Here is the text of this conversation: “There may be two paths or more to a conclusion of meaning and the meaning is the same but one may be derivative and the other initial. Chuck had an initial meaning of Mach One plus, and there were others who speculated on it and thought it so, but they approached it from the side of not more than Mach One. “Ok, I will try another analogy. Someone who knows her herbs makes up a sauce based on their knowledge of herbs and their cultural traditions. Another person just tastes and cooks. Wintergreen. Would you eat a wintergreen candy? If you were a Brit, you would consider it a disinfectant scent. So if you were a Brit, you would never use it in cooking, but if you simply tasted it, you might. “So you could reach a point of meaning based solely on external understanding that was the same as experiential, but one would be derivative and inorganic and the other original and organic. “Now, conflict can arise when people talk about the reason why something is meaningful and the disagreement usually is based on whether the understood meaning has its own origin or is dependent on other systems of thought. “ ‘People are basically good.’ For someone who bases this on their own experience to be told it is true because of the infinite goodness of the Creator creates a conflict. Both may say the same thing, but ascribe it differently. ‘Don't tell me it's not about my experience, but about your God.’ ‘Don't tell me, you think your experience is better than my God.’ Slap, slap… guns drawn… 100 Years War. [And they agreed as to the conclusions, but it does make a difference in your experience] Because organic is radical and inorganic is traditional. [So from inorganic, you can't go anywhere. It can't lead to anything else or develop into anything else.] Stuck."

Here is the text of this conversation: June 14, 2020 “Ok. We are going to talk about organic meaning and inorganic meaning--or what might be called deductive meaning and inductive meaning, but I won’t call them that! “Organic meaning is the meaning which flows from experiences without interference of other systems. Inorganic meaning is the meaning, which is suggested by other systems. I will use a physical reference, but it applies to all meaning. “Everything that the prevailing systems of meaning said was that one could not go faster than sound, based on some kind of supposition. But then one person, Chuck, experienced it and meaning changed. The presumption was inorganic meaning. His breaking the sound barrier was organic. Sounds simple (pun intended). But the trick is that most entities don't know the influences which may create inorganic meaning. “We live, and even filter, our experiences through patterns of culture, religion, ignorance, family, nation, and so much more. It is hard to know what is inorganic within a system because the system seems the norm. In fact, the pre-existing meaning may render inorganic meaning. If Einstein had stuck with Newton and his very complete theories of motion, we would not have the advances of thought we have. “Now mind you, one of the hallmarks of organic meaning is that it is often seemingly speculative. In other words, it poses a new way of understanding that can be discovered to be real in experience but the experience follows the speculation. Almost every system of meaningful understanding that exists once was a speculation: ‘What if?’ Organic meaning is always looking beyond what is assumed to be given. And those who propose it are seen as dangerous because they do not take the givens as givens. “I invite you to watch and listen as people try to justify actions based upon some notions of inorganic meaning, and see if you can trace the false fronts of their understandings. Lots of inorganic meaning in your world right now. And no system of understanding is immune to this problem. “Unmasking the assumptions is the challenge, with an understanding that just because something is inorganic in meaning does not mean it is wrong or false, but just not independently grounded in experience alone. This will take more unpacking once you have pondered it for a bit. [That last sentence did not, could not compute it.] Which one, about inorganic not necessarily being wrong? [I can understand how it's not necessarily wrong, but the part after that about it being not completely grounded in experience… I think that's what you said.] Ok.”

Here is the text of this conversation: “There is this push at the human level of spiritual complexity to be productive--one of the cute eccentricities of that state. But spirit does not have to be productive because it naturally is. So, it doesn't have to keep busy to pretend. The very act of spiritual connection is its own productivity. Being is sufficient. ‘But,’ they say, ‘Rikkity, don't we have to learn and remember?’ Sure. But without the pressure of time, what’s the rush. And I ask you, haven't you ever discovered meaning only after stopping your trying to find it. And also, productivity is such a physical concept. By that I mean, it is derivative of creating a product. Ideas are rarely products. “Let's talk inspiration, in which that which seems outside comes in--like a breath inspired. To be inspired is not the same as making something. [It's almost like it makes itself] Poof. And it opens doors beyond the limits of the known. To be inspired is to radically let your spirit be open without goal or thought of reward. “Spirit in connection has the openness needed if it is not busy with trying to fulfill itself. Remember, the spiritual journey is about fulfilling yourself, not striving to fulfill yourself. And that's a big difference. “[would you give an example? Perhaps an analogy. A metaphor?] No. A tuna fish sandwich on toasted rye… without seeds. Have you ever had such a sandwich without making it or seeking it. Sure. You were hungry and someone said ‘How about a tuna sandwich.’ Remember how good it tasted. But you didn't seek it or hunger after it. So it's surprising taste was all the better. “That is why spiritual moments can be experienced, but not sought nor manufactured. You can't will one. But a radically open spirit can receive one unbidden and unexpected.”

