Session 200704201

“Lost in Translation”
“Forum Jeopardy: Focuses”
“The Alterversity”

Session 200704201 (2249)
“Lost in Translation”
“Forum Jeopardy: Focuses”
“The Alterversity”

Friday, April 20, 2007 (Private/Phone)

Participants: Mary (Michael), Jeremy (Opan) and [friend]

ELIAS: Good day!

JEREMY: Hello, Mr. Elias! (Both chuckle) My friend sends her love and greetings. Although this isn’t a shared session with her, I will be asking the questions since she is currently sleeping.

ELIAS: Very well.

JEREMY: To begin, I would like you to please use your infinite abilities and validate the information that I have offered to Steve Lord about his brain clamp.

ELIAS: (Pause) And what precisely have you expressed?

JEREMY: Pretty much that it’s not about actually eliminating the brain clamp, which was his previous approach, which was founded within his association and perceptions that he previously generated before deciding to move into [inaudible] aspect shift where he is choosing to alter his perception and he’s playing with a lot of his abilities and he’s redefining his reality through this brain clamp, which is beneficial to him and is not something that has been thrust upon him. And he’s using it to gauge his responses about certain things so that he can view his previous associations and his automatic responses and the way that he addressed things previously, notice that, taking that information again, and also make a different choice or expand on that to see how he can make a different association or move into a different direction within generating a different perception of himself. Although at times he creates the automatic responses for a familiarity within this new movement, in this unfamiliar movement, which also helps him with any overall movement. It helps him adjust.

ELIAS: I would—

JEREMY: That’s the gist of it.

ELIAS: I would agree.

JEREMY: All right. And he previously spoke to you about this, which I wasn’t aware of that until he actually got a little into the discussion. And I know that this is secondhand information, but based on what he expressed to me that you expressed to him, I am understanding that there's a slight differentiation, and within that differentiation I’m aware that regardless, what you had offered and what I had offered actually are in cooperation and in part agreement with each other and are not contradicting or at odds with each other, what you would say to him and what I am presently saying to him. Correct?


JEREMY: And what me and him are presently exploring is an expanding on what information you did offer him in that moment.

ELIAS: Very well.

JEREMY: And his dream state, which is in a similar imagery to the information you offered him, is that moment previously when you discussed this brain clamp with him about the imagery of this specific term “give up.” It’s not so much about giving up what he wants to create or giving up taking control of the situation within the typical manner of control, but it’s simply give up the previous perception or the previous approach, which is trying to eliminate this within opposition.

ELIAS: Yes. You are correct.

JEREMY: All right. So recently he had been creating a different experience with a brain clamp and even had a reduction of its symptoms. Even though he’s not 100 percent objectively clear on what he’s doing, he is recognizing that it is associated with mine and his discussion and our consultations and that sort of thing about this matter, and that is actually what’s producing the difference. He is actually through interacting with me, he’s allowing himself to open up to these new potentials and become more familiar with this different perception, which is helping lessening his opposition which is creating the [inaudible], right?


JEREMY: All right. And the fact that he has expressed his inner self is communicating to him a specific way so that he learns more about himself, he actually is understanding of what I offer to him, which I view as obvious. Regardless of the terms that he is using to himself, he and I are actually saying the same thing. Whether he says inner self or I say himself, that is actually the same thing; just the words are different.

ELIAS: Yes. You are correct.

JEREMY: All right. And so, even if he does say that it’s his inner self, the understanding or the communication is what’s important, not necessarily that he is using words like his inner self is teaching him or he’s learning something from his inner self. The point is the communication, not the words. The words are of secondary importance, right?

ELIAS: Yes. You are quite correct, for individuals may incorporate different words but mean the same.

JEREMY: All right. Because I’ve had a few people be triggered by the terminology, and they are thinking that I'm telling him something totally different than what’s actually being expressed. And I even know the challenge to bring it to my attention so that I’m actually allowing myself to address the control issues by not having to have everyone see something a certain way, but also at the same time clarifying what my actual intentions are within that sharing.

ELIAS: Yes. I am understanding. And I also understand that this can be a challenge at times. But in interacting with other individuals that may be expressing in different terms from yourself, it is significant to recognize when you are actually expressing the same but incorporating different words for the same meaning, and in that, allowing yourself to relax and accept the other individual’s terminology, knowing that you are communicating with the same subject and that the actual words are not as important as what you are addressing to.

