(Bonus) Food and frequency

Machine transcription; unreviewed and may contain errors.

(Bonus) Food and frequency
Source: reality/010-bonus-food-and-frequency.mp3
SHA-256: 9026fe3f9a193d986d0ee92e7c61ffd140b71ea0e0d2c97afcaa1d49d7d8c60c
Model: scribe_v2 | Transcribed: 2026-10-10T18:07:39.347341+00:00
Machine transcript — uncorrected. Speaker labels are local to this recording and do not identify people.

[00:00:00.560] Speaker 1: Hello. This is Stephen Schrembeck, and I am recording the last bonus episode here. This one's titled Food and Frequency. This is a lecture-like experience that I got on the morning of May 3rd, 2026. And this came amidst a long series of serious and profound experiences. So this was a very welcome [chuckles] and very surprising, uh, experience. I haven't had very many lecture experiences, but this one was extremely high-quality telepathy, meaning it was obvious that I was talking to somebody else, and what they were saying was very clear. It

[00:00:35.460] Speaker 1: starts as a dream, and I thought that the information in here was something I'd never heard before. It's very practical in nature, and it's kind of fun. So enjoy. Now, I'm gonna be reading from a journal for some of this, and I'll interject my own thoughts. My own handwriting's pretty hard to read, so if I'm stumbling through it, well, that's why. All right, here we go. I was a bodiless observer in a dream about a cooking show. Chefs had prepared one dish after another for a panel of judges. As it would turn out, the chefs, judges, and I were all actually students of a sort on this

[00:01:10.360] Speaker 1: set, as it was a classroom in disguise. A man presents a dish with some fish and leafy vegetables. One taster expresses satisfaction with the contrast between the fish and the vegetables. And then a Michael Pollan-like figure interjects. He has-- He's bald with liver spots, and he starts to explain why the contrast is satisfying. "Look at how different the environments of the ingredients are." Meaning the fish and the leafy greens came from very different environments. That's why it's, the contrast is satisfying.

[00:01:45.660] Speaker 1: Another taster, this is the judge on the panel, says something about the greens. And then, again, this figure interjects and says, "Your brain is desensitizing to the greens." Meaning, to explain why they didn't like it. So I'm in a dream, right? This is, this is just happening. It's in a dream. Another, uh, judge comments about something else on the plate. They make a comment about gluten. And then, again, the Michael Pollan-like figure [chuckles] interjects. He's like the host, you know. He's, like, talking to the audience. He's talking to the whole room, right? Every time somebody will present a dish, they're, like, tasting something, the judge says something, and then this

[00:02:20.560] Speaker 1: guy starts to come in with, like, "Oh, I'm gonna layer some commentary over the top to explain some things." So they say, "You need to see beyond gluten-free. It is not that simple." And with a flourish, the dream takes a turn and seems to become much more instructive. Uh, so they basically look right at the camera, and [laughs] uh, they're, now they're talking. So while this-- Here's the exact quote. And I am seeing, like, intuitive, like, conceptual, visual, like, literally, like, watching some grains grow from a

[00:02:55.380] Speaker 1: seed in the field, and they're being, like, harvested or, like, milled or whatever. They're going through a distribution facility, prepared in a kitchen. I see this whole, like, life cycle while this guy is talking this next quote. Right. So it comes with a, a slideshow, [laughs] a very fancy one. Here's the quote. "The food is trying to give you its entire experience at every step of its own experience." So that's what he says while, while I'm watching this grain grow. I'm like, "Okay." Uh, sorry. Here's the quote. Back to the journal. Now I'm both curious and

[00:03:30.240] Speaker 1: waking up. I'm becoming lucid. This person, uh, so I-- they introduce themself as Nom, and I quote, "Because it is thematically appropriate, and they require a name." I love it so much. The names are clearly made up, but I thought it was a beautiful choice for a name. And they offer to dispense with the illusion of a dream and speak to me directly. I agree. Right. So the whole dream fades now. I'm lucid, and I'm entering, like, a liminal state. Like, I'm starting to wake up. I'm not really dreaming anymore. We're just talking. And I have questions, you

[00:04:05.100] Speaker 1: see. Uh, I am amused and amazed to be given a lesson on food, health, and frequency. Uh, so it's part metaphysics and, uh, part cooking lesson. Uh, so it's very practical. Um, so that's cool. All right, so I o- I ask this question right off the bat. I'm like, "Oh, hold on a second. I can tell that this is a lesson. [laughs] I got some questions for you because you just said some crazy stuff to me. So, uh, let me, let me get this straight." "So the quality of its experience determines its health value?" I'm skeptical. Here's the response. "That affects the frequency,

[00:04:40.120] Speaker 1: which determines its health value or detriment." All right. So he goes on to explain that a batch of Oreos could be made with love, and that you can tell the difference when something is made with love, and that there are three different ways to determine, like, the frequency of a food as it relates to its health value for you. And you can do it before, during, or after eating something. So you can sense, uh, whether something is good for you before, during, or after eating it. So the easiest time is after you eating it, after you've eaten it. It's literally just how it

[00:05:15.000] Speaker 1: makes you feel. That should be pretty obvious, right? I think everyone knows this one, like, "Ugh, I don't feel good after eating that." That's the easiest. So these are each skills, and there is a level of awareness involved, and there's some practice. Uh, but you can train yourself, and then during eating it, you can notice, "Ooh." That one's a little easier. And then the hardest, generally, is knowing whether food is healthy before you've eaten it. You can just sense it. Okay. Um, so they go on to say that every ingredient in the dish involved, the equipment, everything connected to each part matters separately.

