EDIT OF YESTERDAY'S LETTER

If able, please delete the post sent yesterday.

Hi everyone. I made a serious mistake yesterday that today’s letter is going to correct.

It turns out that I accidentally mass distributed a post in which I deadnamed my son, Tison.

That was not okay. I’m very sorry that I did that. Sorry to all of you, and also sorry to Tison.

In explanation, but certainly not in excuse of, this error: because the draft of yesterday’s letter to “K” was written over a year ago, it was created before Tison’s transition. When I was editing, I noticed that I had already done a thorough edit (likely intending to have posted it a long time ago, and then just forgetting to for whatever reason). Then because I was rushed, I decided to just trust my previous edit. Thus I didn’t give it the thorough going-over it deserved.

I’m sure people can tell I’m taking this very seriously, and I want to say that while any empathy folks feel for me having made an error like this is appreciated—and for sure, mistakes like this happen—I would ask you not to express that empathy in words. Such words can be distressing to trans folks. The emphasis here needs to be on the how easy it is to correct these errors, not how easy it is to make them. Please know that I am very comfortable both with having made a serious mistake like this, as well as with the measures I’m taking here to correct the error.

(In other words, although I’m taking this very seriously, it is also true that everything’s okay! :-) I’m just doing what needs to be done to repair and correct an error.)

Below, I’m posting the same letter as yesterday, but with this very important correction. It would mean a lot if you could go ahead and delete the version in which he is deadnamed. (I know many people won’t be able to do this, and that’s okay. But if you are able, and care enough to do so, I would be very grateful.)

Besides this, by way of today’s post, I will just say that in preparation for my Artist’s Way meeting this evening, I am going to read about 160 pages of my own morning pages! That’s a lot! Turns out, when you read the whole book, Julia Cameron does have people read the pages again! When I talked about this before here on Substack saying I wasn’t sure what she thought about that, I had simply not read far enough to know this LOL.

So yeah, I’ve got a lot of reading to do!

And, bright side, I’m getting today’s post published earlier than any other day during this whole exercise. Go team!

All right, much love to all.

Here’s the corrected version of yesterday’s post, in full:

Hi K,

I just finished meditating and during it I felt to do a daily download. So I’m here, happy to commune.

We’re happy to have you here.

That’s interesting. I’d somehow forgotten you are multiple, even though I think I knew this at the outset. Are you multiple in the way that we are all multiple?

We are multiple in a slightly different sense in that we are a collection of energies that have no centralized epicenter as one has in a human body, but are instead a correspondent grouping in answer to your particular frequency constellation—we are the grouping that matches that which the whole of you—both corporeal and not—is emitting into the universe. In this way, each person has their own set of guides, even though there is of course overlap in the energies from one person to the next.

Can more than one person have the exact same set?

No more than two people can emit the exact same frequency, which differs due to a multitude of factors including genetics, epigenetics, life experiences, physiology, and the make-up of one’s own inner, higher, energetic self. [Note: reading this back I don’t understand the “no more than two people” thing and it feels like it should have been “no more than one person” but I’m leaving it in just in case the original has significance I simply don’t get yet.]

So one’s higher self is different than the correspondent energy that serves as guide?

This question is difficult to answer with accuracy in human terms. We are a collection of energetic vibrations, and your higher self is also an energetic vibration. Think of notes in a chord on that piano, and the harmonics that those notes then beget from the piano as a whole—the overtones and the undertones and the echoes. Could you really say that the chord itself is separate from those overtones and undertones and echoes—than the harmonics it evokes by its mere being in space in time? So, yes, it is at once separate and the same, one evoking response from the other, and the other also, in the aspect we are less capable of explaining in human terms, evoking or supporting or buttressing the origination of the one. There are systems of call and answer, of back and forth—waves—in play in this whose magnitude, glory and complexity are not translatable into the knowing that comes with human cognition and sensation—but that’s just the beauty of it, because human cognition and sensation are also the very edge of the bubble of consciousness—thin in their actuality, in their fineness—but also the very essence of the expansion of the bubble itself—the means whereby expansion, growth, and largeness of the growing bubble of consciousness is achieved, in all its glimmering mother-of-pearl beauty. We are particularly satisfied with this analogy and the fact that you seem to have understood it as you think of those large, brimming, shining bubbles you have seen in the past, and their growth, and their perfect self containment.

Is the growth and expansion of general consciousness as flimsy as I perceive a large bubble to be?

No. It is not flimsy. It is delicate in that its outer reaches are concrete in the thinnest materialized way—but there is no threat of the “bubble,” so to speak, bursting per se. Or it might be better thought of as that there are billions of bubbles all expanding, all growing, simultaneously, all intersecting, all bleeding into one another in a fountain of continued growth and expansion.

Why does negativity seem to be so critical to this expansion of consciousness?

Negativity is the incorrect word, which we know you knew even as you wrote it (and yet we let it stay because it communicates a misconception effectively). What you are referring to is “contrast” which isn’t negativity. There is contrast in different shades of orange. There is contrast in different volumes of a single note. Contrast is an ordination (in the statistical sense) of vibratory differential—contrast is the seeing of a difference, of a change, of gradients, of a progression. But the thing that matters is that the experiment of allowing form to take place in the explosion of cosmos, which is the source of your perception of space and time—the micro-units of this larger explosion—is a slowing down of a process that in “normal” terms just is. It is something like a huge microscope, or the

I’m sorry, I was interrupted by Tison who was sweet and enthusiastic but I lost the thread of what you were saying. Does what you are telling me imply that time is a fractalized version of another type of time?

