Our Being: the Emergence of a Commonly Sensed Consciousness, with Sperry Andrews [Recording Available]


(Sperry Andrews) #24

Great Ed, I’d like to as well …

(Sperry Andrews) #25

Dear Marco,

Thank You for your kind reply.

I’m grateful to know you choose to continue moment by moment.

I had not reached the end of the full recording when I wrote my own critique.

Upon completion, after 1:41:00 or so, we did begin to enter a commonly sensed consciousness together.

I agree with your synthesis of Caroline’s recommendations… dissonance is a ‘goldmine.’

I’d be glad to co-facilitate other gathering(s) with you, Caroline and Ed

We’ve broken through the inertial layer.

With All Love,


(Sperry Andrews) #26

Dear Marco, Caroling and Ed,

I’m writing to ask if it might be ok with you if I shared the
recording of our group with some of my friends on facebook ?

I watched it from beginning to end last night and felt 'afresh’
that it does offer a clear way of establishing conscious dialog.

I couldn’t find Ed’s email address, so if you might ask him?

Thanks for Your Consideration,

All Love,


(Marco V Morelli) #27

Hi Sperry,

On the forum, you’re able to send a direct message to any member in this way:

You can also mention a member in a topic by typing the @ symbol, then beginning to type their name—that person will then be notified that you mentioned them.

The understanding I’ve had and hope I’ve communicated with regard to these live ‘Infinite Conversations’ is that they do become a public archive that can be studied, shared, and enjoyed by others freely—unless the participants agree ahead of time not to broadcast or record, which they can do. So, I have no objection to you sharing this with your Facebook group, since I assumed this would be public all along.

I also know Ed has expressed multiple times that he has no objection to the recording or broadcast of these talks in general. I believe this is Caroline’s understanding as well…but it doesn’t hurt to double check!

(Sperry Andrews) #28

thank You Marco, I’m so grateful

you agree on this policy of sharing.

have you watched the recording, as of yet ?

(Marco V Morelli) #29

I have not watched it yet. However, I would like to go back and review this recording, along with others, and see what I can learn, now that we’ve done a few such experiments.

I have not forgotten your suggestion that re-watching a session can bring a new perspective and clarity to the experience. Thank you, Sperry.

(Ed Mahood) #30

Just for completeness’ sake: I’ve got no problems with sharing. That’s why we’re all here … or why I’m here anyway.

(Sperry Andrews) #31

thanks so much Ed, I like the feel of sharing this open transparency as a
policy with you …

(Ernie Tamminga) #32

Just now discovered this community (or whatever it is [becoming]), and resonated with the stream of discussion of this recent session in which I didn’t participate and haven’t yet even watched in recording. Caroline’s series of questions/concerns/gentle-objections vibrate especially strongly with me. Mainly because I’ve experienced some number of groups where a facilitator seriously tries to empower a shared pilgrimage to somewhere that isn’t on any map. Often a strong-personality facilitator (or strong-personality participant) emerges, often without even meaning to, and gives rise to what Caroline described/asked. I include myself in this problem/challenge, having facilitated or participated in groups that have gone almost-somewhere, and groups that have stalled from the get-go.
A core challenge is that we are using words – hence, linear structured (mis)communication to try to approach free, unstructured, quantum-bubbling (no New Age overtones intended) sharing. Our use of words is ever going to be that way, unless we communicate exclusively in poetry and lyrics… but then often we wonder/ask how “the others” interpret the poetry: and there we are again.
I LOVE words. But it’s really hard to “Word Love”.

My main teacher, the late Raimon Panikkar, distinguished between (what he called) “words” and “terms.” A “Term” is a label that points to something, usefully nails-down the something, for rational thinking-about. A “Word” is some(thing?) into which, and by which, we ENTER INTO (possibly together) what is being word-ed. Extremely useful distinction, and excruciatingly difficult to embody together.

This is my very first visit here (thank you to my longtime friend Maia), but I’m deeply intrigued…

(Marco V Morelli) #33

Hi Ernie—Welcome. I appreciate your ‘carefully worded’ reflections here.

One of the things I liked about Sperry’s presentation is that he encouraged us as participants to flow between words and silence, like walking on two legs or flying with two wings.

Whether we did this well is another matter, but I found it to be a useful way of illustrating a general dynamic polarity—i.e., between words and silence or other forms of non-verbal communication/interbeing—that one need not choose between in any absolute sense.

A good writer or speaker is necessarily a good reader or listener. (I’m sure there are exceptions, but in some sense, if we look closely enough, I think it must be true.)

The love of words is curious thing, for sure. I confess to being a Word Lover, but I love the Silence just as much. And what if words leave you speechless, or a silence is pregnant with words?

I believe these are high and important arts—i.e., reading and writing, communication—which involve the whole being. “Excruciatingly difficult to embody together,” you say. Truly. But embody it we must! The Poetic Bubbling of the Quantum Foam demands no less.

Glad to hear about your connection to Raimon Panikkar. A friend & occasional visitor here, @JimT, has been a student of Wayne Liquorman (a student Panikkar), and sent me a bunch of his books, which I’ve enjoyed—especially, No Way: A Guide for the Spiritually “Advanced,” pseudo-authored by Liquorman’s alter-poet-trickster-churlish-sage persona Ram Tzu. You might enjoy his un-wordy way of pointing out ‘the Way’. :smile:

(Jim Trattner) #34

Thanks for the plug, Marco. However, I don’t see the connection between Wayne L. and Pannikar. Did you confuse Pannikar with Balsekar? Ramesh Balsekar was Wayne’s guru.

(Marco V Morelli) #35

I did confuse the two, you’re right, Jim! I was learning about them both around the same time last year—Balsekar in connection with you/Wayne, and Pannikar in connection with some research I was doing on interfaith dialogue. Sorry about that, and thanks for pointing it out…