[00:05:50.140] Speaker 1: Everything is connected. So literally everything involved in the preparation of this dish affects its final frequency. Whether it was made on a stove that was well-loved or made on a stove that's a piece of crap that somebody yelled at it every day because it never worked correctly. That makes a difference. It's literally all involved in it. All right. So this guy's blowing my mind at this point. I'm in a lesson, but I don't even care. Like, I'm less wowed at this point than [chuckles] receiving a telepathic lesson from a stranger. I'm mostly interested in, like, I've never heard this stuff before. What are you talking about? Like, what makes food healthy or not? Let's talk. Okay. So

[00:06:25.120] Speaker 1: naturally, I'm gonna poke some holes in this. All right, so here's my next question, question number two. But I could lovingly make a batch of arsenic and feed it to someone, and it would still kill them. So I wanna know, like, okay, so you're saying that if you l- if the arsenic has a great experience while it's being made, and I give it to somebody, it's still gonna kill them. It's still obviously not good for them. Here's the answer. Frequency is contextual. This is the context of eating. Meaning, in some other context, like cleaning, it could, could be considered very high

[00:06:59.596] Speaker 1: frequency. All right, so we have, like, a little, like, conceptual back and forth without words. Um, so that's the answer. I thought it was interesting, and I'm sort of poking more holes in this. It's... I'm translating to words here. So there's the context of having a body, and food that interferes with the bodily's, the body-- with bodily functions is not high frequency in that context. And then he also points out that, as an example, uh, with Wim Hof, there are no fundamental limits, however, but there are practical ones. So

[00:07:34.436] Speaker 1: specifically, Wim Hof, like, has injected pathogens into him to suppress the immune reaction and prevent them from, like, damaging him or hurting him. And he points at Wim Hof as an example of, you know, even poisons can be neutralized if you're skilled enough. But generally speaking, practically speaking, if you're eating poison, it's gonna hurt you. It doesn't matter how much you love the process [chuckles] or how much, how lovingly it was made. So you can think of this as a modifier, right? If you're taking something that's just physically, biologically awful for you, you're gonna have a real hard time moving the needle with love. Doesn't mean it can't be done. There

[00:08:09.476] Speaker 1: are no fundamental limits. But there are practical ones. I thought that was a fascinating answer. So then I asked my next question. Is frequency not universal then? And I get yes and no simultaneously, at the same exact time. Like, the words, like they, like you say them over the top of each other, yes, no, at the same time. I've gotten this before in telepathy, and it's hilarious. Like, I always love this answer. It's like a, a yes, but, dot, dot, dot. [chuckles] All right. So I wanted to know, you-- basically, this idea of something

[00:08:44.296] Speaker 1: having a frequency is always out there. You know, people treat it as a good/bad spectrum. This is not exactly correct, but if you were to oversimplify it, that would be one way of looking for it. So I wanna know about this term. I'm asking is it... Okay, so is something, can something be universally high or low frequency? And they answer yes, no at the same time. And they say, this is a quote, "It is always contextual." And then they, they point to a story where I hit my sister before. Okay. Here's the quote. "You hit your sister, yet you love your sister." [chuckles] And I respond with, "Gee, thanks

[00:09:19.356] Speaker 1: for this very personal example." And they just smile at me. [chuckles] And here's the next. But are you high frequency? And I answer, after a little hesitation, "Yes." And then they nod yes. [chuckles] And then I say, "No," and then yes. But yes overall? And then I ask, "So is frequency like benevolence?" Here's the exact quote. "In the simplest terms, yes. But it is not only that. Relevant to the context," and it's

[00:09:54.276] Speaker 1: said with a very knowing smile, "of this conversation, that is true." But they're not willing to, to give a universal absolute answer. But they just say that, yes, relevant to the context of this food and frequency conversation, yes, you can consider frequency like a scale of benevolence, but it is not that simple. And then they go on to say, "It's whether it is good within that context." That is what frequency is. Within a specific context, is it good? That is high frequency. That's it. There you go. There's a definition for the term.