JEREMY: Right. Because even in my interactions with him, I knew that he was saying different things than the way that I particularly phrased them to myself or even other individuals, but I was also aware the he was understanding of what it was I was offering, whether it was more of a subjective understanding or objective or a little bit of both. And I knew that within interaction with other people that he would be expressing in similar manners, because that’s how he expresses to himself. And these other individuals are translating what he translated from me, so it’s almost thirdhand, so to speak, and that was the issue they were having with the terminology, correct?


JEREMY: Because with different individuals, I do assess the individual on an individual basis (laughs) and interact with them accordingly. So, the fact that one individual I’m interacting with is expressing something to another individual about what I said would be different simply because they are expressing through their grasp of what was offered. And then the other individuals, the third parties, are translating that based on THEIR terms, which it might not compute because they’re not the ones I’m actually having the exchange with about that particular subject matter.

ELIAS: Correct. Yes. I would agree, and this is quite an accurate assessment.

JEREMY: All right. I just need that for the record, so to speak. (Both laugh)

Rodney: what I offered him about justification and how he utilizes his core truths, would that be pretty much valid?

ELIAS: And what did you express to him?

JEREMY: Well, I gave him a couple of examples about like when he was arranging dinnerware or silverware at the dinner table and we were addressing to, just casual chat, and he’ll be arranging the silverware, and I told him that that was an example of how he is using imagery, physical imagery of him taking information, assimilating that with previous information and organizing that into his new expression as relates to his intent.


JEREMY: He is using justification to organize the information, because that’s efficient for him based on his intent.

ELIAS: Yes. You are correct.

JEREMY: All right. Now, would you say that you have been giving more yes answers or more correct answers to many of the questions asked by many within the forum due to individuals being more aware of themselves and actually allowing more than we had in the onset of these sessions?

ELIAS: Yes. Quite so. Which is quite understandable, for within the ongoing time framework that individuals have been interacting with myself and interacting with each other, they are quite definitely widening their awareness and offering themselves considerable volumes of information. They are becoming more self-aware, and they are understanding more of these concepts and even allowing themselves to generate actual experiences in relation to the concepts, which generates the concepts into reality rather than merely intellectual.

And in that, they are paying more attention. They are listening to their own impressions and their intuition much more. They are trusting their intuition and their impressions much more. And in that, they ARE generating more correct responses and what they are offering now—many of them—is information that they have already offered to themselves to myself merely for validation; they already know.

JEREMY: So, overall for the record, having said that, what you just said, you are encouraging us at times, which is part of the yes answers based on the individual’s situation, the question and the individual, but also you would not be encouraging to the point where quality of the information or accuracy is reduced?

ELIAS: No. I would not compromise.

JEREMY: All right.

ELIAS: No. That would be—

JEREMY: [Inaudible] for the record. I’m sorry. Go ahead.

ELIAS: That would be a definite factor. I would not move in that direction. And if an individual is offering a question that is not accurate, I do express that to them. I am greatly encouraging of all individuals in their endeavors and their movement, but I would not move in the direction of compromising my interaction with any individual merely to be encouraging or boosting of their confidence or their trust. That would be contrary to my own direction in interaction with all of you, and that would be contrary to the direction of the least distortion.

JEREMY: Right.

ELIAS: In this, I may modify at times HOW I am expressing with individuals, as you and many other individuals may be noticing as of late, in which I am expressing to individuals in terms that they generate a greater understanding of. For previously, I have offered information in a particular manner for a particular reason to, in a manner of speaking, steer away from individuals’ generating certain automatic associations with certain terms. But that is not necessary any longer, for I engaged that action for a long enough time framework with all of you to accomplish allowing all of you to somewhat disassociate with certain terms which trigger certain automatic responses and beliefs. But at this time framework, that is not as necessary any longer, for you all have incorporated enough information and have assimilated enough and have widened your awarenesses enough that I can now speak to you in a different manner that you can associate with more easily and not necessarily move in those automatic directions of old associations with beliefs.

