Updated: 14 Apr 2014
|RPK Corner in my computer room|
She has made 17 attempts to date (14 Apr 14) during which we both have learned.
Below is a partial transcript of our email conversation up to 6 December:
On 6 Dec 2013 at 10:37 AM (Mountain time) Krya wrote:
Started 8:52 am and stopped at 9:33 am Pacific coast time
Motion sensor flashed red in all three views of array at, 8:55, 8:57, 9:12, 9:14, 9:15, 9:24, 9:26, 9:27, 9:28, 9:32
The motion sensor responds to being called "Diana." Something remarkable is going on here, companion.
Something interesting does seem to be going on, Kyra, but I can't yet tell whether the red object ("Diane"?) has actually moved. It seems that the camera that produces the lower left quadrant image keeps being triggered and I have forgotten how to reverse and review the filmed record to watch the behavior of the objects themselves. I have to seek Quinn's help on this. I hope it is not the case that the equipment is degrading and giving false signals. Such is the frustration of research.
How did you feel when you were in the session?
PS. It just occurs to me that you called the motion sensor "Diana", rather than the actual object being detected. A new question of concentration and awareness? You may have made friends with the sensor, which is trying to repond to your desire. What do you think?
That's exactly it. I've made friends with the sensor, which/who goes by the name "Diana". "She" let me know that she's doing all the work involved and wants recognition. She identified herself at 9:24. Here are my hurried and not necessarily coherents notes at the time points when the red sensor light went off. Feelings of profound quiet joy, love and connectedness throughout. None of the objects moved at all. When the sensor is triggered, if that's what's going on, a red light shows up, which stays in a pulse of maybe 10 seconds at a time.
8:55am Kyra asks the entire array, "Is there anything you want to know from me?" Feeling of wanting to be known by components of RPK array.
8:57 "Thank you, thank you, thank you! Please move. This is a primitive experiment. I apologize for that."
9:12 Sense that for some reasons all the participants in the array are wanting to set off the sensor rather than move themselves.They're demading that their stories be heard, and I'm hearing bare fragments of countless stories from different beings in this expanded array multiverse. Sense of contact strong.
9:12 "Please keep making the sensor go on and off over and over now that we've established contact."
9:15 I can trigger the motion sensor only...interesting.
9:24 "Can I see you all for what you really look like? Thank you." The motion sensor identifies "herself" as Diana.
9:26 "Thank you, thank you, thank you Diana. Thank you all of you."
Diana let's me know that she's doing all the work and wants the credit.
9:27 Personal awareness. Everything is alive, even the incoming email msg that just flashed on the computer.
9:28 "Diana and everyone, thank you."
9:32 Thank you, thank you, thank you, Diana and all."
On 6 Dec at 9:43 PM, I replied:
This is most fascinating! Seems we (you, especially!) have a diplomatic challenge in engaging all the components involved, which we have heretofore been unaware of and have taken for granted! I have some unexpected maintenance and learning to do on my end at this point. So, you might want to rest some more until I manage to get that taken care of, which may take several days.On 6 Dec at 11:07 PM, Kyra responded:
Who would have supposed?!!
Bless you for getting into this level of consideration and awareness.
PS. Am now wondering about the PK "command" approach that Jack Houck used. It's not so much of a brute force attitude as it is an energy that is focused. When he did this, he then let it go and didn't think about it further.... So, if we need to consider the "ego" needs of these congregated tiny entities, we have a major challenge in terms of attitude and/or faith. Yes?
We are indeed on an interesting threshold of awareness here. Yes, exactly what you say as to considering the ego needs of this assemblage, and certainly a challenge in attitude. My faith is solid that we're discovering something new, relatively speaking and intriguing that has been heretofore absent from more mechanistic, perhaps, PK approaches. What do I know? It's all new to me.
Glad to give it a rest for several days until you make new discoveries.
Blessings to you for getting me into this!
On Saturday, 7 December at 8:20 AM, I wrote:
I'm going to post our conversation on my RPK blog so that others, especially Joseph Dillard, Arnold Mindell and the La Fonda Group, can see it and respond as they are moved.
On 7 Dec at 9:44 AM, Kyra responded:
On 7 Dec at 9:54 AM, Kyra again responded:
Would you please re-invite me to the La Fonda group and whatever else? When I sign in, nothing's there. Thanks!
