"The Caroline Group"

[Mark Culpepper]

From a teachers viewpoint, I can see the problems Mr. Twigsnapper faces.

He has to use the tools available to him, which are ALSO tools which we can recognize. Now see. Thats the hard part. It must be terribly frustrating because I think he must at some point really want to dump the whole lesson plan in our laps and say " There you go! You deal with it."

But thats not what teachers do. (tempting though)

So back to trying to see what he is trying to tell us.

This is the phrase that caught my attention. " It has a VESTED INTEREST" in the CHOICES we make." Read that again and again as I have. It has some interesting flavors when you chew on it long enough.

I understand MY idea of "vested interest". To me thats when you pour some of your own personal energy into someone or something and you want to see it succeed because by then you see you have some sort of strong connection in that situation. If "the Caroline Group " is as old as I am beginning to think "IT" is ..... then there have been centuries of interest "vested" in what we do in the future. And then suddenly we are back to that old old Biblical phrase. Where WILL you go?"

I am getting the impression that the Caroline Group " Core" can't TELL us what to do. Could that be right? Is there some kind of natural law of sorts that prevents them from just "laying down the law?" Maybe thats a good thing? Mark C

[Paul S.]

I'd imagine the members of the CORE of the Caroline Group, as Morgan puts it, would have gone through the same or similar situations.

Well, no.... not exactly.

One thing I did NOT say in Las Vegas is that as my correspondence with Morgan has progressed, there was a point where he started talking about the "humans" in the "group" and... some aspect of it that is not.

It is that aspect that is NOT (human) that he was referring to when he started speaking of the the "core" of the Caroline group.

So I don't think "members of the CORE" (as LBL puts it above) would have to go through the kind of training depicted in a TeeVee show about paramilitary operations.

Just thought I'd toss that out there and see if anybody's paying attention....

--PS

[Paul S.]

I'm not very well versed (no pun intended) when it comes the Bible, so...

And then suddenly we are back to that old old Biblical phrase. Where WILL you go?"

Is that the passage that says "where will you go...what will you say... and to whom?"

Now...THERE's a topic for a conference!

I am getting the impression that the Caroline Group " Core" can't TELL us what to do.

That sounds about right to me. It's possible on the one hand to have a very limited influence, but on the other hand still have a "vested interest" in the outcome. No?

Keep posting folks. Composing these replies gives me an excellent diversion from what I'm really supposed to be doing here... <g>

--PS

[Mark Culpepper]

Yeah, I caught on to that a long time ago. But you know Paul, we are in such uncharted seas right now! I am not even sure that we can use the word "non-human"! I get the sense that the idea of "vested interest" here might mean more than I think at the moment. And "humans" such as we ARE like to separate and categorize things. Thats part of our nature. But, bear with me here because I am not even sure that I know where I am really going .... we don't even REALLY know what our "Nature" is ...... do we?

I notice that LindaB s initial reaction was to ask if the "Core" were Angels? And I began to think .... "well, I don't like dragging all the discussions of angels in with the religious connotations" but there is ONE point. Angels have been mentioned in our history by ALL of the various wise books. Oh, I am not sure what they are called or what name they go under but is it possible that we are looking at the same, searching for words that won't stray from my meaning, entity?

And even Mikado will hit himself in the brow when I use this but how about "other life force" We don't have the slightest notion of what we are talking about here, do we? But we are talking, does that count for something? Of course it does!

Did Doctor Brown ever try to describe what it was that he was dealing with? I mean. We talk and talk and talk, but I truly believe that he was dealing on a personal basis with this situation. Did he say anything? Mark C

[Elizabeth Helen Drake]

Mikado recently made this observation, something he had heard in the past. "You know Pete, in order to understnd a horse, you got to learn to think like him."

I stared at that for the longest time, knowing that for SOME REASON that phrase found its way to the surface and out into print and that it would have a place somehow with each of us.