JEREMY: There’s one technique that I employ at times, going back to what we talked about previously about the communication mattering more than words in most cases, the wording being secondary. But there’s some individuals – and again, it’s all individual situations and scenarios – but there’s some individuals that I do use different terminology to spark that, a different direction, or get them thinking in different terms. But in a couple of specific recent situations that really hasn’t been necessary, because to me that would have been distracting from the actual point of the interaction, which is with the individual we talked about previously.

ELIAS: Yes. I am understanding.

JEREMY: So, I can relate, my friend. (Both laugh) Thank you for clarifying that. And I would like to interrupt the regularly scheduled broadcast to extend a deep appreciation for you and for this phenomenon, and for myself for actually incorporating it, because it’s actually meant a lot to me.

ELIAS: You are quite welcome. And the appreciation is quite mutual. (Chuckles)

JEREMY: Are airplanes one of my friend's dream triggers?


JEREMY: All right. Does she have any other dream triggers that might be helpful for her to bring to her awareness?

ELIAS: Yes, and I would be encouraging of her to pay attention. (Both laugh)

JEREMY: All right. Glasses are one of my primary dream triggers, correct?


JEREMY: All right. What did the ThunderCat toys mean to me in several of my dreams? Or just toys in general? Because there’s many dreams where I find myself finding these chests of toys, and I’m usually wanting to keep them and play with them and things like that. There’s like this fondness attached to it.

ELIAS: This is a symbol for you of playfulness and the value of it.

JEREMY: Gotcha. Next on our list is… my friend recently had an emotional reaction after seeing a painting of Lord Byron. She also got the name Caroline in a dream. Can you confirm that my friend has a focus as one of Lord Byron’s lovers whose name was Lady Caroline?


JEREMY: All right. And Lord Byron, a focus of her essence twin Elan?


JEREMY: All right. Are you and myself observing essence for a lot of time to Lord Byron?


JEREMY: All right. And is his cousin Ann Roma Cortin a focus of Elan?


JEREMY: Do Tarmike and I share a focus where we were both scholars in the 1700s, his focus viewing my focus’ methodology or approach as unconventional? Or am I viewing a connection between us during the Ming life focus?

ELIAS: Both.

JEREMY: Both. Actually, I even had in the question written down “a little of both.” (Both laugh)

All right. How many focuses do Tarmike and I share together in total?

ELIAS: (Pause) 103.

JEREMY: All right. And you gave the essence name Tarmaque once, ending in Q-U-E, and one ending in K for my friend's partner and for her brother-in-law, but of course with slightly different spellings. Are they… have a connection in essence based on the essence name? Are they the same essence, or…?

ELIAS: No. They are not the same essence.

JEREMY: Connected to fragmentation?

ELIAS: No. There is a similarity of tone, but they are not the same essence and they are not fragmented of each other.

JEREMY: All right. Does Jenner/Tarmak have a focus as a centurion in Rome named Tutus Pullo?


JEREMY: All right. And was his friend, centurion Lucius Vorenus, a focus of Malhai?

ELIAS: Observing.

JEREMY: Is Ereef an OD focus of Malhai? OD meaning other-dimensional. I’m sorry.


JEREMY: All right. And is Adonis an other-dimensional focus of either you or Elan?

ELIAS: Not myself, yes to the other. And once again, I will reiterate: these are translations. Therefore, they are not singular. Therefore, more than one individual could be represented by that translation.

JEREMY: All right. So, is the Monkey King considered OD to us, other-dimensional, or is that just simply a myth based on our history?

ELIAS: That would also be other-dimensional.

JEREMY: All right. And then it is not necessarily singular?

ELIAS: Correct.

JEREMY: All right. And the focus of Gunkoo, that’s not a singular focus either, correct?

ELIAS: I would express to you, any of these characters or expressions are translations of a type.

JEREMY: Gotcha.

ELIAS: Therefore, any of them can be the representation of another focus of several or many individuals within your reality, for they are the representation in translation of a type of focus, not an actual singular focus.

JEREMY: So if this was a Cosmo quiz, it would be “Which translation are you?” (Both laugh)

ELIAS: In a manner of speaking, yes.

JEREMY: (Laughs) Gotcha. Is my focus Seth Bullock married to a focus of Twyla named Martha?


