1 result for (book:tes4 AND session:153 AND stemmed:origin)
[... 1 paragraph ...]
(Jane’s psychic experiences continue. While lying in a drowsy state early Sunday morning, she heard the words “twelve-o-five.” They were spoken very slowly, in a husky whisper of a male voice, and seemed to originate just outside her ear. She heard nothing else. Checking with the pendulum, she got the answer that she had received random telepathy.
[... 13 paragraphs ...]
To some extent it also acts like a director of experience and action. It is not actually composed of the past egos, but of those dominant aspects of the various personalities. The inner ego, as action, thrusts in an inward direction; that is, back toward the originating impulse. The outside ego thrusts outward. They are two faces, therefore, and form one of many spheres of action, one pulling inward and one outward.
[... 10 paragraphs ...]
It is therefore obvious why one action affects all others, so intimately that it is basically impossible to speak of one action in isolation. Tension is a condition of action, and an inherent quality of action. The possibilities of action are limitless. Regardless of the origin of any given action, it will never be entirely dissipated. It may pass beyond or through the system in which it originated, but its existence will not cease.
Tension is infinite. Your time system is indeed the result of tension as it is distorted within your own system, yet the distortion itself, as you see, creates a new reality. And that reality then continues to operate, forming like realities of the sort that can exist within the given conditions already set up by the original distortion.
Distortion, in this respect, has a different meaning than the sort of distortion arising from a misreading of information. Yet in some respects it is similar. An original action can never repeat itself in an identical fashion. Its attempts to do so, never successful, result in a kind of distortion, and this distortion then becomes the basis for a new reality.
[... 3 paragraphs ...]
Such a landscape would have to take up as much physical space as the original. But more, it would have to take up an identical amount of physical time, in terms of past physical existence, which is clearly impossible.
Such a landscape would have to be composed of the actual elements that compose the original landscape. The artist would have to assemble mountains of rocks, an infinity, that is infinity of molecules, all equally impossible. The best he can do is create a distortion of the original landscape—a creation of an approximation that can comfortably exist within the limited perspectives with which he can work, and using the materials that are at his own command.
The painting that results is a new reality, but it is also a distortion of the original landscape. The artist may hint at time within his painting, but he cannot capture the physical eons that might be contained in the mountains themselves, which he wishes to reproduce.
However his painting contains new realities, and distinctive ones, that would be alien to the original landscape. The actual trees, had he really been able to reproduce them, would then undergo their seasonal changes. The trees in his painting, being artificial reproductions, do not undergo the same physical changes, even while the atoms and molecules that compose the canvas itself, and all the pigments, constantly themselves change.
[... 5 paragraphs ...]
Mankind is to some intimate degree acquainted with this attempt of action to recreate itself, for human reproduction is here a case in point, each individual attempting to create a replica, the attempt doomed to failure, but the attempt itself resulting in a distortion of the original action; that is, a distortion of the original individuals, and in the creation of a new reality, this process then being repeated indefinitely.
[... 8 paragraphs ...]
Now. Compare a thought, an original thought, with our original landscape. The problem would be then the same problem with which our artist was concerned.
[... 1 paragraph ...]
Likewise, our individual “A” cannot rip the thought out of the context of his own inner electrical system. He cannot send it to individual “B”. He can send an approximation of it, for the attempt to transmit the thought automatically changes the thought itself. He sends an approximation of the original thought, and this approximation is further changed by “B’s” action as he attempts to receive it. Have we this clear now?
[... 12 paragraphs ...]