Suddenly, looking at those words, I was struck with the phrase again that "in order to understand a horse ..... you got to learn to think like him ..... (But you can't THINK like something until you understand it. So is this a closed loop system where what you KNOW is not necessarily the truth of the matter because its based on your assumption that you know what you are looking at? .... when in fact .... you have never gotten that close? OK back up, I lost even myself.)

I believe that what Mark C asked is an important question that will someday be answered. We might not ever know the CORE of the Caroline Group but maybe in our search for its character we will find out more about ourselves. And I am ready to accept that somehow Dr. Brown got a better glimpse into all of that than anyone else around him at the time. So thats why its important to see what he actually did with that information and how it affected him. Thats why its so important for Paul to write the personal story , not just the technical side of all of this. Maybe that will help us match our spitiual side with our racing technological side.

And in the end maybe thats the path we are being encouraged to take. Sort of a global self inprovement course? Elizabeth

[/b]

[LongboardLOVELY]

I'd imagine the members of the CORE of the Caroline Group, as Morgan puts it, would have gone through the same or similar situations.

Well, no.... not exactly.

One thing I did NOT say in Las Vegas is that as my correspondence with Morgan has progressed, there was a point where he started talking about the "humans" in the "group" and... some aspect of it that is not.

It is that aspect that is NOT (human) that he was referring to when he started speaking of the the "core" of the Caroline group.

So I don't think "members of the CORE" (as LBL puts it above) would have to go through the kind of training depicted in a TeeVee show about paramilitary operations.

Just thought I'd toss that out there and see if anybody's paying attention....

--PS

First of all, Paul, the DVDs are in the mail, you should get them by Monday. I sent Dolan's too.

So did Morgan actually say "not" human? Or was it implied? Someone (maybe Linda Brown?) said to me that members of the Caroline Group tended to travel in pairs; I really never thought of a pair as anything other than two corporeal bodies. So could there be "other entities" involved? People from the past travelling into the future? Spirits (Angels)? Is this something you're going to address in later chapters ~ Morgan's words & its implications? Also you use the words "has progressed" as if it's present tense. Is the communication with him still progressing? Don't need to answer that especially if it's confidential. Maybe Morgan was delusional!? Like on the same string as saying one is a poached egg? JK
Frightening and exciting at the same time.

Linda B.

[LongboardLOVELY]

I'd have to agree with Elizabeth, Mikado. Hoping in someone or something is a lot more passive than Counting on that person/entity. I'd think that what Mr. Twigsnapper was referring to is that if you managed to screw up, your travelling partner's livelihood would somehow be jeopardized. Not to self aggrandize, but in my role in my marriage with Andrew I would hope that he would "Count" on me more than he would "Hope" in me.

Does that make sense?

longboardLOVELY

[Mikado14]

Mikado recently made this observation, something he had heard in the past. "You know Pete, in order to understnd a horse, you got to learn to think like him."

I stared at that for the longest time, knowing that for SOME REASON that phrase found its way to the surface and out into print and that it would have a place somehow with each of us.

Suddenly, looking at those words, I was struck with the phrase again that "in order to understand a horse ..... you got to learn to think like him ..... (But you can't THINK like something until you understand it. So is this a closed loop system where what you KNOW is not necessarily the truth of the matter because its based on your assumption that you know what you are looking at? .... when in fact .... you have never gotten that close? OK back up, I lost even myself.)

Much like that Twilight Zone episode where a group of people, from different walks, climb out of a barrel........you are on the rim.

And I am ready to accept that somehow Dr. Brown got a better glimpse into all of that than anyone else around him at the time. So thats why its important to see what he actually did with that information and how it affected him. Thats why its so important for Paul to write the personal story , not just the technical side of all of this. Maybe that will help us match our spitiual side with our racing technological side.

Accept that he got a glimpse but he was not alone, however, he did provide a breakthrough for the group, would you not say?

And in the end maybe thats the path we are being encouraged to take. Sort of a global self inprovement course?

Substitute the word "universal" for global for that is the light at the end of the tunnel.