[00:10:29.656] Speaker 1: I like that one 'cause I'd never heard that one before. It fits. And then I'm given an intuitive, completely intuitive understanding that a universal frequency is simply the frequency at every context. So this is, like, from every perspective. And you could use that as a measure, as one way to measure, uh, the net good of one... Oh, my gosh, cat. [chuckles] Sorry, cat in my lap. You could use that as a measure of one way of determining the

[00:11:04.396] Speaker 1: net good to the entire system. So when we say high frequency, we generally mean the overall universal set of contexts. This is a shorthand. So if you don't supply a context, it's understood that you mean, is this good for everybody and everything? Then you could say that would be the universal measure of frequency. I thought that this was really cool. That makes kinda sense. That makes sense to me. But that's one way of doing it, right? The net good. But of course, you could be plus 100 to somebody and minus 50 to another, and the person who got minus 50 might not see it as a net good, even though it

[00:11:39.296] Speaker 1: was. Okay. Then there was a discussion about whether one could make food healthy. You know, wasn't unhealthy, or wasn't healthy, and then you made it healthy. Or it was less healthy, and you made it more healthy. Nam told me to look up for my answer. I, so I was a little confused by that. And then I took this to mean, like, blessing the food to directly affect its frequency. Yes, was the answer. Again, there are limits. It helps. Uh, and then [chuckles] I was given, like, the intuitive hint,

[00:12:14.116] Speaker 1: important, do not harm others by misleading them into believing, basically, that you can turn something bad for you into something good for you. Practically speaking, that's not so easy to do. It's a, don't think that you can just eat complete trash and, because you, you said, "Oh, this is healthy for me now," it is. It's not that simple. You could get to that level. All right, so then I say to- Praying over your food, therefore, is not completely useless. And their response, direct quote, "Not at all," and a smile. [laughs] Then I ask another question. Said, "Does feeling guilty change the food's health value?"

[00:12:50.120] Speaker 1: Quote, "In a sense, but by a different mechanism." And I got the sense that this was a different lesson, but it was related to this. And I quote, "Suffice to say, you are affecting, affecting yourself more than the food in this case. So you're directly affecting your own body and its ability to digest fully this food, possibly among other changes." So at this point, I pause. Um, so I'd been going through this whole notes and making sure I understood the things that I'd said, and I got the quote, "You

[00:13:24.640] Speaker 1: understand," followed by a sort of confident feeling, a simple assertion. So it stopped sort of fussing over getting the exact words right. You get it. [laughs] Time to move on. You get it. You get the idea. Let's go. And I said, "Thank you for the lesson," and that I would pass it on. So here I am, keeping a promise. Uh, and then they said, "I know." And then there's a knowing and warm smile. "Thanks for your work." And I said, "Same. Bye." [laughs] And there's one more interaction. I wrote

[00:13:59.580] Speaker 1: down, [laughs] "This conversation requires cookies," and then I ate two of them. And Nom replies, "They were gluten-free. How do you feel?" And I wrote, I wrote down the word, "Eh." [laughs] And there is a knowing smile, followed by the indication to, "Well, maybe you should pay attention to that." And this was clearly a joke. I didn't even realize they were still paying attention, I'm sure. [laughs] "Yeah, you ate those cookies. How do you feel? Oh, they're gluten-free. Hmm, and you don't feel good. That's interesting.

[00:14:34.500] Speaker 1: Guess there's more to it." Um, and that was it. That was the end of the entire interaction. And I thought that was so fun. Those are some pretty weird ideas. I'd never heard those before. I definitely never thought about a food being healthy as to based on how its experience was. What was the quality of its own experience, and that it's giving you that quality directly. It's imparting that on you. Uh, so if it was grown with love and, uh, tender care and, like, it was well cared for. I mean, a lot of these things directly correlate with more obvious facts, like

[00:15:09.600] Speaker 1: if a factory farmed animal was very sick and tortured and stressed out, chances are that food is not very healthy for you. Same with, you know, a whole bunch of, like, uh, food that has been processed or sat around stale. And I never considered that a lot of the reason it might be unhealthy is not because it was old or because of pesticides or because of runoff or whatever was happening, pollution, uh, or because of contaminants, but because its own experience was bad and all the things it was connected to had a bad experience. And if you follow that thread, it is interesting. It's still

[00:15:44.720] Speaker 1: saying the same thing. It includes a model of, well, [laughs] you know, it was infected with this fungi, and so that's not good for you. Well, that could still be true, but it was also not good for you because this grain didn't have a great experience because it was infected with fungi. I thought that that was very fascinating, and it opens up the avenues of being able to affect the quality of your food and thus your health value in other ways. I think everyone can attest that for some reason, the same meal made at a restaurant is often less satisfying and it feels less

[00:16:19.760] Speaker 1: healthy than a home-cooked meal. You can make pretty crappy food that is made at love with, you know, at home, with love at home, uh, and then served, you know, with care. And for some reason, that does seem to make a big difference, and I think that this model helps to explain why that might be. I thought they were very cool ideas, and I'd never heard frequency described in this, uh, [laughs] in this way before, and that it's all contextual. And I thought that was fascinating too. So I hope that you found this interesting. Thank you all very much for listening. This is

[00:16:54.660] Speaker 1: the very last surprise episode. See you around.