Intuitive Linked Communication: A Practical Way to Connect


You can communicate with minds on the other side. In fact, you already do, whether or not you know it. It’s just a matter of learning to do so consciously. You already use the necessary techniques. Communication is communication, whether with physical beings or non-physical.

I have been doing this for more than 25 years. After some fumbling experiments with automatic writing, I learned how to engage in written dialogue, and in the next few years I learned how to get into closer touch with what I now call The Guys Upstairs (TGU). Early in 1993 I allowed them to come through in speech as I held myself in a conscious but altered state, and this led to years of my acting as conduit for them to answer the questions posed by others.

What I can do, you can learn to do, and I’ll show you how. It isn’t really difficult. Employing this technique correctly, within its limitations, will provide you with information. Once you obtain that information, you have to weigh it, just as you do with information you obtain in other ways. Verification is always going to be an issue. But that merely amounts to saying, don’t check your common sense at the door.

Intuitive Linked Communication

I don’t use the word “channelling,” chiefly because it makes the process seem more mysterious, more “special” than it is. So one day I asked the guys for a better way to describe the process we were engaged in, and they came up with Intuitive Linked Communication, or ILC. I like that. It is a good descriptor that doesn’t exalt either the process or those engaged in it. It is simply a method of mind-to-mind communication.

A little thought will show you that mind-to-mind communication is the same process whether we think of it as telepathy, or access to guidance, or channelling, or after-death communication. In each case, your mind directly contacts another mind. The variable is not the process, but the other mind.

Telepathy connects you to a mind in another physical body.

Accessing guidance connects you to minds specifically attuned to yours.

What is commonly called channelling connects you to minds on the other side that are, by definition, within your range, but are not necessarily specifically attuned to you.

And after-death communication is nothing but connecting with specific minds on the other side that have had lives on earth.

You see? What at first seems like four different processes is actually one process, connecting with four different kinds of mind.

In the past decade my conversations have come to include specific individuals of three types: some of my own “past lives”; deceased people I have known closely, such as my father, a brother, and friends; and historical figures such as Carl Jung and Ernest Hemingway. They seemed to be familiar with anything I knew, even if it was long after their own time. So, Hemingway could talk about Star Trek videos. Lincoln could discuss the 2006 elections. Joseph P. Kennedy could talk about the cover-ups that followed his sons’ assassinations. How could this be?

TGU say that it is because the mind is subject to the laws of the non-physical world, rather than the physical world, and because all times continue to exist, and because all communication involves the creation of a temporary joint mind.

Let’s look at those three statements:

The mind is subject to the laws of the non-physical world, rather than the physical world. The physical and non-physical worlds differ from each other in two main ways.

In the physical world, we have no way to move our bodies forward or backward in time, but our minds do it all the time, effortlessly. We can no more fall forward into the future than we can fall backward into the past, physically, but in the non-physical world, apparently all times are equally available. This suggests that although the brain is located in the physical world, mind is in the non-physical, because mind obeys non-physical laws.

The non-physical world does not experience the illusion of separation that we do in the physical. Although our bodies keep even the most ardent of lovers separate, our minds know no such boundary. Everything connects and knows it connects. And this suggests that communication always takes place between minds operating under non-physical conditions, even when you are talking to your neighbour.

All times continue to exist. Physical-matter 3D reality is divided by time as it is by space, and we necessarily experience ourselves as always balancing on the knife-edge of the present moment, as though the past ceased to exist and the future had not yet come into existence. But from a perspective outside of time-space, either no times exist or all times exist, and the guys say it is the latter. (They also say it isn’t a matter of one past and future, but of many pasts and futures, available for us to choose.) All times continuing to exist within their own frame of reference, communication between minds in different times becomes not only conceivable, but commonplace.

Communication involves the creation of a temporary joint mind. Especially when communication is not funnelled through the senses, knowing jumps from one mind to another. I have concluded that it is this temporary joint mind, in connection with the fact that all times are equally alive within their own frame of reference, that allows Hemingway to experience Star Trek with me.

