Wednesday February 18, 2015
F: 6:10 a.m. Well, Miss Rita, Charles has given us a choice of several questions today. What’s your pleasure?
R: Let’s start with the easiest, or perhaps I should consider it the hardest, because I can’t see the difficulty.
[Charles said, “And this sentence from today’s session is a mind-stopper. It turns `free will’ completely upside down from any previous understanding. `The logical confusion lies in thinking that the free will is somehow dependent upon the result of the choice, rather than in the nature of the choice as affirming a set of values in the person choosing.’ Can more be added to it?”]
Why would anyone consider a choice in terms of the results it produced, externally, rather than the results it produced (and, really, revealed) internally?
If free will were about negotiating a morass, then I suppose the results could be “scored” according to results, although even there, one’s values would determine how one scored it. But it is about shaping your soul; continual choosing among alternative reactions to seemingly external provocations or stimuli. In such case, how can the nature of free will be in dispute?
F: I can remember when this free will business as the whole purpose of 3D existence wasn’t nearly as clear to you. When the guys first came in with it, I’d have to look up the result, but I remember it as being a new idea to you.
R: It is clear enough now! If 3D is to shape a soul, and the shaping is to be done by the presentation of opportunities to see one’s own characteristics as if externally seen, what would be the point of constricting the choices?
F: You don’t need to persuade me! I’m just reminding you, you didn’t always see things that way.
R: No, but by 2008 I certainly did, and had for some while. Do you think any more needs to be said on the subject?
F: I suppose we’ll have to see from whatever feedback we get. That is one valuable aspect of the way we’re going about this. When we lose them overboard, they can sing out so we circle back for them. Next question?
R: Martha on mirrors, I think.
[Charles: “Or…do you want to pose Martha’s question before we leave the topic? `It is about using 3D and 3D’s conditions of existence to carefully forge a mind – a soul – that will thereafter function in non-3D as a unique mirror, or touchstone, among the others already existing.’ Can she please clarify this statement, especially the part about being a unique mirror? Mirror of what or for what purpose or to whom?”]
F: Well, I remember even as I wrote it, I was wondering if mirror was the right word, but I didn’t want to stop to clarify.
R: That’s all right, perhaps it was a good thing, in leading us to clarify further. What I meant is simple enough. The 3D-created mind serves as a window, or mirror, or interpreter, call it, to the non-3D mind it connects to. And that mind, of course, connects with others closest to it, and ultimately to all minds.
F: I can see that this one is going to cause us to do some work, Rita. I see clearly what you’re wanting to convey, and it is much like the time I was acting as translator for the guys, trying to give you the concept of spools and threads, and even as I would speak, I would hear how every word was open to being misinterpreted by you because of the associations each word would bring, that would tempt you off-trail – and finally they told me to paint it, so that your eyes could see the relationships as I explained them. But I don’t know how we would paint this one. It’s simple, but not so easy to describe in words without the words themselves – like “mirror,” like “window” – getting in the way.
R: Perhaps we can get at it by analogy. Start with the saying you like and see if that clarifies things.
F: All right. One time I was in the Emergency Room of the hospital, and, as I lay there recovering, I watched the nurses spending all their day tending to people. I thought of a saying I had read, that “God has no hands to use but ours,” and I thought, how true. The nurses weren’t necessarily all emotional over the incoming patients – how could they be, if they had to deal with people needing help all the time? – but they were an effective example of love in everyday manifestations.
R: Without going into the theological implications, perhaps it will be clear that, just as 3D hands are required if one is to deal with 3D situations, so 3D eyes – 3D awareness – is required if one is to experience 3D as it appears when one is within it.
Perhaps unfortunate that “3D eyes” suggests visuals, as “seeing visions” suggests movies.
R: But perhaps mentioning the possibility of misunderstanding is enough to avert it.
At any rate, it is those who experience 3D reality who serve as interpreters of 3D to those who have not experienced it.
F: A form of telepathy, I suppose, just as you and I are doing now.
R: Yes, that is actually a very close analogy. But if the other person did not exist – if the person serving to mirror 3D did not exist for the non-3D person to link with – how could the transfer proceed?
F: Boy, we’re going to pay for those loose statements!
