Saturday, December 2, 2017


Bart’s Excerpts from the Upper Room Dialogues
4 April 2010, Tailgate (First & Second Hour)

Scott: “iON, if I make a change in my present life… any kind of dramatic change; or I become ascended. Let’s say I become ascended, as it were. Does that have a rippling effect? In other words, would that have a ratio of changing my other parallel world lifetimes?”

iON: "Yes. Your perspective would. Your perspective would, and that’s what you’re talking about isn’t it, is your perspective?”

Scott: “Yeah.”

iON: “That’s what it’s about.”

Scott: “Yeah, that’s very helpful… I do have a question about what we were talking about earlier, regarding the change in the molecular weight. I believe I've heard you allude to a change in gravitational force; a change in the boiling point of water; a change in the speed of light - would these all be interrelated?"

iON: "Yep."

Scott: "So, these things are happening together as a function of a ratio of one to the other."

iON: "Yep. And one is having an effect, affecting the other, affecting the other, affecting the other. And that's what this reference was about when the question was asked about co-creation - this is the anomaly that shows up.
Co-creation, once it becomes by default for others, it was the original creation of a human creator. It's like your iPods. Someone thunk of that, and then they did it, and now everybody wants one in their own creation. But they didn’t create it, they have it by default."

Scott: "Thank you."

iON: "You're on the edge. You’re on the edge. Now, here's what's going to happen, since you're asking. Here’s what’s going to happen. In a very short window of time, you're going to notice something in your physical that was not there before. OK?
And you're not going to know where it came from. And you're not going to know how it got there. And it's going to really cause you to pause for a moment.
Now, that's happened to you before, but you just sort of let it go, as an anomaly. OK? But once that starts showing up, this time we want you to embrace it; and literally consider the fullness of what you're witnessing with those lying eyes of yours. And start giving a bit of indulgence to considering.
And then what's going to happen, once that's done - you'll know it's a mark of your time; once that's done, then you're going to notice other things in your world start lighting up.
It may be as simple as, a light seems brighter than it did; or, a reflection from a mirror seems more pungent. It can even be in the form of smells; that you could smell vanilla. And what does vanilla smell like? And then it gets really concentrated to the point where you're like, 'Oh, wow. I’ve never smelled vanilla like that'; cardamom, cinnamon - any other what you call spices… a rose; a flower blooming; or something.
Once those things start showing up, you'll be drawn to them. And as you're drawn to them, it will start plugging together in your labyrinth of your mind, a cohesive bond that will take you to the next layer of questions, and ascending. Very, very, very significant."

Scott: "In my mind, the word, ‘precipitation’… as though things will be precipitating, maybe from just outside my vibrational proximity, they’ll be precipitating into my awareness."

iON: "Yeah, this is also proven how this is not scripted, because what you're talking about is the ‘rain of your reign’. One is spelled r-a-i-n, in the form of precipitation; and the latter is in ‘reign’, r-e-i-g-n."

Scott: "As long as I'm on the fastest path to what is, which is joy, then these should all be welcomed and joyful and wondrous experiences."

iON: "And then you will therefore clearly, and unabashedly --"

Scott: "-- And trust it."

iON: "-- You know, screw trust. What the hell is trust? Trust doesn’t do anything but get you tangled and crossways. What do you know that you trust? Forget that. Don’t even get tangled up in that mess.
Because then you've got to wait on your lying eyes to validate it. And then you've got to have scientific research to see if it’s trustworthy. Then you've got to wonder if you, who did the test or the study, were trustworthy that they didn't cook the books.
Forget all of that trust business. It isn’t getting you nowhere. It hasn’t got you anywhere so far. So, don’t get all tangled up in that business because it will just confuse you. Because then: ‘Who will provide the grand design of what is yours and what is mine?'"

Scott: "It's my call."

iON: "So, therefore, you don’t have to trust or obey… it should be and is."


  1. "So, therefore, you don’t have to trust or obey… it should be and is."

    Reminder Bob, next time your hell selling, think.

    1. I don't have a cell phone and you do. So, I can think and you can't.

    2. but i don't have a cell phone.

  2. Don't lie! Everybody has one (or access to one) - except me. You don't need to own one to be influenced by it... unless you know how to think/perceive THROUGH it.

    Privately, Marshall McLuhan was a Thomist (see the first sentence on p.240 of THROUGH THE VANISHING POINT).

    But in his artistic creations McLuhan was more a Scotist (Duns Scotus) than a Thomist.

    One can see the dichotomies tiered throughout his works: Winnipeg vs. Toronto, Catholic vs. Protestant, South vs. North, French-Canadians vs. English-Canadians, Gnostic vs. Positivist, Form vs. Content, Ear vs. Eye, Tactile Space vs. Kinetic Space, Ground vs. Figure, Programming vs. Accidents/Chance, etc.

    “Publicly”, McLuhan was a contrarian (“anti-environmental”) and seemed to contradict himself at first and second glances. But he was always communicating TECHNICALLY: his audience and the set (“set” being the longest entry in the Oxford dictionary he would point out) determined his posture. The phrase, “the medium is the message”, was the clue to deciphering his motives in his aesthetic efforts.

    So, there was no consistent McLuhan regarding his apparent preferences in public matters (and the “private” was increasingly invaded by the “public”). This applied to his Catholicism, too. People who knew him well (George Thompson, Ted Carpenter, Harley Parker, Barry Nevitt, Joe Keogh, Marg Stewart, and Don Theall), if they deigned to open up to one (as they did with me), all expressed the opinion that McLuhan was not a “Catholic”, at least not in any “regular” way.

    The tetrad is a snapshot of McLuhan’s personal methodology… of his consciousness… and of how he would respond to you.

    That’s the understanding that led me to coin the neologism, “quadrophrenia”. McLuhan was acting out, in an auspicious way, the natural instincts of the present Millennial Generation.

    Therefore, I’m thinking of McLuhan’s quoting of Rabelais in THE GUTENBERG GALAXY (see p.150 of the orange-covered edition) when I suggest: they, the Millennials, would do well to put down their tools and study me.


    You have no idea the breadth of us, you've already been ranked and filed.