January 21, 2017

.

Steve has to build in a little rest into his lunchtime, so we have about a half-hour, here.

One of the last pieces of evidence Steve may find for our book, he discovered today. He was revisiting one of Mathew's pieces by his flagship character, the bigotted, back-woods "Ethan Spike." In this episode, Ethan is living with a young woman he intends to marry. He gives a brief rundown of his prior relationship history, starting with me (whom he calls "Betts"). Long story short, he briefly alludes to the way we met, which Mathew had already written about twice before--under two different names, and in two different newspapers. So all three accounts are now tied together, and it confirms some things, which we won't get into, now.

One of Steve's seemingly worst blunders, in his study, was to recognize a daguerreotype of a young woman, and based on the feelings and the memory-glimpse which immediately was triggered, he decided that must be a photograph of me. Turns out that was impossible, and she actually had to have been photographed in the 1850's. I just went along with it--it wasn't his fault. Later, I made sure he found my true portrait. The girl looked quite a bit like me.

But Steve has determined that this "Ethan Spike" sketch--written in 1855--may indeed relate to this same girl. There are several clues which match his memory. If this photograph is ever identified, and if it turns out she had a brief relationship with Mathew, what started out as the worst blunder of the study, may turn out to be the strongest evidence of the study.

That is for the future--and I am telling Steve, it's going to happen. Someone will "ID" her, trace the name, find the correspondence, and "voila."

In that humorous sketch, "Spike" says that even though he was exceptionally attracted to me, when he first met me, still, that "doesn't hold a candle" to how attractive he finds her. This, of course, was because she would be reading it. He had talked about me enough, that she realized that he was actually attracted to her because she reminded him of me, you see. So he had to do something to make her feel better--so she didn't feel like a ready replacement. Which she was.

Well, she wasn't me. She was living with an older man because he had some fame (even though his authorship of this popular character had not yet been found out), and because she believed in "free love." That's right, there was such a movement in that day. It didn't start with the hippies (look up the Onieda Community). She was such an one. These were rebels and idealists--of a sort. Shall I try to explain what is wrong with such things? Ideals are self-existing in the higher spheres. You know this if you have studied Plato, for example. Have you ever watched the film, "Ghostbusters"? Sometimes a piece of philosophy will slip through into the most ridiculous presentations. There, the operators are cautioned not to "cross the streams." That is a little intact remnant of an old teaching, and it means, "don't mix the archetypes." The Ideal of romantic and sexual love, proceeds from the archetype of Fundamental Unity. It proceeds "downward" in Creation until it manifests, in the dual world, as the soul-mate couple, who express and experience unity in the world of forms. Freedom is another Ideal, and it proceeds downward from the archetype of Limitlessness. The soul is without boundaries and without restrictions. Then, there is Philos, or friendship love. Friendship expresses the ideal of commonality, or brotherliness and sisterliness--that all of mankind is one. This comes from the archetype of Sympathy, or if you prefer, Resonance.

In the Godhead, all archetypes merge together seamlessly. But in the dual world of forms, they do not. And if you try to combine them there, you run into terrible trouble. They become quagmires, downward spirals, which will suck the soul downward, and become very difficult to extricate yourself from--addictions, in other words.

Steve is struggling to keep up with me! (My thought-vibration is very fast, from his perspective--he is having to type at his top speed, which, he says, was once clocked in a test at 111 words per minute--and still he is having trouble keeping up.)

But that's all. I won't bore you with more Alchemy ;-). I taught all this to Mathew, you know. Our first psychic said so--and Steve has found plenty of evidence, over the last several years, since the reading. I was no slouch in this field, even then.

So Mathew was not trying to cross the streams. He wanted to marry the young woman, and thus recapture what he had experienced in our marriage. But she was not me. She was bright, and stubborn, and independent; and she would not have remained faithful to Mathew much longer. When he was honest about his intent to marry her--and about his pronounced jealous streak (which he and I both had)--she naturally said "No." And Mathew, being left with a choice of continuing relations with her, or remaining celibate with her, knew it was over.

He was lucky. His honesty and good intentions saved him.

But where was I all this time? Was I sagely looking down, being understanding like an angel? Or was I looking away? Neither. Friends, I have told Steve this, and I'll share it with you, just enough to let you know we are still human. I tried to enter that girl, to experience what she was experiencing with Mathew, because by rights, he was mine and he was actually loving me, not her. I was prevented by the Council here, from continuing, barred from contact, and that was that. Mathew could feel when I left. You see, so long as I was there, shadowing them, Mathew could subconsciously feel my energy--only, he identified that feeling with her. The only way for him to discern the difference, was for me to leave. It broke my heart.

Never think your soul-mate is an impervious, rational angel. We have the same human feelings. We can insulate ourselves from jealous feelings, because we are separated from the physical body--unless you are talking soul-mates, and then all bets are off, because of the depth of that bond which goes back thousands of lifetimes. Especially if you were jealous-natured on earth, as we both were.

So, I share, perhaps, on too personal a level for a public journal. But there are people I want to reach; and so, I must be open for their sake. If you scoff, just take it as nonsense--that won't hurt me at all. The reason is because I can see these things, directly. Can you talk me out of something I can see? Suppose (Steve says), by way of analogy, you admire a political figure deeply. You are watching them on Facebook, live, and some "troll" disparages them ignorantly. Is your opinion altered? Hardly, because you see, first of all, that the "troll" is ignorant, that his or her motives are ignorant, and that they don't know what they're talking about. Just so with skeptics who scoff, when I share something so personal as this.

We can get used to you being with someone else on earth--even a soul-mate--if we have to, by pulling back. We can also get right in there and be as intimate with you as we were in physical life, as I am, now, with Steve. What we can't do is go back-and-forth. So I am urging you not to put your soul-mate through that horror. Either do or not--believe in it, or don't. Resume your relationship across the Divide, or let it go and move on to someone else. But don't vacillate between.

Of course, people will do what they are going to do whether I caution them, or not. Cautioning is for the sake of the one who cautions, because it fulfills a moral obligation. If you see a line of people walking on a trail, and they are taking a right turn at the fork and going over a cliff, is it not your obligation to warn them? Would you not construct a sign--"Warning, cliff ahead!"? But then if they ignore that sign, and fall to their doom, that is their doing. You are not required to try to drag them from the path against their protests, you see.

Time for Steve's lunch nap. He is really worn out, now! (Would that I could stroke his brow and softly hum to him, as I used to do...)

Love to each and all,
Abby