R: Well, you may insert your caveats if you think it would help.
F: Nothing transfers but awareness. Nothing moves or is subtracted from one place and put into another. It is just a matter of information processing, only the information in total – not just words or concepts — in fact, not primarily words or concepts, but the whole feel of an experience. And it isn’t so much being transferred from one being to another being, necessarily, as from one part of one to another part (3D to non-3D) and hence potentially anywhere.
R: If you think that will help, good. And you might round out the answer by adding that the purpose is the same as the purpose in shaping minds in 3D in the first place. The non-3D has a stake in the creation of 3D minds, and therefore a stake in 3D matters in a way quite different than you in bodies commonly think.
F: The guys told us, long ago, they don’t particularly care about our political or economic arrangements.
R: No, the list of things we don’t care about from this side is extensive! How concerned are you about the results of the daily chariot races in ancient Rome? But you might very easily have an abiding interest in the mind and heart and daily life and struggles of any particular ancient Roman.
F: Good analogy. On to number three
R: Let’s take Dick’s.
[Charles: “And I think this question from Richard Werling will be of interest to a lot of people: `Frank, here in my Continuing Care Community we have a couple of dozen folks with cognitive impairment. The impairment is a continuum ranging from annoying loss of short term memory to loss of the awareness of Self. Some time ago, I got a flash that this has a role in the evolutionary process of our species— but that doesn’t exactly compute in my 3D mind. It does seem that this `dementia’ could be a variation on Rita’s `coma’ experience — when she gradually allowed her consciousness to include her `Larger Self.’ Could we ask Rita for some elaboration on this evolution of cognitive ability?”]
That was a flash of true insight. The situation will become clearer to you [plural] if you will remember that it is not a matter of certain states being preferred from this side and others not.
F: Just as we may not like sharks but that doesn’t make them less necessary to an ecology, we may not like senility or coma or the results of brain damage, but that doesn’t make any of them less useful to the non-3D, or rather to the sum total of things.
Yes, although “useful” slants it, a bit. Say interesting, perhaps, instead. If you were looking at a landscape, how could you appreciate it for what it is if you disliked trees? Or only liked trees? It is the value judgments you impose or allow that distort your “external reality” for you, thus assuring that you never see anything as it really is, and that you never seen anything in precisely the way it appears to others either.
If you start from the very natural idea that unimpaired functioning is “good” and any disruption of that functioning is “bad” – how can you see clearly what is really going on? When I first tried pot – which certainly qualifies as a disruption of functioning! – I got a quick lesson in the difference between “normal” and our idea of normal. Or – well, perhaps this is a side issue, but I mean, merely, so much of our experience of life cannot be well understood if we attempt to judge it prior to experiencing it. But we have only a few minutes left in today’s conversation, and I want to finish saying a couple of things that Dick’s question suggests.
Dick, suppose those patients were having super-normal experiences. In other words, suppose that – whether or not they could communicate them – they were experiencing something well beyond the normal range of human experience. (Understand, I am not saying that they are, I am saying, suppose they were.) You can see that those 3D individuals having those extraordinary experiences would be of value to the no-3D community (call it) which of course would be able to share the experience via first the 3D person’s non-3D components, and then as general shared knowledge.
Well, remove the filter that says this abnormal condition is valuable but this one is an unfortunate predicament, and you can see that outside of 3D the value may be the same.
F: Something else flickered by, but went away while I was still writing this.
R: There are always more connections to be made, in any direction. But this is enough for today. Only, the thought Dick had is valuable. Much that seems abnormal and even catastrophic around you – the explosion of autism, for instance – bears within it the seeds of things unsuspected but not therefore undesirable.
F: Undesired, but not undesirable. In the sense that people often want things to stay the same.
R: Yes – while they want them to improve!
F: So be careful what you ask for. Okay, it that’s it for today, I’ll start pounding the keyboard.
R: This choice of questions worked well, reducing the strain on you and allowing me to pick the ones that were the closest to the energy of the moment. Congratulate Charles for me, and I will see you next time.
F: Okay. I know I don’t have to add, “be well.” Comes with your territory now, right?
R: Actually – add it to your list of questions.
F: Hmm. Okay. Till next time.