[Mikado14]

I'd have to agree with Elizabeth, Mikado. Hoping in someone or something is a lot more passive than Counting on that person/entity. I'd think that what Mr. Twigsnapper was referring to is that if you managed to screw up, your travelling partner's livelihood would somehow be jeopardized. Not to self aggrandize, but in my role in my marriage with Andrew I would hope that he would "Count" on me more than he would "Hope" in me.

Does that make sense?

longboardLOVELY

Then if this "entity" has a VESTED INTEREST in me and is counting upon me to make the correct decision, what happens when I don't?

Does it "trust" in me to make the correct decision? Do I fail this trust it has imposed upon me if I am wrong? What is the result? The antithesis is also in question, what happens if I choose correctly? Next, the term "livelihood" implies renumeration of some nature. Is that what my life or anyone else's is?

As to "Count", I would strongly hope that in a marriage, one or the other spouse could "count" on each other. But wouldn't a prerequisite for that would mean that communication has occurred over time and you grew to know each other? Do you have the same relationship with this....entity?

Do not take my answer as discounting the use of the word "count", for in the interpretation of Mr. Twigsnapper, he found that word appropriate. However, if I have interpreted what he has said into what I know, hope is just as applicable.

One last item, if what our beloved Mr. Twigsnapper is implying, through what I know, this forum's head would spin. Would you really want to know if it would mean that all you have learned.....was...akilter?

Respectfully,

Mikado

[Mikado14]

It is that aspect that is NOT (human) that he was referring to when he started speaking of the the "core" of the Caroline group.

Just thought I'd toss that out there and see if anybody's paying attention....

--PS

Yes Paul, I believe some of us are and have been.

[Mikado14]

And even Mikado will hit himself in the brow when I use this but how about "other life force" We don't have the slightest notion of what we are talking about here, do we? But we are talking, does that count for something? Of course it does!

Two things, as soon as I pull my hand from my brow. <g>

How about we agree to call it just that until our limited galactic vocabulary expands?

Next,

I agree, never stop talking, even a ramble or a rant has it's value.


Mikado

[Elizabeth Helen Drake]

Mikado,

I am so happy to see that " even a ramble or a rant has its value" in print. I think thats been most of my major contribution to this effort. Ask Paul. Normal reaction from him can be ...."Oh no! shes off again!"

Elizabeth

[Victoria Steele]

Damn Elizabeth, you are up early today. I thought I was the only one!

OK. My take on a few of these messages.

The word " Count" as in "Count on me, or count on them"

As LindaB noted, its difficult to come to a "counting relationship" without the relationship.

Like having a partner (in work or business, or if you are lucky in BOTH) by your side. That person has to have a chance to realize that he even has a partner! I think thats the rim that we may have reached! We may have had this relationship all along but we just never knew it?

So it may have been one sided, where we got the benefit of having that other entity there but not any real responsibility. How can you be responsible for something that you don't know about? (frankly I believe THATS one of the reasons its taking some of us so long to actually see this situation. We know deep down somehow that once we KNOW about it .... then something has to change .... and Lord love a duck, we do hate change!) Victoria

[Mikado14]

I am going to throw something on the table for the forum. Mr. Twigsnapper is implying that we need to enlarge our perception of the world (insert cosmos) that we dwell in. Perception is such a bad word but it is all we have. Perhaps it is time, perhaps not.

What Mr. Twigsnapper is referring to is called a "Watcher". Let's see where this goes.

To you Mr. Twigsnapper, another question, simple yes or no:

Do you know the name HILAREN (spelling?)?

Mikado

[Victoria Steele]

Opening all kinds of pagers there historically. Watcher. But indeed this is going to be fun. A direct yes or no question .... to Mr. Twigsnapper .... ah, this is going to be fun to watch! <g>

So, while we are waiting <g> may I ask what that name means to you ... or is that held up until Mr. Twigsnapper answers you , yes or no? Elizabeth? comments? Victoria