Dear K,

I will begin by saying how much I appreciate your interest and your efforts to find the truth. That’s what I care about and I don’t care about right or wrong or belief or proof or facts or anything. I’m just attempting to perceive more clearly.

I’m writing you before I write F who wrote me and enclosed a letter that you wrote him but before I begin that, I did finally come up with an ethical way that it would be possible for you to send Russell’s books with the understanding that I would read them as soon as possible and that would be simply be to either order the books sent to me or send them yourself.

I’m sorry that my ethics are so particular sometimes, but it’s part of who I am and once one has any degree of familiarity with metaphysical thought, one is more and more aware that this subjective concept of “I am” is the key to any and all observations. One has to stand somewhere.

You’re not the first person who has fallen victim to my strange ethics. If I can’t do it exactly the way you want it, I’ll say, hey, you’ve got to do it another way, that way I’m not in any degree misinforming anyone or promising what I can’t deliver.

The arthritis that I so skillfully gave myself in this incarnation has sometimes reduced my workload to minus numbers or zero, neither of which is the (plate?) of one can do the kinds of things we call work—communication. I do try, no matter what shape I’m in, to try to focus on the channeling that I do and beyond that it’s pretty much a gauging of my own subjective ability to be a truthful person at that particular time. So my work hours are unknown to me and that is the basic problem—I simply do not know when I could read more of Russell’s work.

As I think I said in my little note to you, I had read a book about Walter Russell that had many pictures of “Swine-ner-ah” (spelled phonetically). I’ve looked for that book, but librarian that I am no more I couldn’t find it because I know I catalogued that book but that was about four moves ago. During Don’s last couple of years of life we moved quite a bit and a lot of things fell victim in one way or another to that repeated moving. It may well be in the stacks somewhere of L&L Research but at this time I don’t have time to read the shelves because I can’t stand up that long.

Let me focus on what I wanted to say to you from your letter to F so that maybe you can help F more.

You said “I am going to throw a spanner in the works by telling you that when Larson said that this is a universe of motion, he was only partially correct. He would have been more correct if he’s said this was a universe of apparent motion.” I would like to address that.

As far as I can tell, when we lose our physical senses and enter a metaphysical rather than a physical universe of whatever positive characteristics, we’re still in an illusion, In fact, there isn’t anything but illusion or apparently anything which is available to the manifest mind, except that still point where the dance is, as Eliot said, which most people see pretty much as a limitless light, not knowing how to describe it better than that. My own immediate experiences of oneness have been indescribable.

I have spent as long as three days and two nights and brought myself back because I simply physically couldn’t take any more at that place. And although I attempted to put down what I was experiencing, it was gibberish—nothing but gibberish, when looked at in terms of a language.

It was sufficiently apart from conceptualization, or the possibility of conceptualization, with words or by the use of evocative words, that I did not think it was worthwhile to pursue, so I simply noted to myself that I could not learn anything at that place because I was not, at that point, a learner, I was not a “self,” I was not an “I,” I was “I am,” and that not manifested but unmanifest.

Now in the desire to seek a higher or more broad physics of the universe, I realize that what Larson was doing was setting up a system which has the basic postulate of a Zen koan, only I think perhaps better. Now this is, you will understand, from the standpoint of a person who has never taken any mathematics courses beyond second year algebra and plane geometry and that was maybe three years ago, so I don’t even pretend to know what I’m talking about, I only have pretty good logic circuitry, I’m a very bright lady. Sometimes that doesn’t even help but in some cases, logic is helpful.

What I think Larson was saying basically with this postulate: All points are moving outward in every direction at all times at the speed of light. He was attempting to put into some kind of words a puzzle that cannot be undone. It strikes me the same way that Zen koans did. I tend to laugh because the universe is truly absurd. However, by positing this, just as Zen koans, I have seen Buddhists go through the most [inaudible], convoluted logic to get an answer to one of those Zen koans. He was getting an answer. To give the guy credit, he got some interesting theoretical structures.

I did not go through the book myself obviously. Don Elkins, who taught physics and had three different degrees in physics and engineering, did go through New Light on Space and Time, I think was the one he went through, and he did every single calculation that the book had and was able to confirm that they all worked, that inter-atomic distances and so forth were able to be theoretically derived from this first postulate. However, I see that as our physics has been able to understand most of what it understands in terms of creating gadgets, by using a field of space and a river of time where speed of light is a constant.

