My reality is different from yours

A question in this past Sunday’s Michael Speaks “Open Floor” discussion on parallels brought the topic of a previous Michael Speaks on “The 9 Realities” from April, 2011 back to the forefront. I’d not reread it during the two years that elapsed; so, it was nearly a brand new experience for me. When I checked the discussion thread, I see that I had grasped it very well back then. (Exasperation = Memory Issues!!!)

Essentially, the whole idea of different realities is based on different perceptions that arise from each of our own unique set of integrated experiences. Even those in the same household who technically experience the same event, won’t experience it exactly the same. Each will interpret it through their physical, emotional, and intellectual realities and come to different conclusions.

My first “whammy” experience happened back in 1982. Our family group had just finished an extremely difficult and challenging couple of years that included a lot of changes and a lack of financial wherewithal. My husband and I had tried to the best of our abilities to mitigate the effects and had what we felt were “clear and transparent” conversations with the kids during that time. But during a rehash session at the kitchen table in 1982, it became obvious that whatever my daughters had experienced had been vastly different than whatever my husband and I had experienced — including perceptions of motivations and/or abilities to do otherwise. They were quite angry with us. I felt bewildered and defensive.

Now, I have a far better understanding of these different perspectives. It couldn’t have been otherwise. We all made our choices, played our parts, had our different experiences, and came to different conclusions or had different perspectives — perspectives that have continued on through the years.

I’d forgotten about this channeling session during my most recent puzzling and research over the political realm of national politics with a special focus on “truther” ideas. Trutherisms are those alternative theories that usually involve a certain amount on conspiracy or coverups as part of the premise of “what really happened.” The term came into being following 9/11 but has been expanded to include the latest interpretations of the Sandy Hook killings. From my perspective I’ve been operating under the belief system that “people are making shit up,” i.e., they KNOW the truth or the facts, but are deliberately misrepresenting them with disinformation or arriving at conclusions based on information that isn’t relevant.

BTW most of us have adopted at least one of the trutherism theories of the past 50 years, whether it was JFK’s assassination, LBJ’s involvement (or not), why we were in Viet Nam, the landings on the Moon, all the way up through as recently as Sandy Hook. Even much of the UFO theories or crop circles can fall into trutherisms. Speculation about “what is really happening” is fueled by imaginations based on experience, (which can include reading a whole lot of conspiracy novels and/or watching similar movies, or reading blogs and forums online.) For some, the reality of these trutherisms have been proven and are very real.

A related reality that is soon to hit with surprising force will be the Sequester, the automatic cuts to the existing Federal budget of $85 billion. Now you see it, now you don’t. Many of the cuts won’t become apparent immediately, but ones such as those affecting air transportation will be. Most of the cuts will be borne across the months, but others won’t, such as an immediate drop in Unemployment benefits of $30 dollars per week.

Why do I mention the sequester? Well, according to “The Daily Fix” of the Washington Post:

Just one in four Americans are following the debate over the $1.2 trillion in automatic spending cuts set to kick in on Friday very closely, according to a new Washington Post-Pew poll, numbers that serve as a reminder that although talk of the sequester is dominating the nation’s capitol, it has yet to permeate into the public at large.

Not only are most people paying very little attention to the sequester, they also have only the faintest sense of what it would do. Less than one in five (18 percent) say they understand “very well” what would happen if the sequester went into effect in the Post-Pew poll.

Those remarkably low numbers come despite the fact that the debate over the sequester has dominated Washington for much of the last month and, in the past week or so, President Obama has cranked up the direness of his warning about what it could do to the economy.

This would indicate that 80% of the public has so little interest in the wranglngs and bullshit of DC that there reality includes “washing their hands” of such nonsense. 40% were interested in the so-called “fiscal cliff” in December, but this constant game of brinksmanship has lost them. The budget fight at the end of March may have the same low numbers.

I don’t think 40% is a high number, but 18% is definitely a low number. This means even the Tea Party advocates have lost interest to some degree. Of course, that number is subject to rapid change when and if the Sequester hits on Friday and directly affects them, such as much longer lines and more waiting at airports or waiting to take off or land.

And, this brings me back to Truthers. While I may find them fascinating, most are unaware of them. In a sense I’m part of the Truther reality as I’m tuned into it. I have a Google alert on the term to catch news articles on either new ones or existing ones. Similarly, I’m part of the DC reality as I really pay attention to the latest doings and non-doings of Washington, DC, even though I’m waaaaay outside the beltway. And, of course, I’m part of a subset of another reality: those who consider themselves as progressives. I have definite opinions on what should or should not be done. This all affects my three primary bodies that hold my reality: physical, emotional, and intellectual.

