“I’ve mentioned before (over and over, actually) that the ‘universal’ (y’know, this term I’ve been using for the collective on the forum since the beginning, quite regularly, that has since found itself in the music (RHCP, “Universally Speaking”, Ash, “World Domination” [an easy inference since her second Ash mention, “Shining Light”])), has been formed using two defining patterns; one is a marriage pattern, and one is the redemptive pattern. They sort of get used tit for tat where each in turn is used to define the other. They have of course, very important distinctions, which are being used in this context for different purposes, but, let me give you an inkling of wherein lies the most significant difference –
Both patterns do have common attributes if you start taking them apart, in terms of love, unifying, dynamic, (y’know, if you’re thinking of them as actual dynamics that may happen at large, in a single moment, not in endlessly numbered subjective reality individual contexts), and their interior effect, but the most distinguishing aspect is this: marriage involves two wills acting in mutual accord, whereas redemption, while it does require the experience to be mutually perceived and acknowledged as such, is transmitted between a perpetrator and a recipient (perhaps I should qualify this by saying, in the original Christian sense of the word). This naturally means that the ‘perspective with reigning authority’ to assert what actually occurred, actually is vested within the perpetrator, seeing as they were the designer and initiator.
Meaning, if you were going to present a precedent using the redemptive pattern as the commonality in the development of a mutual consciousness, you would be within your prerogative, basically, to assert your involvement in the redemptive pattern if you somehow entered the role of perpetrator, simply because even if the recipient had no idea what affected them, or that it was a specific person, and possibly disagreed, naturally the perpetrator is well within their knowledge and ‘authority’, having started it, to know what they are talking about and assert the case anyhow. Meaning you’re in the position to prove it through comprehensiveness anyhow and that’s, well, allowable if not necessarily preferable. While there could be a total conflict in perspective, here, the perpetrator is still in a position to state their case even if the two parties involved don’t happen to agree. The onus is on the perpetrator, here, to assert and prove it. (Conversely, if the perpetrator felt so weak on their position as to feel the necessity to go and ask a recipient if and whether they thought such and such happened to them through such and such a manner and perhaps through a person (the perpetrator), essentially just by that act of doubt, the perpetrator would have blown everything it might have meant, clean out of the water. Just giving the recipient that window of authority via inquiry blows it out of the water.)
In short, you can’t make an inquiry as whether the unconscious connection is real between two individuals using the redemptive pattern, because by doing so you’d be asking the question. With this pattern you’d have to take full initiative, hang your a** out the window in full faith, and put the whole scenario on display. No questions or arguments. After all, the pattern has its basis in a principle of absolute faith. You can’t conflict that.
The marriage pattern, of course, is completely the opposite. Inherently, you can’t assert anything with it, in fact, in order for anything involving the marriage pattern to be tenable at all, you inherently have to consult. You can’t delineate the whole marriage pattern by yourself and say it happened, not unless, the second involved mutual party agrees with you that it happened. And if you tried to demonstrate it all by yourself, attempt to say it happened without knowing what the other party thought, or tried to assert it by yourself in the face of the other party’s disagreement with your point of view, you’d be manifestly insane.
The definition of marriage is inherently interactive at the level of conscious consent and inherently there would have to be a mutual agreement on its inception.
This is a serious enough question to end up traveling to different continents over.
Because the definition of what you perceive was incepted had to be, (inherently), mutually conceived and felt, this means that the party you are taking this inquiry to, has it within their power to make or break the entire definition, to the extent that, even their complete indifference to the scenario, will have this effect, because for this initiation to be real at all, it has to matter to them somewhat!
Such were the stakes to the inquiry and that’s why in some respects, the universal went through a real shake up (or more basically, I did), because it was all resting on this one response. That’s why I’ve said before that it was barely enough for survival. The other reason asking Bono this question had the capacity to either make it or break it, and that was the one point or individual in the entire universal consciousness that had that power, is because you can argue about the level of consciousness this might be happening at until the cows come home, basically (just the same way the redemption pattern’s existence and effect on multiple parties could be argued by a perpetrator, the (actually second-hand) perpetrator (aka, me) of universal patterns through multiple consciousnesses can make the case that it is occurring whether or not parties who are influenced or affected, agree this is possible, just by sheer volume of occurrences). By proving it this way, you could end up at a conclusion a few steps lower than conscious interaction (everyone affected was just inspired and never had any idea they were deriving (well below interacting)) from or with anything. Sure you’ve proven it’s something universal, this may have as much spiritual value or impact, say, as the chemical transmissions in an ant farm that make the colony act in concert.
The patterns, redemption and marriage, inherently, within their definitions, provide that this was not the case, (they operate at pretty much our highest idea of what it means to be emotionally and spiritually conscious), but, in order for that to be true, with the marriage pattern, you do have to ask! If you don’t, you will have automatically ‘dumbed down’ the definition of what has happened to a few degrees above what happens in an ant farm. (Especially since you think the whole thing started with a mutually incepted pattern (marriage) to begin with –you’ll just automatically tank that conception.)
