different that we know as gravity. Are we talking about the same thing?
A: Well, are you certain these "definitions" you speak of are not limited?
Q: (A) Yes, I am sure they are limited. Nevertheless, they are precisely defined concepts and you are using the same term 'gravity,' so I am asking if we are talking about the same thing, or if you are talking about something completely different?
A: How about a great expansion upon the same concept?
Q: (A) Okay. That answered my question. So, we are using the same thing, but for you it is more adequate or so. Now, I want to ask about mathematical modelling of gravity. The gravity that we know about is modelled by geometry of a curved space. Is the gravity that you are talking about, which is an expansion of this concept, capable of being modelled in a similar way: by geometry?
A: Geometry is the correct model.
Q: (A) So, geometry is the correct model and I understand that we have to just write a generalization or expansion of Einstein UFT, and that this will be the correct model of gravity; is this correct?
Q: (A) Now, the question is: if gravity can be modelled in this way - geometry is the correct model - what do we need more to model also consciousness? Will it be automatically implied in such a model of gravity, or is it something extra?
A: Consciousness is contained within the expanded realization of the gravity model. The Unified Field Theory, if completed, would give one an insight into the synchronous relationship between gravity and consciousness.
Q: (A) If gravity is modelled by curvature or torsion of geometry, mathematically, how would consciousness come out of geometry?
A: That is a broken question. What we can say is this: if one could visualize the inverted representation of the gravity geometric model, one would be squarely on the path to understanding the geometric model of consciousness.
Q: (A) Now, there are claims, more or less, shared by many scientists that quantum theory is necessary to model or understand consciousness. From what was said before, it seems that quantum theory is not necessary, that it is sufficient to have the right geometric model of extended gravity.
A: No, not extended, expanded.
Q: (A) Does that mean that quantum theory is irrelevant for understanding the modelling of consciousness?
A: Quantum first needs to be graduated from the realm of theory.
Q: (C) It means it needs to be proved, right?
A: No. Proving is a concept we should now be moving beyond.
Q: (C) When they said 'graduated from the realm of theory,' I assumed that meant that it needed to be proven. So how does it get graduated? What is the next realm after theory?
A: No, my dear, you are missing the point. the currently imposed protocol for "proving" theories is a bit passe, we thinx. Can you imagine trying to fly a plane if you must first prove that there is a sky?
Q: (C) So, don't try to prove quantum theory, just go ahead and use it, I guess.
A: Pretty close.
Q: (A) Are you laughing at quantum theory?
A: No. We are laughing at 3rd density scientific protocol!
Q: (A) Okay, we are coming to densities. But, before that, one more question: what is matter? How is matter built out of gravity? What forms of gravity correspond to matter in terms of the geometric model?
A: First of all, since we are to answer such questions, you need to make this surface smoother!!
[The plexiglass cover on the board was tacky. We used window cleaner and polished it up.]
Q: (A) So, it was good for previous questions, but not for this! [laughter] (L) Okay, carry on!
A: You live in a "matter" universe, from your perspective. There is an accompanying energy universe which you largely are unable to perceive as of yet.
Q: (A) But, my question was ...
A: Who/what is Mandlebrot??
Q: (A) Okay, you are talking about fractals now, certainly...
A: Are we?
Q: (A) Mandlebrot is the name of a French mathematician who is famous because he discovered fractals and some laws that govern fractals and chaos. But, as to 'what' - some fractal images are also called 'mandlebrot.'
A: And where does this lead, Ark?
Q: (L) But that doesn't answer what matter is.
A: We are bringing you to the place where you can begin to path to understanding this.
Q: (A) That brings us to fractal properties of space time and such things.
A: What if matter were the "half-life" of energy?
Q: (C) Well, half-life is the decay factor. What if energy decays into matter? Is that what they are saying?
A: Be careful of the quote marks, they bring you to the crossroads. As in: "you take the high road, I'll take the low road, and I'll be in Scotland before ye."
Q: (L) I guess that means that we are not to use the usual interpretation of 'half-life,' but that there is a pun, a clue intended here that is to be deciphered.
A: Look folks, we cannot just spill the secrets of all existence all over this board, but we sure can open the doorways, yeah.
Q: (L) That brings me to a little question that I want to insert here. You have said that Service to Others means 'giving all to those who ask.' We are asking, so why aren't you giving all?
A: Not quite. Cannot abridge free will!
Q: (L) Well, my free will says that I want all the secrets of existence! I mean, other people are channeling sources that just dump endless answers to anything and everything...
A: Other people are channeling crappola.
Q: (C) It's a new breakfast cereal! (A) Now, the two main concepts that we are using are dimensions and densities. Again, you use the concept of dimension in not quite the way physicists and mathematicians use it.
Q: (A) Well, I have no idea what this phi is doing here which is probably related to Fibonacci and the Golden Ratio...
Q: (A) Yet, still there is my question about dimensions. Phi is not an integer number and we will look into it. But, what I said was that the way you are using the term 'dimensions' is not what physicists are familiar with in using this term.