So the metaphysical ground that I would also posit as equally illusory, but other, would postulate a field of time and an apparent river of space, and the speeds of things as perceived by physicists with instrumentation to measure such would find the stopping point at the low end at the speed of light. So the speed of light, to put it in poetry, would be the still point where the dance is.

It is, I believe, posited in the Law of One although I am not even a scholar of that work, that the infinite intelligence that is unpotentiated, that is the true “I am,” from which manifestation arises, is not to be described or to be expressed, but rather when it is potentiated by freewill into manifestations, then Larson’s work is relevant to what this particular manifestation of, let us say, space/time or our illusion is structured.

You’re absolutely right, light does not travel. I believe that to be true. I believe that all motion is apparent motion. I have come to the conclusion long ago that zero is a stupid excuse for a concept, it’s a placeholder as far as I can tell, that’s about it. Now I would think that the quality of spaceholders would be interesting to people rather than the quantity. Why do we need that? Once again, I have to cry off of that because I’m working from intuition and logic, not from knowledge, although you have a tremendous ability to look beyond such apparent education and say “talk anyway.” A good man, sir.

As to the explicating of first cause, I think it is well to observe that anything that is explicable is also manifested and anything that is manifested is illusory. We do not leave our physical bodies, which are illusory and move into a larger reality which is real. We move from this illusion into another illusion and so forth, and I believe that infinity is not a quantity, it is a quality. I do not know how mathematics or physics could approach a description, using number of unity which does not use numbers.

It used to be our joke when we were doing the Ra sessions that Ra couldn’t count any further than one because frequently either Ra would correct themselves or Don would requestion and there would be a correction made and it was almost always about numbers. Moreover, Don discovered that the only place in the book where Ra deliberately misinformed people was in part of a description of the pyramids, which description created a puzzle that did not work.

This was done deliberately, so Don discovered, after working it out to his own satisfaction, putting in what he said really anyone who knew what he was doing would be able to substitute, all the clues were there, and when Ra was questioned about this Ra said “yes” that that was not information that they intended to be known by anyone who would not be fascinated enough to sit down and take the time to unravel that particular riddle. Which I think is fair enough.

Since Don did figure it out and got a confirmation and since Don did say it was very clear when the puzzle was figured, it was our feeling as a research group that far from letting people in on the solution to the particular puzzle, we would leave the manuscript precisely as it was, with a safeguard in place, sort of like teaching small kids not to play with matches I guess.

So even Russell, who I know from previous reading is a most enlightened being, and most beautifully aware of whole is still talking about manifestation. I see no problem in talking about manifestation since it’s all that we have to talk about unless we want to talk about mystery. We have our choice. We can talk about all the contradictions that we see, or we can allow numinous characteristics to mark off a place of mystery wherein we simply cannot go as manifested beings.

As I said, there have been times in my life when they’ve just hit me. I am not one of those people who goes on fasts and prays and stuff like that. I’m a pretty spontaneous person, but it will happen to me and it’s happened to me for a significant portion of time, enough so that I’m worrying to people around me because I’m up all the time. When you’re there, you’re there and you’re certainly not going to sleep.

You can’t bring it back, you can’t describe it. You can try, but it’s like throwing pebbles at a grand work of art and expecting the dents to say something. These thoughts I send to you only because I would hope perhaps you could help F who has a keen and dedicated mind but also a somewhat naive mind in a delightful way. He is one of those people who think the world can be changed as opposed to accepting the totality of the self as that universe which is susceptible to subjective change.

I am of the latter school. I am, however, F’s friend from long long ago and I helped him, as a matter of fact, with editing the reciprocal thing, ISUS it’s now called, until our books came out and I just felt that I would be compromising Larsonian physics because the work that I was doing was certainly not scientific in any accepted term of the word, although it does take the kind of dedication that you would expect, the kind of demands of excellence and shall we say, a method of reproducing a state of mind that could in some way be measured, but not on me, I’m not interested in it and I don’t think that anyone else really should be either, because what works for me, as a unique being, would doubtless be off for just about anyone else, because in their unique balances the techniques that I’ve used would be imperfect or unworkable.

We all come into this field of perception that we call life or incarnational experience with a fairly crystallized set of prior assumptions which we discover I think we have to do that first in our lives before we can do any serious thinking. I was very lucky in that I, for some reason, seemed to remember at birth, as near as anyone can tell me or that I can figure, that what I was wanting to do this time was look at the processes of perception so that by the time I was 2-1/2 I was working on infinity, I could read music, and I think by the time I was three I was reading words. Music comes easier to me than words, apparently. Both my folks were musicians. My father is now dead, my mother sings tenor, having blown her pipes smoking cigarettes.