Now since ‘marriage’ was Bono’s framework of terms and it appeared to have developed into some form of mutual experience (the graduation of all his lyrics into my personal environment), and the whole thing had started, apparently, at that one event or interaction (since everybody else started doing the same thing, which was graduating in their lyrics), then Bono had to be asked. But what packs a whole further wallop into this question, and made it that much more serious, was his bald statement that his initiative was God-given -‘God has given me your hand’. Nevermind that there were two separate commands here that were Divine, appeared to have ‘arrived’ in the same year, and had apparently entered some form of mutuality after the event (meaning it had to be validated that they were in fact somehow mutual for the whole premise to fly). If someone says they are operating in this way because God told them to, they are inherently already operating at a completely conscious, autonomous level that in addition accepts they are responding to an outside, invisible Conscious Force, and given what he apparently got told, this command automatically invokes the involvement of a second party (whatever or whoever that might be in his mind, in this case, solely in his mind and twice removed!)
If you’re gullible enough to simply take the words at face value, this means that the possibility exists that he did, in fact, understand that he was entering some form of spiritual union with a removed party. Meaning, that gives you the one point where the question must be asked, that will either make or break the premise that this mutuality is in fact mutually conscious, and thereby a spiritually united universal consciousness. With any other party ‘involved’ or deriving somehow, there is in fact a vast arena of debate, as to what may be actually happening, right down to ‘ant farm’ level. To even present your ‘case’ (assert it) to any one of these parties when you have no idea, not knowing if and whether, -if they don’t actually know you exist at all and they’re simply deriving through being inspired, to convince them otherwise through all the evidence would actually constitute a form of serious personal invasion. (-Ethically speaking. The overwhelming likelihood is they will just assume you're cracked. I have none of these ethical considerations with you anymore. After Seattle, either way, you deserve it.)
“what minds have you shredded
I bet they regret it
Having ever thought you up
Just look at you shine
Committing your crimes “ (Poe, “Terrible Thought” -Heck, it just was on right that second.)
The point here is, given that this was considered the nexus where it started, and given Bono’s references, it could be concluded he was inherently on a level where he was not operating just inspirationally or on impulse, but was acting on a basis he knew derived from a removed source, with the same terms of reference. He accepted and believed in Conscious Inspiration in a way that inferred seeking unity with a second source, and that provided the possibility for a common window. It was, simultaneously, the one point of contact where you could validate that the whole thing as mutually happening (at a conscious level), or, it was the one nexus point that would, by his rejection, provide you with proof positive that NONE of it was happening, because either the parameters are the same at this nexus, or common parameters have never once existed. Make it or break it. (Conversely it’s the one point where you are not making an assumption about consciousness in the other party, and making the assertion to him does not, by definition, run the risk of constituting a personal invasion of their inspiration. This is much the same with you, because your response to the mental troth was so refined as to indicate the same level of active involvement in a different way.) Those were the stakes, to going over to Ireland and saying hello. (See where ‘Go’ came from? –Seeking to liberate the entire consciousness by establishing this precedent.)
If you don’t believe any of these things are possible, you’re dealing with 99.9% odds the whole thing should have tanked right there. It’s overwhelmingly stunning, in fact, that he responded with anything at all, unless…there’s something to it.
I realize this does not, as of yet, shed any light on your primacy, or why it was apparent that both of you had to be ‘consulted’ (joust being more the word in your case, or, thank God it was really up to him and not you)! It never, ever could have remotely occurred to you, that I might have actually gone to him ahead of time in order to verify and establish this precedent, just to protect it from the damage you might potentially decide to do, given the power and capacity I’d handed over to you to do so, simply by the act of ‘asking’ you!!! That’s called foresight, if not dead on foresight and it was more than a year ahead of itself. I know how odd this appears given you likely had no idea you were vested with this form of power, but that in no way changes its potential for effect. It was simply much too important to rest on a set of personal outcomes with someone you don’t happen to trust –it would be very selfish in terms of your wants.
While laying out the entire scenario of how you ended up in those shoes is rather complicated, the point of simple fact is, the pattern actually did ‘shift focus’ when I got resurrected, through a very bizarre fashion by coming back through Cave! How that got transmuted to you, involves my conscious choice, but paradoxically I could also see, there was no other choice to be made, in part because you had declared a future. So, Bono was not actually responsible for answering to the marriage pattern, in fact you were, and that answer was Machina. (Which is why you inherited from him! […])
Therefore Step 1 in my mind, was confirm it with Bono. Step 2, for much the same rationale, was trying to enter a dialogue about it, with you. Perhaps you can begin to glean an inkling as to why I was trying to contact you, as opposed to any of the rest. With this rational basis, it’s a case of you can either verify it at this intersection, or trying to do so anywhere else simply will not matter.”
