Session 1297

Talking on the Phone


“Talking on the Phone”
“Fragmentation and Mergence”

Wednesday, March 19, 2003 (Private/Phone) Participants: Mary (Michael) and Don (Allard)

Elias arrives at 9:45 AM. (Arrival time is 19 seconds.)

ELIAS: Good morning!

DON: Good morning, Elias.

ELIAS: (Chuckles) How does the adventure proceed?

DON: It’s interesting. (Elias laughs) Always interesting and I guess it’s always a little bit new. So, shall I start with some questions?

ELIAS: Very well.

DON: I have a few small questions from a few other people. Ling-Tu would like to know if Richard Feynman is a focus of hers.


DON: Jene would like to know if the essence Bohn, B-O-H-N, is fragmented from Jene. (Pause)


DON: (Laughs) Very interesting! She would also like to know the essence name, family and alignment of William Shakespeare. (Pause)

ELIAS: Essence name, Todd; essence family, Sumari; alignment, Ilda.

DON: Does Fryolla have a focus that is the mother of Joseph Merrick? (Pause)

ELIAS: Observing essence.

DON: Is Cher a focus of either Fryolla or Nanaiis? (Pause)

ELIAS: Observing essence, Nanaiis.

DON: Is the younger brother of Allesander’s focus Saladin — the younger brother’s name is Al-Adil — is this brother a focus of mine?


DON: I think that’s all the questions I have for others. I’ll go ahead and continue with a few related questions of mine. Did Allesander and I have focuses that played together in a band that had some fame in the last part of the 20th century? (Pause)

ELIAS: No, not as focuses.

DON: Is Mark Sandman, the bass player of Morphine who disengaged a few years ago, a focus of Allesander’s?

ELIAS: Observing essence.

DON: Is Dana Colley, in the same band, a focus of mine?

ELIAS: Observing essence.

DON: I feel like I don’t know if they’re focuses or not, but I feel like I have a connection of some sort to quite a few musicians of the late part of the 20th century. I wonder if I could run through them. I’d like to run through them with you and just see what the connection is, if there is one.

ELIAS: Very well.

DON: One is with Neil Young. I feel like we’re either counterparts or I am observing essence of that focus.

ELIAS: Counterpart.

DON: The same with Robert Fripp.

ELIAS: Counterpart.

DON: Are these both long-term counterpart actions?


DON: And two-way?


DON: I feel like there’s counterpart action between me and Kurt Cobain, but I feel like that’s one-way, where he had counterpart action with me but I didn’t, or didn’t to the same degree, with him.

ELIAS: Correct.

DON: Was it completely one-way?


DON: The final one is John Lurie. Now I’m feeling counterpart.


DON: In the Castaic session, I was at both the public session and then our private session, and it seemed that the tone that you adopted between the two sessions was quite different. I assume it’s because you adjusted your tone for each as appropriate to the people involved. First, is that true?

ELIAS: Correct.

DON: I noticed in our private session you felt very familiar to me and it felt very comfortable, but I don’t have the sense that you were adopting the personality tone of a particular focus that we shared, but rather just something adjusted for me right now.

ELIAS: Correct.

DON: This leads into the question I have. I’m curious about the comfort that I felt in talking to you in person versus the difficulty I have over the telephone. This is not something that occurs just with you. I have a very difficult time being comfortable talking to people on the telephone. I tried to look at what I’m doing. I’m tense on the phone, I pace, I find my voice is constricted, I labor to put my words together properly in a way that I don’t in person. I’m just overall less comfortable. I’m having trouble understanding my motivation for creating this, for the difference.

ELIAS: The difference in association with you individually is that you express much more of an ease in actual physical proximity with any individual that you are interacting with, for you allow yourself to relax and you engage the other individual’s energy more easily.

In engaging any individual through this device of your telephone, you are not actually within the physical presence or manifestation of the other individual. Therefore, you incorporate no visual and this becomes distracting, in which your attention fluctuates and is distracted with yourself. In a manner of speaking, it may be likened to the reverse action of some individuals that become uncomfortable or what you term to be self-conscious as they engage the presence of other individuals.

You express a very similar energy in interactions upon your telephone, in which you become more self-conscious for you are moving your attention more often to yourself. In interaction within physical presence or physical proximity, your attention moves to the other individual. You do also incorporate the action of somewhat paying attention to yourself, but for the most part your attention moves to the other individual and you are not as aware of your participation or the mechanics of your participation in the interaction. You are merely allowing yourself to interact and not thinking about how you are interacting. Are you understanding?