A Working Model of Minds on the Other Side

Over the course of several days in 2007, TGU discussed the nature of the soul. As they said, “It is from lack of a plausible model more than from any other single thing that the division between seen and unseen world has come to seem so absolute.” I put the entire 5,000-word discussion (and two diagrams) as “A Working Model Of Minds On The Other Side” on my blog, I of my own knowledge… Here is the part relevant to communication.

‘The Guys Upstairs’ had Frank draw this diagram, a radically simplified look at how minds can connect across time and different worlds.

TGU had told me that the pattern of mind we create by living survives on the other side, and is available for us to contact. I asked them to spell out what they meant.

They started by having me draw a diagram, and letter the circles arbitrarily, not implying hierarchy.

In the diagram the lettered circles represent minds on the non-physical side of life, then there is the dark line representing the “veil between worlds” separating 3-D and non-3-D, and then the numbered circles representing minds in 3-D. The lines between circles are links of affiliation, temperament, etc. that organise the fields.

This is radically simplified. It takes no account of the multiple overlapping layers of relationship that become more obvious as you look more deeply in time and space. Nonetheless, you can see that things connect not simply and uniformly like single-cell organisms, but complexly like the physical body.

Suppose A knows chemistry, B psychology, F practical politics, and J is an artist. Perhaps A connects to G because one is parent and the other is child. Perhaps G in turn connects to C, D and L by profession, affection, and kinship respectively. (And here you see the tip of the iceberg of complexity: if G is kin to A and L, L is in some way kin to A as well as G.)

Now if 3, say, inquires about chemistry, he may need to talk to A. If they are not close enough in wavelength that it may be done directly, then, either silently and unobserved by 3, or openly and described to 3 (as a “control,” say), 3 gets linked to A by whatever route serves. So it may be that 3 can link to I, a good networker. The chain may have to go like this: 3 -> I -> B -> E -> H -> D -> G -> A and back! But as soon as 3 and A have once linked up, they will have established a direct link. In future exchanges, 3 could then perhaps go by way of A (silently or explicitly) to reach G, and any that connect via G, by a shorter or more direct route. Thus the network is ever changing.

(Remember, explanations are analogies that try to explain the unfamiliar by comparing it to the nearest similar thing. You could say that the colour orange is “like” red, and also “like” yellow, but the statement would be incomprehensible to those who have experienced red and yellow until they have also experienced orange. Thus, the circles in the diagram are not units but are complex meeting-points, different parts of which may come into play in different circumstances.)

The difference between the nature of the physical and nonphysical world makes us as valuable to the other side as it can be to us. The ability to form ever more complex relationships is central to the universe (to physical and nonphysical reality considered as one). And – since we are in contact with the part of the universe that is outside of time, in which all moments of time exist equally – we may contact all the past, all the future, anyone and everyone in the physical or nonphysical part of the world. So what can’t we reach? The key is to redefine ourselves, redefine the world, so as to disable the thought systems that persuade us that it is not possible. It is that simple, that easy, that overwhelmingly powerful. But it can only be done one by one.

Practicing ILC

It’s much like talking on the telephone. When you go to use the phone, you don’t ask permission, or engage in elaborate rituals, or wonder if the phone really exists or if you are worthy to use it. You just take it for granted and talk! This isn’t all that different. Here’s the process, step by step.

  1. Form a question or have in mind something you want to discuss. Until you are entirely comfortable with the process, don’t ask life-or-death questions, don’t ask about your health, and don’t ask your source to predict the future. I’ll explain why, below.
  2. Write the question down. Not only does the process of phrasing the question focus the mind, it provides a record of what you ask, to remind you later what your starting-point was.
  3. Get in a quiet, receptive mental space, and wait. Be open to whatever comes. You may get words, or general ideas, or “knowings,” or what seem like stray thoughts out of nowhere.
  4. Whatever comes, write down whatever will help you to remember what you got. Don’t judge the information’s relevance or accuracy at this point, just receive it as best you can.
  5. Ask follow-up questions as they occur to you, and again be open to whatever comes. Continue until the process dries up.
  6. While you’re still in the process, don’t judge what you’re getting. The payoff will come later, when you re-examine what you got and find yourself saying, “holy cow, where did that come from?”
  7. After you are back in a more or less normal mental state, take another look at what you received, in light of the question you started with, which you wrote down. See what you can make of it. Don’t treat it as gospel, and don’t dismiss it as fantasy. Treat it at least as seriously as you would if you were interpreting a dream.