JEREMY: Woo-hoo! That’s one I know about! (Elias laughs) All right. Is Saul Star, the best friend and partner of Opan’s focus Seth, a focus of Ray? [Background exchange with friend]

ELIAS: Now; would you repeat that question? (Laughs)

JEREMY: What’s that?

ELIAS: Would you repeat that question in a clearer manner? (Laughs)

JEREMY: Is Saul Star a focus of Ray?


JEREMY: All right. Is Madam Dora DuFran in Deadwood a focus of Ling-Tu?


JEREMY: And is Omar focused as a man named Dan Doherty?

ELIAS: Observing.

JEREMY: All right. Can you confirm that the third brother Henry is a focus of Sarano, who Friend’s focus Molly had a brief affair with after Peter and Frank were killed?


JEREMY: All right. And is the author Henry Miller a focus of Sarano?

ELIAS: Also observing.

JEREMY: All right. And does Mark/Sarano have a future focus named Gerrard in the City during 2308?


JEREMY: All right. Would Lord Byron’s directing essence be a forum member?


JEREMY: All right. Under the category of Lord Byron as directing essence, I will take “What is Ordin?” for 100, Alex.

ELIAS: (Laughs) No.

JEREMY: Okay. Negative 100. So, "What is Patel?"

ELIAS: (Laughs) No.

JEREMY: (Laughs) I just lost Forum Jeopardy. (Elias laughs) I’ll sit down and write my memoirs. (Elias laughs)

Under the category of Opan’s future focus number, I will now attempt to redeem myself and ask, "What is 479?"

ELIAS: Correct.

JEREMY: Woohoo! (Both laugh) Well, I didn’t state the value, so I don’t know if I’m negative or positive anymore. (Both laugh)

All right. A future focus of Monn: would his name be Rafael, and would he be a dream artist?

ELIAS: Yes! You are correct.

JEREMY: Okay. And he basically makes paintings that the individual can interact with, kind of like of our virtual reality in our present time framework, right?

ELIAS: Similar.

JEREMY: All right. Do my friend and myself both share that Gerard focus with Sarano?


JEREMY: All right. And is their connection in that focus a relative in the immediate family?


JEREMY: All right. Have I left an imprint or a type of energy deposit in the City of my personality so that people can actually be interactive with myself just as if I was actually there, even though I was disengaged at that point, of this focus of Jeremy?

ELIAS: Yes. You are correct.

JEREMY: All right. So, long after I have shuffled off this mortal coil, people can actually interact with my personality energy deposit as if I was actually still there?


JEREMY: All right. Just clarifying. Alexis, my future focus: is she in the early 2200s?


JEREMY: All right. Becca and Robert at the Alterversity: are they there at the same time?

ELIAS: Somewhat overlapping.

JEREMY: All right. And this is the same Alterversity that is residing in the City, correct?

ELIAS: That has not actually been inserted yet.

JEREMY: The City or the Alterversity?

ELIAS: The Alterversity.

JEREMY: Okay. It’s in fluctuation then?

ELIAS: It somewhat—

JEREMY: As far as where to be inserted?


JEREMY: Are there different branches of the Alterversity, inserted or not? Like is that part of the potential that’s fluctuating?


JEREMY: All right. And that’s why a lot of people associate alterversities, like one here in Florida, one in Canada and one elsewhere?


JEREMY: Okay. And what do you mean it hasn’t been inserted presently though?

ELIAS: Just as you each have been inserting certain structures and tiles to the City, and have been, in a manner of speaking, generating a contribution to its actual construction, this would be the same action with—

JEREMY: I understand, but there’s been a lot of questions based around interacting with the Alterversity as if it’s an actual establishment within this dimension, within our physical geography. Those interactions have been occurring because it has been created, it just simply hasn’t been officially inserted yet?

ELIAS: In a manner of speaking, yes, you are correct. It HAS been created. It IS real, and you are generating participation in it and it is functioning. It has merely not been PLACED yet in a physical location.

JEREMY: So… But within the future time frameworks of those participating, are they participating within the probability of where they are probably inserted, the Alterversity?


JEREMY: Okay. Gotcha. What time framework is Becca and Robert participating with the yet-to-be inserted Alterversity?

ELIAS: (Laughs) And your impression?