DON: Yes, yes. Now, a couple of questions come to mind with that. One, in different contexts you suggest that it’s helpful to keep our attention on ourselves.

ELIAS: Correct.

DON: But over the phone, by doing that it feels... I generate more difficulty in communication, and I think the difference is that these are two different contexts that you say this within.

ELIAS: Partially, but that is associated with your energy expression and your action of distracting yourself. What I am expressing is that it is significant and important to be paying attention to yourself; but in this, what I am expressing to you, now, in relation to paying attention to yourself, is not the type of paying attention to yourself that I express generally with you or with any other individual.

The type of attention that you are incorporating in association with yourself is related to the mechanics of the interaction, which becomes distracting. This is not paying attention to you; it is paying attention to your expression and concerning yourself with your expression, moving your attention to the mechanics of it rather than genuinely paying attention to yourself. What may be a similar analogy would be within a free flow of energy you generally do not pay attention to how you breathe and you breathe quite easily with no obstruction.

Now; in moments in which you move your attention to your breathing in an attempt to direct it intentionally, the mechanism of breathing changes, and you may find the action to be more labored and more difficult for you are moving your attention to the mechanics of the action rather than allowing the free flow.

DON: So is my tendency to do this when I’m not in the proximity of someone and over the telephone a result of beliefs that I align with, or is it more simply my nature and something that I would do well to accept? (Pause) Does it simply reflect preferences in my...?

ELIAS: Both. It is a reflection of preferences and preferences are also associated with beliefs.

In this, the belief that is influencing with this preference is that it is less personal and less intimate to be expressing yourself or to be engaging interaction with another individual in relation to your telephone. Whereas, your expressed belief is that you allow yourself to connect with the other individual’s energy more clearly and easily and more personally if you are engaging them within physical proximity.

Now; you may recognize this as a preference and you may be accepting of that choice; or if you are experiencing some conflict in association with that belief, you may allow yourself to recognize that regardless of whether you engage physical proximity with another individual or not, you are directly interacting with their energy expression, as you are with myself also, and the energy is the same regardless of distance.

DON: That makes me think of a question about written communication, but I realize I have another question of Allesander’s that I’d forgotten to ask you.

ELIAS: Very well.

DON: Is Davy Crockett a focus of his?

ELIAS: No, which this has been expressed previously.

DON: Is the Sanskrit poet Kalidasa a focus of his?


DON: How about Hernando De Soto?


DON: I have a few other short questions I’d like to get through. Is Jewella my initiating focus?


DON: She reminded me of Melody. That’s how I knew. (Elias laughs) Is Adell fragmented from Allard?


DON: Is there a fragmentation relationship between us at all, or a close one at least?

ELIAS: You do express a preference in essence between you.

DON: I was thinking again about my own fragmentation. I don’t know why, what my motivation is for this except it’s fun, I suppose. But I have two impressions that don’t seem consistent. One is that Allard fragmented from four other essences, some or none of which have not had any physical manifestations in this dimension. Is that a correct impression?


DON: Could you give me their names please, or a translation?

ELIAS: One, Mysha, M-Y-S-H-A (MEE sha). Next, Myhn, M-Y-H-N (MINE), which does not incorporate physical focuses in this physical dimension. Next, Femmel, F-E-M-M-E-L (fem EL), which also does not incorporate physical focuses within this dimension. Next, Fraum, F-R-A-U-M (FRAHM).

DON: Recently you mentioned in a session that there can be a temporary mergence between essences.

ELIAS: Correct, and this is quite common.

DON: What does it mean to say that the mergence is temporary, given that this mergence occurs outside of the time of our physical dimension?

ELIAS: As opposed to an action of fragmentation.

DON: Ah, that’s what I thought. Do you have more to say about that or is that sufficient at this point?

ELIAS: The action of fragmentation is such that the essence that fragments incorporates qualities, experiences and tones of the essence that it has fragmented from and that becomes what you would term to be a permanent incorporation. Whereas, in mergence with another essence, the essences experience each other but do not necessarily incorporate each other’s qualities or incorporate all of the experiences. Are you understanding?

DON: I think so.

ELIAS: Let me also express to you, this is a limited explanation and one that may be viewed as figurative, not quite literal, for that would be a distortion. I am expressing to you an explanation in association with what you know and understand in relation to your physical dimension.