On 7 Dec at 11:23 AM, I replied:
Done! You've been on the authorized list, which I deleted and now re-entered. This uncertainty of your being unable to access the content I don't understand, so I appreciate your keeping me informed of problems. We may have unruly "gremlins" messing with the system that we aren't taking into account or haven't properly acknowledged!! I’m only now thinking about this because of our recent experience, new awareness and wondering. If there is any truth to this, we may have to include and then transcend (get to a higher perspective or level of development of) that reality, as Ken Wilber might say.On 7 Dec at 11:52 AM, Kyra replied,
When you sign in, what do you see? The La Fonda Group blog is the only one that is restricted to invitees only. Despite this, there are 560,011 "+1'd" hits (whatever that means) and 153 viewers for/of the first post and 12 viewers of the second post so far. No one has commented on any of the posts themselves, which defeats the purpose of the conversation (or my understanding of the program). If you feel like it, please enter a comment or two in the comment window of either or both postings. Again, in case needed, here is the blog: http://lafondanmgroup.blogspot.com/.
I'm in now. Trying to enter a comment, but the gremlins won't let me post a comment.On Tuesday, 10 Dec at 7:48 AM, I wrote to Joseph Dillard:
...BTW, there are new developments on the RPK thing that I want you to weigh in on one of these days, if you are still interested…. Has to do with being aware of the tiniest of physical manifestation as being conscious beings… I'm trying to catch up on my RPK blog about it, since I've reactivated that site.
Interesting. This reminds me of an idea in Wilber. He says that consciousness, as prehension or basic awareness, goes all the way down: there is no physical "exterior" that does not have interior prehension. While this obviously evolves, it exists on microcosmic levels, according to Wilber. Since I buy his model, I think this is true, with the caution that one does not want to anthropomorphize this consciousness by making it more than it is.
Kyra….have been trying to catch up on my RPK blog so that you can continue with x = -15….. Here's something interesting about it from my friend in Berlin…. You may remember his comments way back in 2009 in the following link: http://rpkexperiment.blogspot.com/2009/07/first-remote-pk-party.html. (Scroll down to his comments on Sept 19, 2009)On Friday, 13 Dec at 9:40 AM, Kyra replied:
My take is that we can go as far down into the infinitesimally small as the very large.On Friday, 13 Dec at 10:34 AM, Joseph Dillard wrote:
In a sense, I think we are looking at ourselves and our own interlinked function as collective beings (mitochondria, bacteria, parasites and such making up large percentages of who we as "individual" human beings are and influencing, among other things, our perceived individual dietary preferences) when we look at these smaller beings and their agreed collective consciousness to perform certain tasks, as you say.
I know experientially from x=14 that consciousness in the form of the smallest subatomic beings comprising larger beings, not necessarily anthropomorphic, is all screaming out to have its stories heard. Admittedly, I'm making extrapolations here and not just reporting, but it was a remarkable experience.
I also feel like I've been in contact with the array and its component structures outside of the experimental format. They've been heard, and want to stay in contact, and they're reaching out. Quite interesting, to state it mildly.
I've been thinking a lot about "Diana". What "she" is as an individual with unique likes, dislikes and "life is I can only speculate. Indeed, what have we as the collective Eugene/Kyra being gotten ourselves into?
I am again reminded of Wilber's integral, in particular his internal individual and collective quadrants of all holons, no matter how small. The internal individual quadrant has the attribute of awareness, which becomes simpler the earlier on the evolutionary chain you go, but it is always there. Maybe it could be called something like "unconscious prehension," implying awareness unaware of itself. The internal collective quadrant [of Wilber's AQAL map of consciousness] has the attributes of meaning, interpretation, and value. Even the smallest particle embodies a particular perspective that is itself a collective, or a combination of the perspectives of yet smaller holons.
The question is, "how much of this is Kyra's projection onto the collective consciousness of the apparatus and how much of it is innate?" And, if this approach works, the subsequent question is, "Does it matter?" Is Kyra having a dialogue with herself that allows externalities to respond? Or is she actually having a dialogue with those externalities?
Dunno. The second alternative would be totally outrageous to most.
On Friday, 13 Dec at about 2 PM, I wrote:
This is getting a bit wild! But interesting and provocative! For me the boundaries between physics, psychology, sociology (!), even religion and culture are getting blurred in this quest of ours. I'm reminded of Heisenberg uncertainty principle, which describes the uncertainty in determining (measuring) the behavior of subatomic particles in terms of their location and momentum and my "Kovalenko Corollary" (to Heisenberg), which describes the uncertainty of explaining an event versus experiencing it.
And so, I need to step back and take a look at the 'bigger' picture.