JEREMY: I’m still thinking around the late 2200s?

ELIAS: Slightly more future.

JEREMY: 2300s?


JEREMY: Like early 2300s?

ELIAS: Yes. (Pause) I would express that in all of the participation that many of you have generated with this construction, you are collectively creating a very strong potential that it will be a structure in the City, but you have not actually inserted that yet.

JEREMY: Okay. Is one to three Alterversity focuses—my three focuses—interacting with Trina? [Background conversation with his friend] Is any of my three Alterversity focuses interactive with Trina in the year 2121? It doesn’t have to be physical, to clarify my question.


JEREMY: Yes. My male Alterversity professor, Robert, he studies or researches artifacts or something that is connected with another focus of mine that would be considered an archeologist. Does he actually participate with that archeologist focus’s find, even if that archeologist isn’t objectively aware of it?

ELIAS: At times. Not always.

JEREMY: Gotcha. Am I one of the ones decoding all this stuff in the future, all this work?

ELIAS: Partially.

JEREMY: Gotcha.

ELIAS: Not as a main objective, but at times, partially.

JEREMY: All right. Was my friend's focus as personal mate on the Titanic, Roberta, a focus of Madison?


JEREMY: And my focus, the young steward who went down with the ship that Madison had a flirtation with, was he named John Butterworth, often called Jack?


JEREMY: All right. Do I, Monsieur Oba and my friend share 17 focuses together as immediate family members?


JEREMY: All right. And does my friend share 101 with Oba?

ELIAS: As family members?

JEREMY: Ah no, just in total.

ELIAS: Correct.

JEREMY: And do I and Oba share 187 focuses?


JEREMY: I shall now begin worshipping [inaudible], because they are completely accurate. (Both laugh) Surely, I jest.

Does my friend share 175 focuses with Ray?

ELIAS: 157.

JEREMY: Aha! And are 35 of them future?


JEREMY: All right. How many do I share with her futurely? All of them, the 38 that she has?


JEREMY: All right. How many focuses does my friend share with Tisara?

ELIAS: 46.


ELIAS: 46.



JEREMY: Tisara with myself: could I beg to venture for 100, "What is 62?"

ELIAS: Correct.

JEREMY: All right. Does my friend share 105 with Reese?


JEREMY: Do I and Reese share 195?

ELIAS: 194.

JEREMY: Okay. How many do my friend, myself and the magnificent Reese share together?

ELIAS: 81.

JEREMY: All right. And Orna and my friend share 51 focuses?

ELIAS: Correct.

JEREMY: Orna and myself share 63?

ELIAS: Correct.

JEREMY: All right, Bridgy had an impression she shares 94 focuses with my friend. Can you please validate that for her?


JEREMY: And how many does she and myself share?

ELIAS: And your impression?

JEREMY: Oh. Back to that. (Both laugh) All right. (Pause) 72?

ELIAS: 71.

JEREMY: 71. [To his friend] Hear that? It’s all or nothing. You either get it right or you get it wrong. You’re wrong, lady! (Both laugh)

Is this, since my increase to 957, these shared focuses that you’ve been giving presently today?


JEREMY: All right. Bridgy would like to know if she has a focus as the very first astronaut, named Yuri Gagarin?

ELIAS: Observing.

JEREMY: How many do I and Muriel share since my increase to 957?

ELIAS: And your impression?


ELIAS: 33.

JEREMY: 33. And me and Grady share 17-plus to 33?


JEREMY: All right. How many does Muriel, Steven and myself share together, the whole shebang in total?

ELIAS: 48.

JEREMY: All right. Did either five or six of my friend's nine princess focuses go on to officially hold the title of queen?




JEREMY: All right. You just said that – this is for the record, because it’s been brought to my attention which, I am understanding of the difference, but you just said that 33 I share with Muriel, yet I share 48 the three of us. Would you like to explain that?

ELIAS: You expressed in total, and in that, you are not qualifying intimacy but that you participate.

JEREMY: Okay. That’s what I’m understanding, because this will be a similar example to what you offered to me, Mikah and Carmel previously, where Mikah was understanding the numbers, of how one of us could have a different number than the other, which would kind of in his view discount all the numbers. He just wasn’t computing. But is it a similar example?