DON: I can feel a conceptualization...


DON: ...of it, but it’s difficult to put into words.

ELIAS: Correct, for within your objective awareness you may generate an understanding of what I am expressing in relation to nonphysical expressions and consciousness and essence, but that is not quite translatable accurately within your objective understanding or language.

DON: Along with that, part of the reason I’m curious about this is I had... I feel like recently I’ve objectively become aware of a mergence like this with Chui. I don’t know if I’m pronouncing his essence name correctly — C-H-U-I (CHEW ee). Is that a correct impression?


DON: I had a dream the other night that I think reflected that. He was a character that was a little bit like Ned Flanders. This was a dream in which I was part of a group all singing a hymn. Was that a translation of Chui?


DON: I feel like I’m becoming objectively aware of this for a reason that I’m not quite getting yet, but I have a feeling it has to do with the action of letting go, of relaxing.


DON: And that’s my motivation in this.

ELIAS: Yes, and also familiarizing yourself with other energies.

DON: Yes, just for its own sake. There was a redheaded woman in that same dream that I’m trying to recognize objectively the energy of. Is it a Borledim energy associated with that?

ELIAS: (Laughs) I may express to you in your terms, very good!

DON: Oh, thank you!

ELIAS: In actuality this particular essence has presented itself in very similar manner to another individual within this forum recently.

DON: I didn’t quite follow you. This was an image of another person in this forum?

ELIAS: No, this is an image projection of an essence which has incorporated a very similar image to another individual within this forum recently.

Now; let me clarify. This essence represents Borledim, but is Sumafi.

DON: Oh, well, then it would be Rose.

ELIAS: Correct!

DON: Well, I have to tell you, I recognized the Borledim energy and it was Jene who picked up Rose. But then again, I created her picking it up. (Elias laughs) Interesting. You know, she had an energy that felt not unlike the energy of a woman that I’ve had in dreams throughout my life, always in a different physical form but always the same energy. Would this be Rose throughout these dreams, or different essences or various imagery through various times?

ELIAS: It is a translation that you generate in association with the Borledim energy.

DON: So it is imagery that I generate to represent... Or as a dream manifestation of Borledim energy.

ELIAS: Yes. But I may express to you, if you are so choosing you may generate some interest and fun in interaction with Grady, for this individual has allowed the viewing of an actual apparition, which appeared quite similar to what you presented in dream imagery.

DON: Oh! Interesting! Wow! So Rose has been active.

ELIAS: Ha ha ha! As always!

DON: I’ll check with Grady, then. (Elias chuckles)

I mentioned I had two impressions of my own fragmentation, the fragmentation that gave rise to my essence. The other was that Ayla and I had some fragmentation relationship. Is that a valid impression or a correct impression? (Pause)

ELIAS: In what capacity?

DON: Well, given that I did not fragment from Ayla, I wonder if I was involved in the fragmentation that gives rise to her essence.

ELIAS: No, but there has been many expressions of mergences.

DON: I get the sense that this is quite common. You’ve said that it’s quite common, this action of mergence.


DON: Yet it is something that we can objectively use the energy of if we allow it.

ELIAS: Correct. Generally speaking, individuals are objectively unaware of that action occurring, but this is not to say that it does not occur quite frequently.

DON: I wonder if this relates to an experience I had a couple of weeks ago, where in what I considered my normal waking consciousness I suddenly felt what I would translate as the energy of Jene in my head, not of a particular focus of attention but of the essence Jene, almost to the point where I felt like, while I had to manually translate, I could speak for her. This lasted perhaps two minutes or so. I wonder, was this an objective awareness of a mergence...


DON: The time, my translation of the timeframe... Well, I won’t even get into that. That’s too difficult. (Elias laughs) I have some conceptualization ideas of what that means but I’ll maybe bring them up another time. That was followed by a period of about a day were there was a particular aspect of Jene that I was interacting with called Green-Jene. This aspect seemed to be dedicated specifically to tweaking me. I wonder, was that an interaction with Jene or was that my own creation?

ELIAS: Both.

DON: I created Green-Jene out of her energy because that was my choice of how to configure it, I would guess. Is that correct?

ELIAS: Yes. Interesting terminology, this “tweaking.” Ha ha ha!

DON: But that did not feel the same as the actual mergence. Was that also an action of mergence?