A: The trouble here is with semantics: the general public uses that word to mean different things from the physicists!
Q: (C) Okay, phi is a Greek letter but I don't see how that is connected.
A: No, not phi, dimensions!
Q: (L) Define dimension. (A) I have tried to guess what you mean by dimensions from all the things that you have said about it...
A: Our "meaning" is closer to that of the general public definition.
Q: (A) Very good, yet you have said certain things in a context that was more related to the structure of the universe. And we were talking about dimensions also in the context of Kaluza-Klein theories. At one point, you said there are infinitely many dimensions, and at another point it was implied that different dimensions meant different universes, which would mean that there are infinitely many universes. I would like to represent these dimensions in some mathematical model. My idea was that these dimensions were like slices; and each slice is a universe and, indeed, there are infinitely many possible slices. So, that was my idea of dimensions: slices. Is it correct?
A: That is good.
Q: (A) There are infinitely many dimensions because there are infinitely many slices. Now we come to densities. There are not infinitely many densities, there are only seven. Or, are these seven just for the general public and there are really infinitely many of them as well?
Q: (A) Good. So, there are seven densities. Now, how come, there are seven, and not three or five, or eleven? Does it follow from some mathematics?
A: What form of mathematical theory best describes the concept of balance?
Q: (L) Algebra. (A) So, I had the idea that these seven densities were related to what Gurdjieff relates to the number of laws that apply in the various densities; the higher the density, the fewer the laws that apply, which means there is more freedom?
A: That is very close. Consciousness is the key here.
Q: (A) Yes, so my question relates to the geometric model of gravity and consciousness.
A: Picture an endless octagonal... in three dimensions.
Q: (A) A lattice, you mean?
Q: (A) Are these densities related to the mathematical concept of 'signatures of the metric?' I would like to model densities with slices of different geometric properties, in particular slices with different properties of the distance.
Q: (A) There are several people who essentially think the same direction as we have been discussing... they are almost on the same track. Matti Pitkanen is one of them and Tony Smith is the other. How can these two guys have these similar ideas without having access to channeling?
A: Who said they they have no access to channeling? Some channel without knowing it.
Q: (L) Well, Jack channels! [laughter] (A) Today, on this list there was a guy by the name of Boyd who talks about his shamanistic experiences in talking to rocks. He doesn't sound whacko, but he talks to these stones on a daily basis and these stones talk to him, and these rocks have consciousness, they have memories. I wrote to him, but I would like to know if his experiences are authentic and not just his imagination?
A: That is a very broad question, which assumes limits or barriers where none may exist.
Q: (L) Is anyone able to tune into the consciousness of rocks?
A: What if they are really tuning to a consciousness through the rocks?
Q: (A) To A consciousness? Whose consciousness or what consciousness? Universal consciousness?
Q: (A) Another consciousness. (L) Do rocks have consciousness?
A: Refer to material re: 1st density.
Q: (L) Yes, well it has been previously said that 1st density does have consciousness... that even rocks have consciousness and can learn. That brings us back to Boyd, is he, can he, does he tune into the consciousness of rocks and/or other consciousnesses THROUGH rocks?
A: The latter is closer.
Q: (L) So, the consciousness of a rock might not be amenable to communicating.
Q: (L) What other consciousness might a person tune into through a rock? ANY other or a specific other?
A: Closer to former.
Q: (A) If there is consciousness, it means that there is a consciousness unit, and this consciousn unit can be within or associated with some body of some density. Can one tune to consciousness that resides, so to say, in higher densities than third, using rocks? Is it possible?
Q: (A) So, you can tune to dead dudes or Cassiopaeans. (L) Is the consciousness of human beings something that has cycled from minerals to plants through animals to evolve into consciousness of 3rd density mind, as we understand it?
A: In a roundabout way.
Q: (L) Was each of us, sitting here, at any point in the remote past, using time loosely, a critter, so to speak, or a plant or a tree?
A: You still be a critter, baby!
Q: (L) So, leaving out time, the stream of consciousness that makes us as individual units, branches out and extends into lower densities, or connects to them like a tree?
Q: (A) Concerning these rocks, I want to ask about this DNA phantom effect that some Russians recently discovered. They shoot with lasers into this vacuum and record photons with detectors. It detects noise because there is nothing coherent. Then, they put a little piece of DNA there. This DNA has a certain regular structure. So, the photons from the lasers scatter from this DNA molecule in a certain wavy pattern which corresponds to the internal structure of the DNA. Now, they remove the DNA and for a month or two they continue to obtain a coherent pattern from the vacuum as though something was still there. They call it the 'phantom DNA.'
A: The "phantom" is a remnant of the consciousness residue contained within the DNA structure.
Q: (A) Where does this remnant reside? In the vacuum, in the vibrations of the vacuum, in a gravitational field that is inside the vacuum, in some nonlinear electromagnetics? Where is this remnant? What keeps it? Space itself?
A: You hit it pretty close with the last three.
Q: (C) Wouldn't it be like leaving an impression in a cushion?
(A) Yes, but this is a vacuum.