Here's the text of today's conversation: “Hi. [hey, sweetness.] So, pith or business. [your choice.] Pith. “Ok, what’s this nonsense about life forms. They keep speaking about trying to find life forms elsewhere in the universe. What do they mean, carbon-oxygen-based sustainable entities? Or do they really mean sustainable spirit entities. If life is defined by what you get on Earth at this level of physical development, I would say two things: Who cares! and I hope not! Because to seek out more of the same as some form of validation is so limiting. And all it would mean is the equivalent to saying, ‘Hey, I found another brand of toilet paper.’ “What if we were instead looking for systems of sustenance that persisted in diverse situations. Like really looking… and I don't mean just sight… into worlds different from our own and asking what's going on there--not as compared to “life” but in its own right. “Do we, can we, should we, could we find patterns of meaning and continuity elsewhere. Note, I don't say ‘intelligence.’ “And why not recruit and use the ethereal arts for this? So don't get caught up in the ‘life form’ scam. I will ask just one question: If they were to find life of a Earth-like nature on Mars, what would that really prove? But to detect some other form of continuity, ahh. And then to ask how many other life forms are there… [opens up a whole world] And do any of the rest of them use drive-throughs. CT. [And if they did?] Taco Bell, universal or just a particular. Krypton Fried Chicken. It would allow us to compare recipes and find out if it really is a secret, the secrets of the universe will never be revealed as simply a duplication of our experiences. That's the pith.”

Here is the text of this conversation: “Let's try some pith. I talked about eyes and ears and skin and even taste. But you see in your existence, it is the senses that gather information for you. Long ago, those simple creatures who let part of their neural network wander away from the brain found that having means to ascertain physical reality would ensure survival. ‘If I can't see the bad thingies, they might eat me. And if I can't hear you, you can sneak up and on me.’ So the physical forms created means to apprehend the physical realities. “You are, in your bodies, well-tuned receivers of the physical data. Have any idea how much it takes to walk down a street and survive. Try it blindfolded and with ear plugs. But hey, you developed the apparatus to deal. “Ok. That's for this physical level of complexity. Your spirits can develop likewise. So, in a non-physical realm, slowly but surely, you develop other organs of sense--spiritual organs of spiritual sense like the eyes and ears and skin that learned to reach out and perceive. So, the spirit can reach out and perceive, and it's not in physical ways but it is still an extension of your being. “What would spiritual perception be like? You already glimpse it in what are called ‘spiritual experiences’ in which nothing is seen or heard or touched or tasted or smelled, but still you know it happens and you are aware beyond your physical senses. So ponder this: What do spiritual eyes see, what do spiritual ears hear, etc., etc. And what senses have you no names of, which are cognizant there. [such a great question. Cause you know, I have had spiritual experiences. I have felt things physically, but they're not physical.] That's not the spiritual side. That's the physical relating to your experience of spirit. [Right, right, right, right, right. And it's important to know the difference.] And often peeps confuse and mistake one for the other. [I can totally understand that the problem is separating them] And in more complex beings, there are both glimpses of what is beyond spirit… another topic… and vestiges of what was experienced physically. Here I might say ‘I know,’ but then I remember when I could say ‘I saw’ even though I don't see now. Ponder all that and come to talk about the ‘beyond spirit’ comment."

Here is the text of this conversation: “Ok. We have been speaking of fulfillment being dependent on a perceived lack of fulfillment. Let’s unpack that more. “So, somebody suddenly finds themself (I use the plural to avoid the absurd binary gender restrictions and the impositions about gender stereotypes, right Pat?) They find themselves on top of Denali (and note, I don’t use the imperialistic Mt. McKinley. I am so SC.) [spiritually correct] So, they are suddenly atop Denali. Have they achieved anything other than a great view? No. “The top of any mountain is only meaningful in the ascent from below. See what I am saying. Fulfillment is not meaningful if spontaneous. It must grow from a perception of possibility through the trials of achievement. That’s it.”