ELIAS: Yes, but a different type of translation.

DON: I feel like my focus of Charles Bukowski... By the way, I’d like to just confirm, that’s Henry Charles Bukowski?


DON: I ran into another Charles Bukowski the other day, but I didn’t think that was him. I don’t know how to express this except in terms of linear time, but it feels like in framework or Regional Area 3 or wherever he is, he has recently become aware of me, Don, as a focus of his. Is that correct?


DON: And my impression is he’s pretty excited about this and he’s been interacting with me in a way that feels different to me than the interaction of the energy of other essences. I would translate this as more concerned with giving me advice as to the specifics of how I handle various or how I make various choices, objective choices. Would this be a fairly accurate translation?

ELIAS: Yes, although the term “concerned” may be slightly overstated.

DON: I notice I feel I’m glad to have him as a focus of mine, in part because he documented so much of so many of his thoughts so well and so voluminously. I notice a lot of similarities between us in some of the details of our lives, the small details, and yet we feel different in some ways also. I wonder if you would say that he is similar in tone to my focus, Don.


DON: Now, you’ve said before that just in general, as a rule, focuses that are concurrent with ours tend to be different in tone. I’ve felt like actually a lot of mine that have overlapped or that do overlap my life, my own focus in time, are similar in tone to myself. Is that correct? Did I state that clearly enough?

ELIAS: I am understanding. I may express to you that they are not necessarily similar in tone, but this is what you may term to be an adequate example of recognizing all of these different focuses as you as one essence.

Now; I may express to individuals that there are some focuses that are similar in tone and they are more easily accessible than other focuses. But remember, they are all focuses of one essence; therefore, they all incorporate one general tone.

The difference in tone is very slight and does not separate one focus from another, but generally speaking, individuals may tend to generate more of an ease in the exploration of certain focuses that generate similar qualities. Even if the experiences may seem quite different, the qualities of the different focuses may be very similar and therefore the tone is very similar.

As I express the terminology of “tone,” this is a vibrational quality. Therefore, it is merely associated with the individual’s personalities and the qualities that they express within a particular focus and many times, also, similarities in their choice of exploration, regardless of whether it is exhibited in very different manners. Are you understanding?

DON: Yes. In fact, I’d always had a little difficulty with the idea that some focuses are similar in tone to, say, my own, with the implication that others are not. I’d imagined that rather than there being a different discrete quality to those focuses, it was sort of an arbitrary decision and kind of a thresholding that you did when you would give a specific number.

ELIAS: As to the similar tones, yes.

DON: Using that threshold, how many of my focuses would you say are similar in tone to my current one?

ELIAS: And your impression?

DON: Hundreds.

ELIAS: Correct.

Now; let me also express to you that you individually and the movement that you are creating, similar to Myranda, and the type of direction that you are expressing in your exploration of other focuses, this particular identification of those which would be of similar tone is somewhat of a moot point, for you are allowing yourself to explore other focuses whether they incorporate that similarity or not, and therefore are not generating that distinction which is generated by most individuals.

DON: I can feel that.

ELIAS: This would be the reason that many individuals in an exploration of other focuses may present to themselves repeatedly the same focuses over and over within dreams or meditations or visualizations. For they gravitate towards certain focuses that do express those similarities in direction or in theme or in personality but not necessarily experiences, although at times experiences also.

DON: That reminds me. I’ve had the impression for some time that if such a thing exists, there’s essence counterpart action between Myranda and myself. Is that...

ELIAS: In a manner of speaking.

DON: Can you use that kind of terminology for...?

ELIAS: In a manner of speaking, but associated with this physical dimension.

DON: I see, okay. Yes, that’s actually what I had been thinking. I noticed some things specifically with... It felt like counterpart action, yes, in our manifestations in this dimension.


DON: I have an impression there’s either 14 or 17 of my focuses that are concurrent with my focus of Don. Is one of those correct? That is throughout my life, not all alive at the same time.

ELIAS: In overlapping?

DON: Yes, they overlap my focus of Don.

ELIAS: Yes, 14. But not necessarily what you would term to be concurrent.

DON: Right. For example, I have a focus as a young child in Czechoslovakia and he died when I was a young child.


DON: I feel like Allard is putting a lot of energy through his focuses in the 19th, 20th and 21st centuries. Not a majority, but a large number of my focuses are in these three centuries.