Even knowing this, I still find it hard to believe that the “obstructionist” Republicans actually BELIEVE the crap they’re advocating. But, I have to accept that it is likely their reality.

6 comments to My reality is different from yours

  • Suzie

    Agreed, the effects of being at the same event, same time, and still have different retells of what happened. Also reality of where is the value system and the based set of truths.

  • Maureen

    Geraldine –

    I am a reality ponderer as well.

    As my own response(…or reaction), to the “lies” told throughout the movie ARGO, has soared, I’ve been pondering the whole lies vs truth “reality” or multiple realities. I’m sure there is a line between “unconscious” lying and “conscious” lying — but I wonder how fine that line actually is?

    I have had such a strong, visceral reaction to this event (…or multiple events?) that I plan on asking Michael about it at my next private session.

    Thank you for your truth seeking,


  • I honestly don’t know where the line between lying vs non-lying is, even if mistaken beliefs. I’ve known a few liars during my lifetime who always took the path of “making shit up.” But, the more times they repeated their version, the more they believed it. There was a point of crossover where belief took hold and for them “it was true.”

    I’m not even touching on the world of deliberate fictionalization. Because most are willing to do that whole “suspension of disbelief” thing. They know it’s fiction, but go along with the premises being explored. And, there IS a factor that makes it more complex. As we’re discovering with Michael, many authors are tuning into a genuinely different reality — one that existed or even exists elsewhere.

    And, what about concurrents? These lifetimes are at some point simultaneous to other Personalities of Essence — they ALL share the same Essence traits. Yet, due to a combination of other overleaves, experiences, and choices, they live substantially different realities. All are the same Soul Age, all are the same Role and Casting, all have the same Energy Ratio and Frequency; yet, no two are alike. Not even a little alike. They have such totally different realities that I’m not sure that if they were to meet, there would be much commonality. There might be an energetic Essence Recognition, but I suspect that they’d have substantially different perspectives due to their individual lifetime of experiences.

  • Jeremy

    Hi Geraldine,

    In your efforts to validate the Michael Teachings, have you conducted experiments such as asking multiple channels an historical question (who reigned in Hungary in…) in real time and seen whether the answers are consistent and correct? This would be a way to sort out good channels from poor, or debunk the entire premise of Michael entirely.

    • You ask a good question about how does one validate anything, not just Michael or the Teachings. This has been my quest. To expand my understanding of what validation is. This is one reason that I’ve spent so much time of imprinting, belief systems, and “truth.” All of these things underlie all of us, from the nuttiest of the nutty to the most rigidly linear to those who speak for the “great beyond.”

      Generally speaking, I’ve validated Michael on some things either through personal experience or through other disciplines or teachers. I’m trying to discern when the “at best only 80% is accurate” statement from Michael is “true.” For one thing, this single statement has caused more dumbass thinking than any other — as everyone automatically assumes that “their” favorite channel is 80% correct or even 100% correct, but they don’t read the fine print involved in that statement — when is “the best?” How about days when the error factor is much higher?

      By and large, I have validated a fair number of individual facts or congruencies, but the vast majority of the answers I’ve received fall into the category of “can’t be validated with known information at this time.” Although, I do place a certain value on consistency over time. I know Troy well enough to know just how “addlepated” and ignorant he is on many topics — deliberately so, I might add. He fights the issue of not wanting to go into a session biased. So, there are any number of facts that come through him that I know HE didn’t supply. Similarly, he rarely reads any of the transcripts for the same reason; so, when I deal with consistencies across time on some very complex topics or unusual ideas, they stand out, too.

      Validation is not a scientific process, simply because the underpinnings of it are like quicksand. Personal perspective will drive the questions, interpret the answers, drive the debates, drive the additional research, etc.


  • Jeremy

    You’re doing what I like doing, which is evaluate the foundations of everything. But believing in anything presupposes truth and untruth, even if it’s immanent truth. So we could say: certain realities hold certain truths. For the realities you’re working with, things are or are not. If historical facts consistently cannot be consistently channelled, then the channels are not channeling what they claim to be channeling. Whether it’s there to be channeled is another question: if no-one can channel it, the question is irrelevant. This is covered in the statement “At best only 80% is accurate”, of course. So ask ten questions, and see if eight are correct and consistent among channels.

    The alternative is to contest all truth and untruth as “quicksand”, but then validation becomes meaningless: something is true at one moment and untrue in the next, or always true and untrue.

Leave a Reply




You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>