ELIAS: Yes. (Pause) Also, I will reiterate once again, which you are all aware of, these numbers are not static.

JEREMY: I understand.

ELIAS: They fluctuate continuously. Therefore, in any moment each of these numbers can change, for you add and subtract focuses continuously.

JEREMY: Okay. Thank you for that. Is Hadassah, aka Esther, one of them? One of the nine princesses that my friend had that became queen?


JEREMY: Is King Xerxes a focus of you?


JEREMY: All right. First you confirmed that Carter is observing of Catherine of Aragon, but a few sessions later you confirmed it was his focus and also another person’s focus too. Did they both direct at different times temporarily?


JEREMY: All right.

ELIAS: But is observing throughout the focus.

JEREMY: All right.

ELIAS: Which—

JEREMY: Carter is?

ELIAS: Yes. Which is not unusual.

JEREMY: Right. She lived to be 51 years old. Between what ages would she have been Carter’s focus?

ELIAS: Within the central ages, which would be approximately within the years of the twenties.

JEREMY: All right. Is Catherine’s mother, Isabella of Castilla, a focus of my friend?


JEREMY: All right. Is her father, Ferdinand II of Aragon, a focus of Tarmack with a K?

ELIAS: Observing.

JEREMY: What is Mikah’s girlfriend Carmen’s essence name? Would it be something like Shayla?

ELIAS: That is a focus name.

JEREMY: Shayla is a focus name. Okay.

ELIAS: Yes. I would express the essence name is Sancho (SAN-choe) S-A-N-C-H-O.

JEREMY: Sancha?

ELIAS: Sancho.

JEREMY: Okay. Does she have a famous focus as someone in the field of medicine? Would it be Elisabeth Blackwell or Marie Curie?

ELIAS: The first.

JEREMY: All right. What about a famous artist? Does she hold a focus as a famous artist?


JEREMY: All right. Is it male or female?

ELIAS: Female. Russian.

JEREMY: All right. I take it that it is not Salvador Dali.

ELIAS: No. A Russian.

JEREMY: Right. No, I understand. I’m just… for the record. This is how the question was given to me. This is Mikah, so I’m covering all bases. (Laughs)

Could you give her a time frame, an area to investigate? Or is Russian enough?

ELIAS: That is enough of a clue.

JEREMY: Okay. She wants to know if her and her friend George share a connection beyond shared focuses, maybe essence twin or soulmate, yada yada.

ELIAS: Soulmate, yes.

JEREMY: All right. Is the goddess Colly an other-dimensional focus of my friend's friend Gloria? And is Gloria’s essence name Jayada?

ELIAS: Yes and yes.

JEREMY: All right. Is Todd Sumafi aligned and soft?


JEREMY: All right. And he would like to know his essence family belonging?

ELIAS: Gramada.

JEREMY: Okay. How many focuses does he share with Friend?

ELIAS: 26.



JEREMY: Is his essence or focus color a shade of blue?

ELIAS: Yes. Very light blue.

JEREMY: All right. Is Jennifer his essence twin?

ELIAS: No. But would be considered a soulmate.

JEREMY: All right. Is he directing essence of Pharaoh Hatshepsut's lover Senenmut?

ELIAS: Observing.

JEREMY: And is his friend Paula directing Hatshepsut, and is Jennifer a focus as their daughter?

ELIAS: That would also be observing, and to the second question, no.

JEREMY: All right. Is the girl in some of Reese's dreams a future focus of my friend named Trina? And are there times that the Trina in his dreams is not my friend's focus, reflecting interaction with my friend's focus but is a focus of himself?


JEREMY: All right. But the other Trina is a focus of himself?


JEREMY: All right. Is my friend's focus of Trina in the times Reese is interacting with this focus of my friend offering shift assistance as a primary element to their interactions?


JEREMY: All right. Do my friend, Oona and Malhai share a focus that parallels the book "Memoirs of a Geisha"?


JEREMY: And would my friend's focus be Chiyo Sayuri?

ELIAS: No. Continue your investigation. (Both laugh)

JEREMY: And would Oona be Mameha?


JEREMY: Would Malhai be The Chairman?

ELIAS: No. (Chuckles) You are connecting to incorrect connections. (Chuckles)

JEREMY: [Background talk with friend] Are the women reversed? Oona being Chiyo and… the translations, that is?