That’s all there is to it.

“What? That’s it? That’s all there is?”

Well, there’s always practice, practice, practice, but yes, that’s all there is. Let’s look at the process.

The Process and the Information

It is critically important to bear in mind the two-stroke way the mind processes information. First it perceives, then it interprets what it perceived. These are complementary functions, both necessary, but they function alternately. While you are in the process of perceiving, you can’t be interpreting. While interpreting, you can’t be receiving. Eliminating either function, or cutting either one short, distorts the results. Indeed, it may prevent you from acquiring anything at all.

Ideally, while perceiving, we function as temporary know-it-alls, accepting without question anything we receive. While perceiving, we don’t judge. Remember, as soon as you start interpreting, and for as long as you continue interpreting, you have ceased perceiving. Perceive first. Interpret later. It’s the only way it can be done. Don’t let that left-brain logic machine prevent you from perceiving. But then, after you have perceived, it’s the interpreter’s moment. The process of analysis is just as important as the process of perception – but each in its own time.

In your analysis, there are two useless worries that you might as well dismiss immediately: Is it true, and who or what is the source?

1) Is it true? It’s natural to ask this question because we don’t want to be fooling ourselves. But ask yourself, how do you know what’s true in the rest of your life? I think it comes down to two things. Either it resonates (feels true) or doesn’t, and it either is supported by whatever data we have, or it isn’t. I don’t know any other tests we can employ, either in ordinary communication or in Intuitive Linked Communication. As with the rest of life, you don’t take it for Gospel, and you don’t refuse to even look at it. You use your judgment.

2) Who or what is the source? This is another good and natural question. But again, ask yourself, what is the source of your dreams? Your intuitions? Your inexplicable certainties? What is the source of your thoughts or ideas? Ultimately, it’s all a mystery. I don’t know of anything to do other than to follow the advice Jesus gave long ago, to judge things by the fruits they bear.


Herewith, a list of obstacles that may present themselves in your practice of ILC. Overcome these, and you’re good to go. Merely being aware of them is more than half the battle.

  • False expectations. Don’t prejudge how the information is going to come. I have had it come in so many ways: visuals or ideas that I have had to interpret; words that arise within me, that I speak without trying to shape or edit them; knowings; hunches; urges; vague impressions. What I get doesn’t always “make sense” – that is, it can’t always be immediately understood or interpreted.
  • Fear of what you might encounter. Set your intention to contact only those beings who have your highest good at heart. The intention itself will protect you.
  • Stepping on the hose. If you ask questions that raise too much anxiety, your own anxiety about the answer may prevent you from getting anything. That’s why, earlier, I said you shouldn’t start off asking life-or-death questions.
  • Keeping score. It doesn’t matter when you “get it.” There are no prizes for finishing first. Inventor Thomas Edison used the trial-and-error method with great success, and regarded failures as steps to ultimate success. Don’t discourage yourself by your expectations.
  • Illusion of separation or of distance. If we were really separate, connecting would involve overcoming some obstacle. But distance is not involved in non-physical communication, and the way to overcome the illusion of separation is to practice empathy, such as that which connects mothers and their new-born children.
  • Ego, too large or too small. Succeeding at ILC is no big deal. Don’t let your ego swell because you succeed. It is, after all, a universal human ability. Why get puffed up because you learned what somebody taught you? At the other extreme, you don’t need to be “special” to do it.
  • “I can’t do it.” There’s no harm in trying. If at first you get no results, pretend, if necessary to get started. Answer the question as if you really had someone on the line. Often this will quickly segue into the real thing, and when it does you will know the difference. The only thing is, if you use this method to prime the pump, remember that you did. Even at best, you might sometimes fool yourself inadvertently. Don’t do it deliberately or from carelessness.
  • “I don’t want someone reading my mind!” This fear of people overhearing what we’re thinking is a misunderstanding of what’s going on. You aren’t reading, or overhearing, or collecting data. As I said earlier, it’s closer to active empathy.
  • Finally, two complementary errors that stem from ignoring the necessarily complementary nature of this form of communication. If you neglect the process of analysis, you may fall into what I call Psychic’s Disease. If you neglect perception, the pitfall might be called Over-Rationalism.
  • Psychic’s Disease: Beware of thinking that if you feel it strongly, it must be true. Trust, but verify.
  • Over-Rationalism: Equally, beware of the reaction that says, “I don’t have a logical reason for what I just perceived, so it must be false and needn’t even be examined.”