“Why I sought you out, out of all of them is because, by an answer given purely of your own volition (with SIYL, and I understand that’s a totally debatable question), you ended up fulfilling that marriage pattern, and that pattern can only be affirmed on a consensual (and conscious) basis. Why was it a form of complete power (over the fate of the universal)? Because by asking you in my mind, I gave you complete power of will, to respond to that asking however you wanted to (destructively too if you chose), and you may have not wanted to answer. At the time, it was not even verifiable whether in fact, you might even be capable of ‘hearing’, but once again, it is one of those risks where you weren’t, technically, risking anything except the possibility you were deluded. For the premise of the connected consciousness to actually be real at the level I believed in it, you would in fact, have to be capable of ‘answering’ completely in context. At that definition of connected consciousness, transmission that refined should inherently be possible. By opening the entire context by asking you, I put its existence completely on the table all over again, on the level of free will. The outcome, and your response, had as much capacity to make it or break it, as putting the question to Bono in person had, except this one was dealing purely inside the mind. But establishing the precedent with him had the potency to protect against the power in yours, simply because that was where the Godly sanction lay. (Yea, it’s absolutely astonishing where you consciously chose to take it, the moment you had ‘power’.)
Having ‘survived’ by having both outcomes fulfill themselves (in Bono’s reaction of naming his sons, and the response that was Machina), no one even has consciousness of the stakes, but, truth be told, I’d rationally accepted both outcomes as being capable of breaking it, and the whole universal was veritably on the table, on both counts.
“seems to me like all the world gets high, when you take a dare” – RHCP, “Tear” on By The Way (2002)
“to risk nothing is to risk everything” -Daniel Ash, “mastermind” (2002)
The graduation here, on both our parts, brought affirmation of the union of awareness up to the level of free will. What that means is, as a result of your autonomous involvement on that level, in that particular pattern, you are at much the same intersection of debate where you are either consciously aware of your involvement on some level, or else it simply does not have relevance collectively with the rest, because if it wasn’t relating, on both these counts, then it has never constituted relating, with any of them, unless I can define it through the redemptive pattern, which is purely my ballpark anyhow.
Your autonomous involvement supplied that definition on an equal footing, in the exact same way Bono’s autonomy, in obeying a Divine command, supplied a definition in a way that meant it inherently had to be operating at some form of a conscious level between us, or else not at all. Because of your active involvement in this context, the reality is, you are the only two individuals I had to convince that something was happening, that I have to present this to. It is really personal protocol; there is a form of ethics whereby you have to act in terms of priority that defines the universal as a collective that is personally relating in love. Simply proceeding this way defines its growth. (I will admit approaching you is mixed with personal motive, but you can’t actually accuse me of simply being personally motivated, because if that was the case, I would never have bothered with contacting Bono first.)
Of most importance was supporting, by establishing the connection with Bono, that the entire union of awareness was developed through God given sanction. It was equally important to affirm that this connection was autonomous and conscious in love, and that your rendering was in actuality a response, a context that was related to the first. By my manifest actions, including that I would have first dealt with this personally and privately if that was possible, you can be aware where my priorities lay; that they were at once purely personal, but that priority lay with affirming the universal, and, the universal only matters to me if it can be defined at a conscious level that is based on personally relating. If the entire collective is assimilating me unconsciously (purely being inspired with no comprehension that I may, in fact, exist), then I don’t give a flying fig about proving its existence. This is not because I am incapable of doing it; I could do so even if every single one of you, who would be in actuality deriving, rejected the possibility. I could actually force you to accept it by eventually proving it through the sheer scope and volume of the links, the amazing amount of uniquely personal detail that is based on cause/effect that you all (60+) have been latching into for over 10 years. It would be irrefutable, really, but even if it was, if you were hostile to the possibility, you’d simply assert I was lying about my personal history. At any rate, forcing acceptance of the truth of it, by having to prove it, is the last thing on earth I would want to do. This is not because of the fear of how badly I would be maligned because of assumptions; I do not fear anyone’s hostility. There is simply no point in the face of hostility. The real fear is of the ramifications of succeeding by proving it and thereby only qualifying a solipsist, unconscious definition. It is not that I am incapable, I am fully capable. I just see no point.
In either instance, approaching both of you has simply been about asking the question in order to find out where the truth of the reality lies. All I went to Ireland for was to try and find out the truth of what was happening, to the extent that I was prepared to accept the conclusion that I was delusional if he was completely unaware, or didn’t believe there was any connection. It was purely investigation.”
[She then explained the whole reason Bono stood at the inception, in terms of the start points of “Luminous Times” and a certain concert on November 3rd 1992.]
“So before you could have anything to say about anything that followed, (that the universal did happen and did grow and achieve a definition), you would have to ask, directly, what that other active initiating party thought, and have them agree with you.”