(L) I guess that a vacuum isn't what we think it is. There is something there that is not amenable to our perception.
(A) So, consciousness resides in a DNA structure.
(C) Well, going back to the rocks, is not all consciousness connected?
(A) Yes, but the funny thing about these rocks is that they have the ability of tuning one consciousness to another consciousness so that even if, in principle, all consciousness is one consciousness, yet there are separate consciousness units, which at some level they connect, yet at our level they seem to be separate, so there is something about rocks.
(C) Maybe its the fact that they are so simple.
(A) Yes. But, it seems that a rock would do it, but dirt would not, so what is so special about rocks?
(L) Okay, this anthropologist, Michael Harner, was doing some field work, and it says here that Harner went to the Peruvian Amazon to study the culture of the Conibo Indians. After a year or so he had made little headway in understanding their religious system, when the Conibo told him 'if he really wanted to learn, he had to drink ahayahuasca. Harner accepted, not without fear because the people had warned him that the experience was terrifying.
The following evening, under the strict supervision of his indigenous friends, he drank the equivalent of a third of a bottle. After several minutes he found himself flying into a world of true hallucinations. After arriving in a celestial cavern where a supernatural carnival of demons was in full swing, he saw two strange boats floating through the air that combined to form a huge dragon headed prow not unlike that of a Viking ship. On the deck he could make out large numbers of people with the heads of bluejays and the bodies of humans, not unlike the bird-headed gods of ancient Egyptian tomb paintings.
After multiple episodes, which would be too long to describe here, Harner became convinced that he was dying. He tried calling out to his Conibo friends for an antidote without managing to pronounce a word. Then he saw that his visions emanated from giant reptilian creatures that resided at the lowest depths of his brain. These creatures began projecting scenes in front of his eyes while informing him that this information was reserved for the dying and the dead.
'First, they showed me the planet Earth as it was aeons ago before there was any life on it. I saw an ocean, barren land, and a bright blue sky. Then black specks dropped from the sky by the hundreds and landed in front of me on the barren landscape. I could see that the specks were actually large, shiny black creatures with stubby pterodactyl-like wings and huge whale-like bodies. They explained to me in a kind of thought language, that they were fleeing from something from out in space. They had come to the planet earth to escape their enemy. The creatures then showed me how they had created life on the planet in order to hide within the multitudinour forms, and thus disguise their presence. Before me, the magnificence of plant and animal creation and speciation and hundreds of millions of years of activity, took place on a scale and with a vividness impossible to describe. I learned that dragon-like creatures were thus inside all forms of life, including man.'
At this point in his account, Harner writes in a footnote at the bottom of the page: 'in retrospect, one could say that they were almost like DNA, although at that time, in 1961, I knew nothing of DNA.' So, I would like to know what was the source and nature of these nearly universal visions that occurs in these shamanistic practices; the various creatures including serpents and bird-headed dudes, and so forth? What is the source of these hallucinations?
A: Be more specific.
Q: (L) How can I be more specific? (C) In these chemically induced trances, why is there the common experience of seeing these bird-headed or serpent-like creatures?
A: While you have physicality, some part of you will maintain the connection to its roots.
Q: (L) Are you saying that all these people who say that human beings have reptilian genetics, are telling the truth? Do we have reptilian genetics?
Q: (L) Do we also have bird genetics?
Q: (L) And that is our physical connection or basis?
A: Yes, as third density bioengineered beings, you lead the smorgasbord parade of that which surrounds you in the physical realm.
Q: (A) So, we are 3rd density bioengineered beings. (L) That leads to another question: there is a lot of talk about the Merovingian bloodlines, or the 'Nordic Covenant' bloodlines, or whatever label is put on it, being a 'fresher' version of the reptilian genetic strain. This is represented in the myths of the god Oannes of Sumerian fame, or the Quinotaur who impregnated the mother of Merovee while she was bathing in the sea, and even the wife of the founder of the Angevins, Melusine, variously described as an aquatic fairy or a mermaid. So, there is this claim that there is a stronger and more virile reptilian strain in these bloodlines. Is that correct?
A: It may be.
Q: (L) Well, is that significant in any way?
A: For those obsessed with materialism.
Q: (L) Okay, there is also some newly propagated ideas that the month of August, this year, is going to produce some direful changes or events, or significant events during the 'dog days' of August. Is there anything significant about the coming month of August?
A: what is the point of predicting/warning of direful changes?
Q: (L) Well, my observation is that such predictions are designed to distract people and to keep them worried and upset so they can't concentrate on what is important. Now, going back to Harner's story: this business about these dragon-like creatures fleeing from something. This story gets repeated a lot. Is that an accurate part of the tale? Were they fleeing from something?
A: Maybe, but so what?
Q: (L) What were they fleeing? I'm curious!
A: Fleeing? All life just fills the voids that exist. It is a natural process; existentialism.
Q: (L) As you know by now, I did the radio show. My feeling is that it was not significant in any way. I DID learn that I don't want to go on the radio again! Do you see any repercussions relating to that?
A: We abstain. Okay, folks, goodnight.
End of Session