Problems Arising

As you can imagine, a world in which we all knew we could extend our awareness to the other side would be a very different place. Will be a very different place, I hope. But it won’t come without problems, and here’s a few that come to mind.

What do you do about the information people bring back? How are we to judge? They aren’t right just because they’re sure they’re right; they aren’t wrong just because we’re sure they’re wrong.

Of course there are going to be the fakers, the hoaxers. One more reason to keep our faculties of discernment polished.

And there are those with Psychic’s Disease, sincere but unbalanced in their belief and perhaps their need to believe.

And the pretentious, who will claim false authority, speaking as if delegated by the person they are convinced they spoke to. They may be sincere, but they also may be motivated at least partially by the need to bolster their own importance. I spent many months discussing Hemingway’s life and work with him. Can I claim to be his authorised spokesman? I don’t think so. I connected with those aspects of Hemingway for which I had resonance – the writer, the romantic, the family man, political observer, above all – but I know nothing of other sides of him, for instance the hunter, the warrior, the fisherman, the celebrity, the prodigious consumer of alcohol. I would doubt anyone claiming to encompass all aspects of anyone they connect to, no matter how strongly they feel. Nonetheless, this is a problem that’s going to grow with time, I suspect, as the practice of ILC widens.

Still, if ILC is a real ability (and I am convinced it is), we have to decide how to deal with its down side. I don’t see that we can do more than we do in the rest of life: use our judgment, look at the person’s track record and general air of reliability, and preserve a cautious scepticism.

Another problem, at an entirely different level. Once we know that we can contact the dead, do we have obligations to do so? If we know we can help them (and sometimes we can), how far does our implicit obligation extend? Does it exist at all? What are the ground rules? Probably we’re going to have to make them up (or discover them) as we go.


We already extend beyond time/space. Because we do, it is easy to get information from the part of ourselves that is already on the other side, and easy for that part of us to get information from others. In fact, many people have learned to do it almost without noticing because they were focused on other goals.

Some who read this will hear an inner voice saying “yes, that’s the way it is; this actually can be done, though it may require practice.” Just listening to the voice helps break the logjam. Making your own attempts helps more. Overcoming your own scepticism and making the effort to not negate results by declaring that you made it all up helps even more.

Working with friends is another step. Coming out into the open about your experiments and your experiences adds vastly to the effect. Every attempt – even if made in silence in a darkened room on an island without telephones, so to speak – adds its weight to the scales. And so it goes, as each one pioneers as best he or she can. You can do this, and you will find it well worth doing.

If you appreciate this article, please consider a digital subscription to New Dawn.


FRANK DEMARCO was the co-founder of Hampton Roads Publishing Company, and is the author of several books dealing with aspects of communicating with the non-physical side of life, including Afterlife Conversations with Hemingway, Muddy Tracks and The Cosmic Internet, all based on more 25 years of extra-sensory communication.

The above article appeared in New Dawn 146 (Sept-Oct 2014)

Read this article with its illustrations and much more by downloading
your copy of New Dawn 146 (PDF version) for only US$4.95

© New Dawn Magazine and the respective author.
For our reproduction notice, click here.

It's only fair to share...Share on Facebook6Share on Google+0Tweet about this on TwitterShare on StumbleUpon16Email this to someone