Resonance experiment #2
(The intent of this article is to provide raw material for future ITC groups that take the worlditcnet approach… in this case, the need for shared afterlife understanding.)
To be resonant, members of an ITC group try to be of one mind by getting consensus or agreement on important issues. And no issue is more basic to an ITC group than its understanding of the afterlife.
So how are humans today supposed to find consensus on the afterlife? There are so many different views!
- Some of us might have a spiritualist or spiritist or mediumistic understanding of the other side provided to us by people who have died and now live over there.
- Others have traditional religious beliefs about heaven and hell or the bardos.
- Many of us just want to know that our late loved ones are in a happy place… somewhere… and they’re thinking of us from time to time.
- Some of us like the thrill of encounters by ghosts and spirits.
- Others have a scientific skepticism about what really happens to us after we die and insist that any evidence must be convincing.
- And many of us are agnostic or atheistic and believe there is no afterlife, and our essence simply dissipates into the material universe after we die….
These are just a few of the many, many notions we humans today have about the afterlife.
There. Is. No. Way… that an ITC group can sustain a resonant contact field with these diverse views among its members.
So the members all need to come to an agreement. The group needs to adopt a reasonable map or model of the other side that each member can accept as his or her own personal view of the afterlife.
If a person finds that map or model to be unacceptable, then he or she shouldn’t join that ITC group.
What’s a Valid Afterlife Model for an ITC Group?
In my years with INIT, I was surprised when our main spirit group, Timestream, made reference to the “Myers model,” a map of the afterlife that had come through transmediums in different parts of the world from the spirit of the late Frederic WH Myers, the British founder of the Society for Psychical Research.
With all of the ethereal brilliance over there on the other side, I wondered, why accept the ideas of a late human being… a dead guy? Why didn’t The Seven ethereals themselves lay out the true nature of the spirit worlds in all their glory and complexity?
Eventually I came to understand that we humans are most receptive to human explanations. Ethereal perceptions would probably be difficult or maybe impossible for us humans to digest.
I think the Timestream spirit group chose the Myers model because humanity today relies mostly on science to answer life’s mysteries, and nothing is more mysterious to most people than our spiritual heritage. Myers, a scientist, had devoted much of his life to bridging science and spirit.
When Myers died and got settled in on the other side, I suspect “the spirit community” around him gave him that nice, concise map of spirit reality to convey to his colleagues and friends and loved ones back home on Planet Earth… hoping that humans might find it credible… something on which to build a consensus.
The reasoning? It’s easier to explore unknown terrain with a reliable map shared by the explorers… a map drawn by a few pioneers who’ve gone that way before.
Also, I suspect that model is well suited to Twenty-First-Century humanity and the way we think about things.
In the future, ITC groups will probably devise more elaborate, more accurate maps and models of the other side, based on what they learn from their spirit groups.
Meanwhile, I think the Myers model would be a good place for ITC groups to start.
Early in my own ITC research, before I’d heard of the Myers model, I tried to boil down the complexities of the spirit worlds into a very simple model that most people could easily understand. I adapted it from the work of George Meek. I think I did a reasonable job of it. I suspect my model isn’t detailed enough to build an ITC bridge around, but it can be useful in giving people a basic sense of what’s going on in the afterlife.
That’s why a main page of this website is devoted to correlating my simple afterlife model with the Myers model that our invisible friends at Timestream used during the time of INIT.
(View the spirit world model comparison here….)
(I made some major revisions to that website page just in the last few days, boiling things down, removing obscure and duplicate information, making things more comprehensible….)
Resonance Experiment 2:
So, imagine that we have decided to form an ITC group, and that I’m one of the people who want to be founding members, and I recommend using the Myers model along with my own simplified spirit world model.
If you were also wishing to join this new ITC group, what would you think about my proposal (as described in the above link)?
Would you want to make changes to it?
Is there another afterlife model you prefer?
In fact, is it really necessary that we all agree on some sort of afterlife model or map?
I think if we can reach an agreement on questions like these to the point that we resonate on the issue, then we’d have one important building block in place for an ITC group.
Macy Afterlife: The Beacon 
Hi Mark!