ELIAS: Correct, and I may express to you that this is an expression of similarity with many individuals within this forum. Not necessarily throughout your world, but of those individuals that have drawn themselves to this forum there are many of which that express a similar concentration within these centuries.

DON: Yes. As such, one thing that I’ve been curious about, and I think you’ve addressed this in other sessions but they haven’t been published yet, it seems to me just looking at it purely statistically, there’s a real over-preponderance of famous focuses identified in the sessions.

ELIAS: Not necessarily. This has been addressed, and I may express to you also, in association with what you term to be percentages and all of the individuals that incorporate notoriety or fame throughout the entirety of your history, those which have been identified within this forum are relatively small.

DON: Would you say if there is a statistical preponderance, what would seem an unusual preponderance of famous or focuses with notoriety in these three centuries, it’s because of what you’ve just said a little while ago, that a lot of essences with a lot of focuses in these centuries have been drawing themselves to this forum.

ELIAS: Correct, and they are investigating. They are paying attention to the investigation of other focuses, and therefore they are discovering focuses that do incorporate fame or notoriety. This is not to say that there are not many individuals outside of this forum that also incorporate focuses within these three centuries that may be viewed as famous, but they may not necessarily be investigating their other focuses.

DON: I know that you talked about value or about asking us what we value in the group session.

ELIAS: Correct.

DON: I didn’t attend, of course, but I’ve been thinking about that since I heard that. I tried looking at what I was doing in the moment last night and to determine what it is I value from making that examination.

What I noticed in that moment was that I had a feeling of being very serious, not being playful at all, and it led me, in looking at that, to think that... First I thought, well, maybe I value struggle or I value difficulty, but it didn’t feel like that. What I discovered was that I really value feeling like I am in control of my own creating and that I value the feeling that I steer my own ship, simply for the sake of enjoying steering it. Because of beliefs I have that I can create struggle but I have difficulty creating joy, my own joy is dependent upon the creations of other people. I create a lot of struggle for myself, difficulty and even sorrow, in order to give myself the feeling that I am in control of my creating.

ELIAS: I am understanding.

DON: Because that I value more than I value creating something differently.

ELIAS: I am understanding.

Now; recognize also that you do express a value of struggle and difficulty at times, and also recognize that what you value is expressed in the moment and in time frameworks, and (it) changes.

DON: And changes?

ELIAS: Yes. You may be valuing difficulty or struggle in one time framework, and you may change and value a different expression in a different time framework. What you value fluctuates; it is not necessarily constant.

DON: Similar to our preferences.

ELIAS: Correct!

DON: I’ve run us out of time here, and the question I really thought that I should have asked I’ve ended up not asking, but we know how much thoughts create. (Elias chuckles) I think we have just a couple minutes. I’ll just ask you briefly if I can. I’m trying to... Oh, no. I can’t even get into it now. (Elias laughs loudly) No, just not there.

Let me just look over my quickies here. I have one other. I had an experience a couple of nights ago where I felt like I contacted some creatures composed of what in my translation looked like small opaque spheres of fluid that together then created a sort of a body, sort of a dull red, maybe some other colors. Overall the creatures looked a little bit in form like the Ents in the “Two Towers” movie recently. But they were composed of a lot of small globules of fluid. Were these actually creatures, focuses in another dimension?

ELIAS: Yes, almost associated with what you know to be as gelatin.

DON: Oh, okay! The Gelatin Dimension. (Elias laughs) Were they focuses of mine?


DON: I have the sense these were not focuses of mine but...

ELIAS: One is, yes.

DON: I felt like in reading some things that Bukowski wrote towards the end of his life, I thought I saw him describe some incidents that look like you were interacting with him and he was objectively aware of it. Is that correct?


DON: He wrote of a furry slug-like creature. Was this a focus of mine in another dimension?


DON: Well, I think that will do it for today, Elias.

ELIAS: Very well.

DON: I’ll get to the hard questions next time.

ELIAS: Very well! (Laughs) And I shall continue to be expressing my energy with you in playfulness — whether you choose to be incorporating it or not! Ha ha ha!

DON: (Laughs) I’ll be looking for it.

ELIAS: Very well, my friend. To you, as always, in tremendous affection, au revoir.

DON: Au revoir.

Elias departs at 10:44 AM.

©2005 Mary Ennis, All Rights Reserved

Copyright 2003 Mary Ennis, All Rights Reserved.