So Mr. M has the gentlest and kindest personality, he is the most sweet, untaintedly sweet, person I’ve ever met. His whole hope in his lifetime is to advance the cause of the equality of women with men which, to me, is quite irrelevant to the relationship all of us have with the infinite love of the Creator. However, there are provincialisms everywhere and this is one of them and I’ll do my best to help him with that, however, you and he are working on something a lot more interesting, I think.

What do you want out of this study? Are you really attempting to break into infinity with numbers or physics of any kind? I would look at that, were I you, carefully and not weigh anything heavier than any other thing. No authority for instances, no timebound precept, and of course, you’re already doing that. That seems to be pretty much what I had to say.

I do thank you for the offer of the Divine Iliad and I can promise you quite ethically that if it is sent to me one way or the other I will make every effort to get into reading it, but people do come first in my book, because they are “I am’s,” whereas feeding my own intellect with thought is a lesser process to me. I have a spontaneous and an intuitive quality to me that Ra described as purity. Purity, in some sense means that you simply don’t go through a lot of intellectual hypotheses and subsequent research and so forth. You don’t go from A to B and B to C and C to D, but rather the mind which is freed of being on only one track moves where it will and will come out with something which is acceptable to hear but if the process through which that statement were made is known it would be quite unacceptable because the process would make no linear sense at all.

You may being thinking to yourself that this girl probably has a high IQ and a multi-track personality way of thinking. That’s true. My IQ has never been tested because they can’t find it. It’s somewhere over 200. When I was eight my mother was attempting to get me about three grades advanced in school and did a big deal with IQ tests and they couldn’t score me, and they couldn’t score me on the one above that and the one of above that. I think I finally got into scoring range at the highest level of Women College graduates and I did come out on that one at 185.

So really I think that intelligence is quite a bit different from intellectualization and if I have anything to offer a scientist or a philosopher, in particular a cosmologist, it would simply be that I have a fair thinking machine and do not fear thinking or odd processes of thinking or what happens sometimes when I think. Because strange as those paths may be if I simply leave them alone, things will spring up into my mind, usually about as fast as I can talk about them.

One reason I very much treasure communicating with substantive people, especially people that are questioning things is that it makes me consider things I hadn’t bothered to consider yet. And although my answers are almost always unexpected or contain unexpected elements, they seem to help other people to spark off of that and to think in a new way and then to move that spark back to me. I think that the more collaboration that takes place between people of real metaphysical substance—I’m not talking about that horrible noun/verb called “networking”—I’m talking about thinking in whatever way one would do that for oneself, questioning, writing questions to other people, getting thoughts back and so forth.

In comparing each other’s notes from the metaphysical road we all come a little bit closer to the collective, I think Lily Tomlin called it a “collective hunch,” I think I would call it “collective gestalt” which is, in fact, the illusion we share, and that, of course, only within the illusion. Outside of the illusion, either of metaphysical or physical space/time time/space, we’re talking about all things truly being one.

I look forward to anything you might want to say back to me. I give my apologies again for asking if you do write that you write on paper and for having such picky ethics. I’m sure I’ve cost the postman quite a bit in carrying because of that in my time but I do greet you as a person that is really cooking. You’re on to something here and I salute you and I hope you can help F.

If you are interested in other people who are also trying to work on the physics of time/space there is a gentleman, SH., PhD either in mathematics or physics, I’m not sure which, who has done a good deal of theoretic work for which his colleagues have given him a good deal of respect. He has become fascinated with the Law of One and of the people with whom I correspond he is perhaps the most capable, open and personally interesting thinker.

So if you would like to shift to working with another person who is not as comfortable as you are with the Law of One but is comfortable with thinking thoughts to which he does not know the answer, then I would be happy to put you two to together, but I would not do that unless I talked to you both first and you both said “Sure, why are you having to ask me this?” There go the ethics again. Freewill is really important to me and promises are made to be kept not to be gotten round.

So on that untantalizing note, unlike the tantalizing note that you left FM in your letter to him, I do truly wish you well and am your fellow in love and in life and in service to the one infinite Creator.

Have fun and if you get inspired jot me back what you will and I will welcome it. Cheerio.