In a sense that is correct. It is correct if you think of no-time as a type of time.

I can’t say I understand.

We will try to take you there. Think of the layers of an onion once again, and the way we have described the layering of consciousness—or in your case, the way we showed you that consciousness capacity resembles the perfect cylindrical growth of a chambered nautilus. Time could be said to have something of this expression as well, in a sense. We are referring, of course, to infinity. The idea that you could take what you perceive to be one second, and with the correct tools (which do not “exist” in the realm you exist in ) chop it down into the equivalent of a million years depending on the ways any vibrations within it were framed within consciousness capacity. The same is true for all aspects of what you know to be “size” with your senses. In reality there is not size per se, except that you were given the means to interpret the fragmentary notes of a millisecond in a set of billions of years. Think of the universes that could be contained in a grain of sand, and think of the grains of sand that could stretch, outward and outward from where you sit here at your little desk, typing onto this computer. Think of this “moment,” as you call it, being a a perceived unit within a universe contained with a grain of sand which in another expression is an adjacent piece of matter within another consciousness-expression’s own perceived moment, which is also a perceived unit within yet another universe contained within a yet another grain of sand—and onward and onward, infinitely. These expressions are symbolic, of course, but they give some indication of the sheer vastness of the types of layering that consciousness in its purest sense means.

I think I kind of understand, but it feels so large it stretches my brain.

It stretches your brain because your brain is an exact expression of what this is not. Your brain is meant to give the illusion of NOT THIS (meaning not infinity—or finiteness), even though it is also a mechanism—one of the first in the universe of which you are a part—to begin to consciously understand that the NOT THIS is in fact an illusion. It is the merging of these two things—the isness of infinity with the constraints inherent in material existence in an explosion of energy—that most delights the consciousness of source. There is a crescendo happening, of which you are a part, of which this conversation is a part, that is truly delightful in which the constrained conscious awareness of material form is merging with the infinite knowing of immateriality. There is a glorious blending taking place that is deeply satisfying to all within and without the universe. It could be said to be “very fun” in human terms, but it is so much more—it is life-giving, expansive, expressive, “more perfection” and on and on.

So, taking this back to my query about who you are vis a vis who I am in immateriality…

Yes, you are an expression within this material form which, by its very nature, requires simultaneous expression in immateriality, which is your higher self. And we are the resonant features that that expression evokes—like the harmonics of a piano. This is why it can rightly be said that you are never alone, that your emission of consciousness is never not also a received expression of the breadth of us as well.

But why is it necessary for us humans to go through such shitty things in order to bring more glory to this process?

Your heart is piqued by this question, which makes it a bit more difficult for us to transmit the answer to you in this precise moment—your receptivity is jolted by the pain and your sense of injustice and confusion. But we will share some words in response.

First, it is not that you must go to dark places to bring glory to the process—there is equal resonance when you are experiencing vibrations on the “upper” end of the scale as well as the “lower”—we are a combined counterpart the the entirety of your vibrational range. But yes, to get the completeness of our harmonic resonance, there is an inevitable visit to all “notes” on the scale of your material existence.

Do your harmonics respond with high vibration even when, to me, it feels like a low vibration?

Yes, that’s correct. In fact, it could be said that there is a reciprocal relationship—the “lower” you go, the “higher” we are able to go. We gently regret to confirm the thought you just had: yes, that is part of the point—that materiality allows for dips into ranges of vibrational resonance that we are unable to fully experience in immateriality, and that is part of why we have all agreed to this creative experience—for the expansion it begets.

I was raised in a religion that deceived me, and I worry I am being deceived right now.

Quite right. You aren’t wrong to feel that way. Listen to the music in your headphones—to that deep, loud, reverberating note. It is a very low note. But did you know that it evokes harmonics in a fractal pattern that is unique to it, and that goes all the way up the harmonic scale to the highest points within the spectrum of human musical perception? And that its particular frequency begets a snowflake-like unique fractal pattern that is impossible without its particular resonance, volume, timbre—the uniqueness of its expression in space and time. This is the experience of living. It is living within a range of “low notes” that allow for the distinct expressive patterns all the way up the scale, in new combinations and new fractal patterns that surprise and delight.

Okay, that is not the end of this conversation, but the conversation got weird and personal, and talked about people who aren’t me and haven’t given consent. I also got really pissed in it, and I’m not sure what I think about the “answers” I was given.

Also, I am not sure how exactly to explain this process. It does feel authentic, and like information is coming into my mind from outside of me. I acknowledge, though, that it could be an internal conversation—part of my brain with another part of my brain. But that’s not how I feel, nor is it what I choose, very loosely, to believe. I think there might actually be truth to this being a conversation with an entity outside of myself. But I’m certainly gun-shy about any kind of “knowing” after being raised in a religion that over-emphasized “knowing” things that simply can’t be known.

Okay, for better or worse, I’ve gotta wrap up!

Hope everyone has a lovely night,

Joshua