I personally must diverge from the expression of the need for a group of people to agree upon an afterlife model. I could, however, see the need to agree upon a stance or plan of action regarding life after death as it relates to this physical world we live in.
The reason is, I feel, that there will always be multiple interpretations of what lies beyond…and it is not feasible for there to be only one explanation; as there is not just one known source of information, and therefore impractical for a group to agree upon one specific explanation.
In fact, in regards to communication that occurs via physical mediumship – it is even agreed upon there that there is no common agreement regarding specifics, ie. levels of spiritual evolution, or even the existence of or interaction level with E.T.’s etc. It would seem that the knowledge that each and every soul gains on a personal level will still be their own, and will have some similarities amongst the populace as a whole, while still simultaneously retaining many differences.
I propose rather, that the common consensus (at least amongst laypeople) has much more to gain by focusing on firstly – what resonance means, and how that is expressed in the world today. For example, there is much change and a shift occurring…but it’s not necessarily because we agree on things as specifics, we agree on general ideas as a whole.
For example, there is resonance among my team, and a couple of other organizations out there, as well as various individuals. We do not agree on specifics because our experiences vary. However, learning from the past we have seen and agree on several key principles, of which are presently included:
***The need for cooperation and teamwork
***The need for spreading information regarding life after death (and other topics)
***The need to evolve as individuals spiritually
Now, there may be subgroups within that group that, for example, feel that Preservation of History is important. But that does not mean that all will feel that urge. Yet it is a subgroup that some will understand and resonate with, and others will not. It does not detract from the resonance of the community as a whole, yet it does contribute to the resonance of that specific effort.
I am in a subgroup of resonance with those who work with me in Spirit. There might be no others in that subgroup. Then, there may be others in a subgroup that work with radio, which is larger. Then, there is a larger group that may believe in communication between People in spirit. Then there may be a larger subgroup that believes in communication with non-physical people.
There is and never should be a guarantee that every must agree or think alike in different subgroups. This is where diversity comes in.
As it stands, the present community has agreed, and is learning to come to agreement on one specific thing:
To not judge, to be open to all (with individual discernment), and to work together where feasible.
That alone, is quite a challenge for every human being – it goes against the core of our past learned behavior.
I feel that to begin to break this knowledge down into ‘well, this master says this” but this channeled Spirit says this” and “yet my experience says this” – so now who do you side with? Pardon me for simplifying and diluting it to that degree, my objective is to demonstrate that forcing a need to agree upon something when it comes to specific knowledge or practical matters, may actually be divisive..
I feel that the world right now trying to agree on specific practical knowledge regarding dimensions past our own may actually divide more than bring together.
This is not to say that those of a scientific mind should not attempt to classify what they know in order to better understand….however, for the commonfolk….it may not be feasible. Wouldn’t one think that trying to classify the dimensions past our own is as likely to produce as varied results as the religions of the world have, given their own interpretation of events.
From what I’ve seen – we are scared. Given the occurrences highlighted in great detail in your book Miracles In The Storm, this generation has been unsure – what is OK, what is not? Do we all need to agree? To what degree?
To this philosophical conversation I procure a reply that can only come from my own personal experience:
Resonance does not mean everyone has to agree, only that the more a large group of people desire (intent) or wish for something to be true or come about (manifest in the physical world) – the more exponential the forces are which will be harnessed out of natural law to make those things take place.
The above is my contribution towards a new understanding of resonance.
Now, if ego comes into play for an individual then that person’s intent for self-gain is much stronger than that of the group’s desire, therefore it is not in resonance with the group’s desire to advance the human race, or communicate, or whatever the goal may be, right?
We need only to love.
(didn’t mean to hijack your post, I am and have always been in support of your expression)
I believe that people may disagree with almost everything I’ve written above, yet still be in resonance with certain goals.
Just as some notes from one musical scale are contained within another musical scale also – there are also notes which are discordant. Yet those same notes are still in resonance with another musical key.
The question of the day remains: How many similar notes can we make ring at the same time?