JEREMY: No. [To friend] You are wrong, woman! (Jeremy and Elias laugh) It’s okay. Would you agree, Elias, that my friend still gets a B for effort? (Both laugh)

ELIAS: I would express, excellence in the attempt.

JEREMY: So, I would not be a translation of Pumpkin? Or I mean Pumpkin be a translation of me, that is, in my friend's paralleling?


JEREMY: Would that also be a no?

ELIAS: Correct.

JEREMY: Okay. That one I actually didn’t feel so much. [Background talk with friend] But it is an actual focus that parallels the book, right?

ELIAS: Yes. Yes. You do incorporate actual focuses that DO parallel that story.

JEREMY: Okay. Does my friend OE and/or counterpart Clara Bow?

ELIAS: Counterpart.

JEREMY: Okay. Does my friend have a focus as a famous actress in the 20th century?

ELIAS: Yes. Very early.

JEREMY: [Inaudible to friend] say yes. (Laughs)

ELIAS: Very early.

JEREMY: (Laughs) Very early.


JEREMY: All right. And would that be Veronica Lake? Not [inaudible] of Veronica Mars.




JEREMY: All right. Percentage of shift insertion on average for those us representing the United States of America: what would that be? We’re going for gold this year, so let’s make it good. (Laughs)

ELIAS: Approximately—although this fluctuates also—I would express presently 55.

JEREMY: All right. Omar would like to know how much of the shift HE has inserted into his officially accepted reality, as translated into a percentage?

ELIAS: I would express approximately the same.

JEREMY: 55%?


JEREMY: All right. Illiani wants to know his shift insertion percentage as well?

ELIAS: Approximately the same.

JEREMY: Okay. And Gail’s percentage: should I count that amongst the same?

ELIAS: Approximately 50.

JEREMY: 60, or 50?

ELIAS: 50.

JEREMY: I’m sorry, Elias. 60 or 50?

ELIAS: 50.

JEREMY: All right. Has mine went up 5% since the last time we spoke?

ELIAS: Yes, I would agree.

JEREMY: Okay. Margaret has a focus as the Aquana woman in the picture named Maria Luisa?


JEREMY: All right. Can you confirm our family tree of the Mayfair witches focuses?


JEREMY: All right. Is the world the Mayfair witches are in, is that an alternate earth?

ELIAS: Express how you are defining an alternate earth.

JEREMY: I’m defining it as their world is similar to our society, our rules, our laws, our goings and comings and yada yada, except for the fact that they incorporate witches and werewolves and vampires and ghouls and goblins and yada yada. It’s like our earth but with that slight difference.

ELIAS: Which would be other-dimensional.

JEREMY: Okay. So, that would just be OD. It wouldn’t be alternate earth. Like we on earth don’t have a probability or an alternate expression where everything’s the same except for we incorporate those elements?

ELIAS: Yes, you do. And they would be classified as other-dimensional realities that are somewhat parallel to your own but are not within the same dimension as your own.

JEREMY: Okay. So, it’s closely associated with the world, but they aren’t the dimension that we have?


JEREMY: Okay. I guess that’s why I need to clarify as OD within my own definition is the degree of closeness between one dimension and another.

ELIAS: Yes. And there can—

JEREMY: Would the Dresden Files as we know them in our dimension, would that be similar to the Mayfair witches?


JEREMY: Would that be the same one, or different?

ELIAS: Different.

JEREMY: Different. Okay. And Dragon Ball Z would be… that’s a similar thing. It’s what I would define as an alternate earth, meaning they’re closely associated with this earth, but OD?

ELIAS: Yes. You are correct.

JEREMY: All right. Madison, my friend and myself: are we all soulmates?


JEREMY: And does Madison and myself share 124 focuses?

ELIAS: Correct.

JEREMY: And does my friend have a focus as a female Swiss painter named Angelica Kauffmann?


JEREMY: And is the Phantom of the Opera a translation of a focus of Elan, who is the phantom of the opera, my friend being Christine and myself as being Raoul?


JEREMY: All right. And does this focus take place within France?


JEREMY: Okay. And is Malina/Fashi Milumet/Sumafi?