Here is the text of this conversation: “Let’s revisit the central maxim of SP: ‘Live and Enjoy.’ “Until you can live and enjoy, learning and remembering is empty, and without learning and remembering there is no complexity enhancement to the spirit – and so forth. “Live and enjoy. But some say that their lives are in such dire straits that they have nothing to enjoy. Which begs the question: Are you the product of your life or the creator? Tell me about any life circumstance and I can show you many spirits for whom that situation was filled–to some degree–with joy. I am not saying glee, but at least a sense of meaningful understanding which brought a sense of well-being. “So, it is not life circumstances that dictate if that circumstance is to be enjoyed, but rather the spiritual experience of it. “You want an analogy? Ok, licorice-flavored ice cream. It is up to you, and not the ice cream, as to whether you will enjoy it. Likewise, caviar… and everything. When I say ‘live and enjoy,’ I mean to live in such a way that one is always looking for the potential bits of joy and focusing on them. “To truly suffer is to find all paths to joy blocked by one’s approach unlike to life. Life, like all existence, always has some positive element. And each spirit has the choice to recognize it or not. That’s the message.” After hearing this podcast about "Live and Enjoy" you might want to explore more at: http://www.spiritualpersistence.com/whatis.htm (http://www.spiritualpersistence.com/whatis.htm) and http://www.spiritualpersistence.com/pointsarch.htm (http://www.spiritualpersistence.com/pointsarch.htm)

From time to time, we have what we call a “bench,” a conversation with several spirits. Back in 2017, we talked with two spirits in such a bench session. “Greetings, o temporal ones. People often think of schemes in a negative way. Schemers are seen as bad. But isn’t All That Is a scheme and a schemer of which we all are a part? Do we not blend our own dreams and plans into the cauldron of being? Do we not shape and are we not shaped by the shared creation of all the dreams and plans?” “Here’s a thought: All dreams and plans are for naught in the fullness of All, and yet the fullness of All is NOT without the plentitude of dreams and plans. And lest you think your dreams and plans count the most, the simplest Jurassic worms’ sense of being and becoming count as much as yours. It is not a hierarchy, and not a competition, but a sense of holographic unity and necessity and cooperation. If you at your level of complexity can dismiss or diminish another’s, then what value do yours have? “Unless you are All, then you must be a contributing part. No better or worse than any other part. Got it?!” “Ok, next. ‘Me?’ No, her. ‘O’ “ “Hello. I don’t understand why he calls me ‘her’ because HS is an entity of essence beyond gender as am I, and you and them and Sandy... woof? Yes! “The markers of identity are useful for the earliest building blocks of any complexity, but they must be overcome in the process of development. At less complex levels, they too had dividing and divisive categories which seemed to propagate their identity but look, hey, if they had been essential you’d still be living them out. But you don’t! And things like gender will fade away before you move on. And then you can try to use new identifiers of difference until you learn and remember to focus beyond the differences. And so on and so on and so on.”

Here's the text of this conversation: A Tale of Gratitude “It is about the poorest person in a town--or at least the person with the smallest house and the least amount of money. But before I get to them, let me tell you about the neighbors. “The mayor lived in a great mansion. But when Thanksgiving came, the mayor decided not to have any guests because guests always seemed intimidated by the great house. “Next door was the butcher, a jolly sort, who made sure everyone had the proper meats and poultry for the occasion. But when the last bird had been sold, there was none to be taken home, and how could people be invited in to an empty table at the butcher's house? “And the same at the wine merchant’s. How could anyone with wine left out of their own list, host an event? “The greengrocer had a large bird, but no side dishes. And so it went: baker, candlestick maker, and the like. Even the carpenter had sold the last chairs, but to the house which now had chairs but not a table. “So, everyone was at home alone--some with a bird but no rolls nor butter, and others with a great number of side dishes but no turkey. And over the town, there was a collective sigh… aww. But then the smallest door on the smallest house with the fewest chairs and no table and no food banged open and a voice called out: ‘My door is open. My heart is open. My life is open.’ And so the town all packed into the little room with nowhere to sit and nowhere to put down food and the platters were passed again and again, and everyone ate crammed in like sardines. And they were all happier than they imagined they could be. And then a small voice called out: ‘This is the best!’ And a cry arose: Amen. And the owner of the littlest house was filled with joy. Do you know why? Because a holiday of abundance is always not about what you don't have, but what you do have. “As the stars filled the heavens and the sated townsfolk filled the street, it was a time of shared spirit that none had planned and all had loved. For the mayor didn't need to set a gala, the butcher didn't need to cook a roast, the baker didn't need to knead anything, etc., etc., but they all could share the spirit of it all. “Happy T-giving.”

Here's the text of this conversation: “Fabric of being, strands of experience, woven fine but durable. Point out to your clients that the durability of their memories indicate the strength of the intertwining of their lives. If it had not meant something for both of you, the memory wouldn’t be so strong and lasting. We move on, not because we cease to remember, but because we remember and understand.”