(I realize that the above expression was partially influenced by a dream I had last week, woke up and wrote down. The most important ingredient in any experiment is love. If you have that, there will always be an outcome, and it will always be beautiful. That is the message I was given to convey 🙂
Always a pleasure,
Thanks Keith,
That’s a lot to digest. Lots of good ideas.
Let me think about it overnight.
Mark
Hi Keith everything you have said seems, to me, to be a wonderful philosophy of spirituality in general. ITC is a niche subgroup of people that as you rightly point out have varying opinions, experiences and ideas about the afterlife…although believe and agree they can communicate with the afterlife through ITC. I do agree with your key principles but in order for the progression of knowledge and understanding about the meaning of life for the benefit of humanity surly we need to utilise the profound evidence we have had already… otherwise what is the point in building bridges with the afterlife and gathering information? Ignoring what we know could be seen as procrastination which doesn’t seem to get anyone, let alone humanity, anywhere. My belief is history teaches us that humans will destroy Earth and almost every living thing on it, (CERN could possibly be an example of that, hopefully not). It seems there has to be a structure, ideology and aim built on, as you say, love but also experience. What I say to my 2 year old grandson is no, stand back, the oven is hot…I have to enforce my experience and judgemnt to protect him because I love him and I would say this could be an analogy for a lot of adults that seem to need to be guided. Is it wrong to draw on experience and information from spirit to implement in the structure of as a guide/reference point? The models in this blog do seem inline with all the ITC evidence most ITC researchers have gathered….Non judgement is a wonderfull thing to feel in the heart but on this Earth, in this dimension I don’t think it’s possilbe to practice on a practical level and possibly in a niche group. How can we decide a musical note is discordant if we are truly non-judgemental.
Lots of food for thought there, Kate:
… We can flourish not just with love but also with experience (like the stuff we learned from INIT).
… Strive for non-judgment even if it’s probably impossible in this world of diversity.
… The destructive side of human nature can be devastating when technology (e.g. CERN) is added to the mix, which is what brought an end to the civilization Atlantis and the planet Marduk, according to ITC contacts from The Seven.
Yes, we can learn from the lessons and mistakes of our parents, and our kids and grandkids can learn from our lessons and mistakes. 🙂
Mark
Hi Keith,
I agree with a lot of your points, especially the bottom line: “We need only to love.”
I also grew up here in the States, where we don’t just accept diversity but try to encourage it. The “melting pot” idea for society.
Still, as I recall, our biggest stumbling block in INIT (the one that I believe caused the eventual end of our communications) was differences of opinion that spun out of control.
Our spirit friends (The Seven) urged us several times to put our cards on the table (don’t harbor secret animosities and contentious desires) in order to work out our differences.
So… I’ve come to believe that the best way to deal with those differences in the future, for ITC groups, is to nip as many of them as possible in the bud. Instead of resolving conflicts endlessly, come up with ways to minimize conflicts over the long haul.
And I still think that having a reasonable model or map of the afterlife that every member can accept could be one important building block to minimizing conflicts and sustaining resonance.
Still, you brought up excellent points that I’ll have to digest for a while, as I move on to see what Kate has to say.
Mark
I neglected to say that I fully support the ideas of groups as essential. It is how the world works, natural, and evident.
Please think of my discourse more as describing a different perspective on resonance.
I am not in disagreement. By all means, everyone must “feel” this one out. 🙂
If you were also wishing to join this new ITC group, what would you think about my proposal (as described in the above link)?
Kate says:
Yes I would want to know the structure, beliefs and aim of any group…I wouldn’t join if it didn’t resonate with me although as I found at slimming world I didn’t always agree on the finer details of the diet because I suffer with hypothyroidism but I was happy with the model and aim…it never worked though 🙂 but it wasn’t forced upon me I could come and go and for many it did work. I was also attended a discussion group, several times, at a SNU spiritualists church…I didn’t agree with all of their restrictions about what we could and couldn’t talk about but in order to be in harmony and benefit from the wonderful conversations I knew I had to respect the rules and structure of the group.
Would you want to make changes to it?
Kate says:
Why try and change a group not unless I felt I had something that I believed would be constructive for the group ultimately just leave, accept, find another or start your own.
Is there another afterlife model you prefer?