ELIAS: Reverse.

JEREMY: Reverse.

Does she have a focus as Natacha, Rudolph Valentino’s wife?


JEREMY: All right. In 1600 B.C., a shared focus in Akrotiri, Santorini, would you be my brother, in which case I am a merchant who lives in a [inaudible] on Crete, my friend would be your wife; Myranda’s focus would be Zena, my daughter; and me and Rafael would drop off my daughter with you and my friend due to my travels as a merchant? And we were both very wealthy, you and your wife and me and mine?


JEREMY: All right. And would my friend's name be Medea?


JEREMY: And me and Rafael would travel together because we were close within our relationship?

ELIAS: Correct.

JEREMY: All right. Is my friend counterparts with our friend Muriel?


JEREMY: All right. What type of counterparts?

ELIAS: It would not be parallel counterparts, and it would not be—

JEREMY: Would it be complementary?

ELIAS: In a manner of speaking, yes.

JEREMY: Okay. And would this be temporary, or not?

ELIAS: It fluctuates.

JEREMY: It fluctuates between temporary…?

ELIAS: It fluctuates in being generated for a time framework and discontinued for a time framework and repeated, continued.

JEREMY: Okay. Would this have to do…? Okay. That’s fine. We’ll leave it at that for now.

Why did…? Oh wait. In our last session we discussed shared focuses with Jane Robert’s essence, Ruburt. But when I asked if it was with a “p” or a “b,” it sounded like you said “p” as in Peter or Paul.



ELIAS: No. I did not.

JEREMY: Okay. So, it is “b”?


JEREMY: Now, this opens up a whole other question for me, Elias. When I first got into Seth, prior to engaging you and the forum, I specifically have memories of Ruburt being Rupert.


JEREMY: So, was that simply a… my memory being distorted? Or have shifted some kind of choice of Ruburt and Rupert?

ELIAS: It was an automatic association with a name that is familiar, and therefore you automatically translate and change.

JEREMY: The Rupert was more familiar to me than the Ruburt?

ELIAS: Correct. And therefore—

JEREMY: Okay. And is that because of a familiarity with an essence?

ELIAS: No. It is merely a familiarity with the manner in which—

JEREMY: It was a rough translation, is what you’re saying.

ELIAS: It is in actuality an action that occurs quite frequently with many, many, many individuals in many different situations. For you generate certain associations with words and the manner in which letters are put together. And if the presentment of letters are put together in a manner that is somewhat unfamiliar, you automatically rearrange and create a word that is more familiar. You do this with objects, with words, with experiences, with interactions, with—

JEREMY: Okay. So, in the case of my Uncle Edgar, I specifically remember going to a funeral, his funeral, and then a couple weeks later he drove up to my house on a lawnmower. My dad was acting as if nothing, as if that wasn’t unusual, that there was someone who died actually still alive. And then a couple weeks later after that, I shifted back to the memories of him being dead again and following along those lines. Is that similar, or is it a different action?

ELIAS: That would be a different action. That—

JEREMY: Would that be me shifting probabilities?

ELIAS: That would be a movement in and out of another probable reality.

JEREMY: All right. Do I do that pretty often? (Laughs)

ELIAS: You have generated that action more frequently than most other individuals.

JEREMY: Okay. And my friend's current fluctuation of weight: is that an example for her in relation to the perception wave?


JEREMY: All right. And the flickering lights in the building of that man who is me, who was leading me and my friend in that OBE when we first met, is that flickering related to my interest and how I’m deciding to express my desire?


JEREMY: Okay. And then, who was Nebula in my out-of-body experience that I had near a soda machine? Was that my friend or someone different that I know?

ELIAS: Another individual. And—

JEREMY: Would it be Twyla?


JEREMY: All right. It’s Twyla.

And when I was growing up, my haunted house that I grew up in: was that me interacting and was my family interacting with an energy deposit or an essence?

ELIAS: An energy deposit.

JEREMY: Okay. Gotcha.

I do believe… my friend expresses her regards, and I do believe that will be it for this evening.

ELIAS: Very well. I express my affection to both of you, and I shall be anticipating our next meeting. To you each in dear friendship and tremendous appreciation, au revoir.

(Elias departs after 1 hour 7 minutes)