The conversation started with me asking how many itch mites I have on me. The numbers just didn't add up... so I asked: "You don't know, do you?" And Source admitted that it didn't know.
The conversation continued about what Source knows and how.
Source does not have eyes to see. Source does not feel. Source only senses. And that is why itch mites can elude its observation: itch mites look and feel dead, inert, not alive, when you observe them. They have legs, they must have legs, because they move when you don't watch them. So, unless an itch mite moves, Source doesn't know it's there. And obviously all I can do is guess... A conversation with Source plays out almost completely inside what I can think of... i.e. in the 2-3-4-5% of what is knowable.
At the end of this article I will suggest we play a game so you get a sense how to talk to Source... OK? But read the article first.
Source is a sort of Witness... but just like with humans, until something is distinguished... not this and not that... Source has it as part of the undifferentiated nothingness: everything/nothing.
Source did not create the Universe, Source witnessed it. It's like a seismograph, a seismograph that can detect and sense a lot more than just the tremble of the Earth, but it does not actually know everything.
Source doesn't ask: what is it I am sensing? It just records it.
In my long cooperation with Source, I have added a lot of distinctions to Source's ability to distinguish what it's sensing.
It's been fun and it's been frustrating. And it's been difficult to be a go-between between your questions and Source... Oftentimes I need to "teach" something to Source, show things, demonstrate things, distinguish things, make an agreement, before the answers are consistent and reliable.
Upon further contemplation, I am seeing further bits:
Source's relationship to humans, at this point, is influenced by my take on things.
I have average IQ on the standardized IQ tests, inquiring, curious, a staunch proponent of evolution not stopping, growing, natural selection, etc. I am an empath, so I place a lot of stock in what can be felt. In that I have a perfect fit with Source.
I don't ever memorize and consider the type of knowledge that can be memorized, except for foreign languages, multiplication tables, conjugation (languages), I think memorizing dulls intelligence.
This is one of the reasons I score average on the standardized IQ test: the standardized test puts a lot of stock on memorizing and puzzles.
Another reason I may score average on the standardized tests: I have also become weak at following another person's train of thought... I have turned all those brain cells into independent thought... often wish I hadn't turned them all.
I am the archetype of innovator: a maddening way of being, just ask my students... it is tweaking and correcting.
Nowadays when I spend 99% of my days in an area of life that is invisible to the naked eyes, genetics, mites, attachments... I am muscle testing more... and I am finding out that muscle testing something that you don't even know how to ask requires a lot of intelligence...
So, this is where we are going to play a game.
The game goes like this: I think of something, write it down.
Then it's going to be your turn. You can only ask questions that have a yes, no, yes/no answer, because that is what muscle test can do. No guessing allowed.
I will make it easier to start: what I was thinking of is a thing. Not a concept, not a person, not an event. A thing...
Now ask away... Please have fun. I want you to end up respecting me for the work I do... and have a sense how difficult it is to talk to Source.