Kate says:
I think the models are inline with ITC researchers I respect and many other people out there …most of us agree the afterlife goes from dense vibrational frequency up the ladder to the Devine maybe finer details on these models without ITC evidence would put me off.
In fact, is it really necessary that we all agree on some sort of afterlife model or map?
Kate says:
A group has a structure, ideology and aim otherwise it wouldn’t be a group. People have freedom to choose if they join under the structure set out by the organiser. A model is a good reference point in keeping researchers and contributers together in harmony with each other. Whilst I respect everyone has differing ideas, experiences I feel the overall strength of the group as a whole would be heightened if in harmony.
Excellent points Kate and Mark 🙂
I think I could summarize my long post into one sentence:
Resonance can be viewed as the collective power of a large group of people as a whole, rather than just as a large group of people agreeing on one thing.
In my view resonance is a natural force that builds consecutively or simultaneously occurs irrespective of whether that is necessarily what is desired or not.
Case in point: Nikola Tesla’s small piston device was responsible for a small earthquake. He certainly didnt want to create damage, yet due to resonance that was the outcome.
Physical description rather than figurative, but I believe both have the same outcome.
Sure, the world is a place with diversity -yhats why we’re here.
Which is also why I can resonate with your expressed vision of wanting to change the world or learn more about life after death, and at the same time disagree with the proposed idea of accepting a particular map of ethers beyond our own 🙂
Resonant on macro level, divergence on micro.
Yet just by us writing here, we are building energy, as a result of resonance.
Thank you, Kate and Keith!
I’m pretty sure it’s your comments that woke me up in the middle of the night with an idea that could revolutionize ITC research. It was your orchestra metaphor that might have triggered it: If everyone plays in harmony, listeners feel good because of the resonance, but if instruments are off-key or the song is intentionally discordant, listeners bristle.
Well, maybe we need to be thinking of a different kind of ITC group altogether… a sort of ITC Resonant Working Group. It could be a stand-alone group, or it could be a group within a larger group like Keith’s or Craig’s diversified networks of researchers. The Resonant Working Group, or RWG, would be like a nucleus of those larger groups. (Or, as I mentioned, it could be a stand-alone, tightly knit group of researchers.)
I remember INIT adopted a “resonant working group” composed of three members (Jules Harsch of Luxembourg, me the American, a third other person… I believe it was Guenter Emde of Germany at first, and later Adrian Klein of Israel). It was Maggy and Jules who had the inspiration to form an RWG in the first place, and I’d bet they were inspired to do so by our spirit team, especially The Seven.
The problem was, the three of us were never very resonant. Too many personality conflicts and intellectual differences among us… and also some serious conflicts among a few other members that brought things to a boil.
So, what I’m trying to do with this series of articles (resonance experiments) is to figure out how to deal with these human tendencies in order to sustain real resonance as well as humanly possible.
An RWG might be the answer, but I’m still convinced that the members of that RWG will have to be of one mind on all issues critical to ITC… especially the acceptance of a reasonable map or model of the afterlife.
I’ll write more about the RWG idea in a future article, but thanks again for getting me thinking about this.
Mark
sounds great Mark!
Agree on: “of one mind on all issues critical to ITC”
For me, I look at it this way: I experience things in my work with sounds and radio that cannot be conveyed to anyone, nor can anyone share in that experience at this time. When I look at this objectively, I think to myself “if I am experiencing something wonderful that does not translate yet to anyone else, how many more people out there are having the same experience?” So the golden rule applies. Once applied, resonance will happen naturally, doesn’t need to be forced or created.
Because of this – my attitude is: be open to everyone and everything. Almost never make final judgements. Even then…don’t. Every time I think I know the truth or inner workings of someone…I don’t.
The most important thing I have learned….is that I really don’t know anything.
Thanks for a really thoughtful and inspiring article! Your everlasting fortitude has always been something we have all cherished.
Thanks also Kate! 🙂
Thanks Keith, I think your views on resonance and diversity reflect the views of the overall ITC community more accurately than mine do. Sincere good wishes for all you’re doing,
Mark
Thanks Keith I’ve really enjoyed your posts and has made me think about non Judgement a lot.
I think this is right Mark…