My interest in this stuff began on 23 April 1965, when I was at General Atomic in La Jolla, CA, and became aware of George Adamski's experience with ET contacts, beginning with his first direct contact with them on November 20, 1952, near Desert Center in southern California. You can read his account in Adamski's second book, Inside the Space Ships. (It can be downloaded from the Internet.) I was given Adamski's name by my US Air Force officer brother, who (unknown to me at the time) was working on the USAF's official Operation Blue Book, designed to debunk UFO or Flying Saucer reports. You can see that story at the beginning of this RPK blog or on the following blog: www.OrthodoxOdyssey.blogspot.com, by scrolling to the date mentioned above. Reading Adamski's words evoked in me a powerful emotional recognition, which I couldn't rationalize but could not dismiss.
When I learned Adamski had died on the very day my interest began, it became an anchoring synchronicity and I began searching for an experiment that would allow me to reconcile heart with head. This experiment, together with dream technology, has moved me in this direction.On Friday, 13 Dec at 5:22 PM, Kyra wrote:
Given my "interesting" abilities, I have to keep a careful and cautionary editor on my shoulder, so to speak. Discerning fantasy from projection from "reality" is tricky. And here in the waking dream, life is getting very interesting. The array elements are with me constantly, wanting to be heard. A new background noise, metaphorically speaking and even literally, to get used to. A Lakota medicine woman unexpectedly wants to contact me about my visions involving Frank Fools Crow. She claims to be his pipe carrier. I've got a book of poetry ready to publish. Yeah, it's an amazing world for us outliers on the far edge of consensual consciousness.
And, I'm always careful. How much of my perception of "Diana" simply an externalization of me? I don't know, and don't know if I can know. Yes, "Kyra" wants to be heard and recognized. "Kyra" was fascinated with the Princess Diana thing. Does it matter? I don't know. I'm forming opinions, but want to be a tad parsimonious with them.
Still thinking. If the most fundamental awareness possible exists in sentient form, then I'm part of it and it's part of me. There's no separateness, so separate stories may be distinguishable, or not. And who's to say that fundamental connotes primitive? That most "primitive"
subatomic just scarcely awareness-based being, at least in our perception, may be composing the subatomic equivalent of Mozart and reaching out to identify consciousness in ways analogous to what we're doing. This experiment may end up doing more than just moving things in a forced manner.
In my five years of Tibetan Buddhist and Bõn shamanistic practice (the latter being the far more powerful and consciousness expansive), I learned that everything reflects everything, but not necessarily in the projection-based model in vogue now. My eldest son Nick, for example, has had a strong identification with the number "169" since he was a young boy. I've seen that number pop up seemingly at random on the TV screen when Nick was in the room. Just yesterday, I was thinking about "rules" on my way back from prison [ministry], and no sooner did I think the word "rules" but it popped up on National Public Radio in the car. Your name "Zhenya" is my father's name. Ok, so Russians are a bit limited as to range of name choice, but even so... Who's to say that my own name "Kyra/Kira" isn't significant in some manner to you or someone else reading about this RPK study? What an amazing dream state we live in...
Sunday, April 13, 2014. Kyra texts
Dreams scattered last night. You appeared in one, but the context is gone... The bear from the dream of the night before, in which you appeared, without my asking anything, said emphatically and twice in Russian "Vanya ne khorosh!" I have my own self-taught ability to communicate with dream characters, so it's easier for me to go with that than your friend Joe Dillard's protocol. Letting it happen now. First chance I've had to get into it.
The bear is taking off its skin, relieved to be unencumbered by a bear suit. Glowing form starting to be revealed. Bear says telepathically, "I'm the same being who came to you as a child in your dream and taught you how to embrace monsters so their false forms drop away and the true essence teacher peer being remains.
"Who am I? Varly Chorki (sp?) to answer your unasked question, yes, you and Eugene are old soul friends. Time for you two to work together. I came to Eugene in a dream vision many years ago. You two have both been battered and misunderstood a lot by a world largely not ready for your kind. You have people to meet. Other beings to meet, both of you, you are soul healers and truth tellers indifferent to notoriety and reputation. Tell Eugene to take the star in my hand and keep it close. It will help him reestablish contact with me. There are as many of him as there are grains of sand.
"I'm from an old layer of dimensionlessness. Home to both of you. Where the Loving Presence is. Hard for both of you to be separate from it. A clue: remember to separate the wheat from the chaff. Keep thinking that--remember to separate the wheat from the chaff. It'll open doorways for both of you. It also has direct relevance to Eugene's bear dream vision experience. Good luck. I'm here to guide you both until you remember what's been gutted/cut off. I'm just an old friend. Can't say more now. You two have a lot of interesting work ahead of you."
Me again. Bear stopped talking. That's how communicating with dream characters is for me. They talk. I listen.