Sunday March 8, 2015
F: 4:45 a.m. EDT. Miss Rita, shall we tackle Bob’s questions?
R: Yes, then perhaps yours, if we have time and you focus your generalized question so that we may find a specific angle of approach, for of course it is a huge subject.
F: Very well, here are Bob’s.
[Bob Friedman’s questions: “My first question to Rita is how do we make that connectivity more apparent, and what are the best ways to chip away at the prevailing paradigm so that our modern `Gods,’ i.e., the scientists, begin to see that connection and use it before we make the planet uninhabitable? If the scientists agree, then I think the rest of the great unwashed will eventually follow. Second question: will our ET friends help, or will they just sit by and let free will be the prime directive, even it means we are busy killing our planet?”]
R: The short answer – and the long explanation that follows a short answer – is that it is the division into science or religion or art or what we might call contemporary observation that is the problem, not any of them in itself.
F: They are trying to describe reality as if the others had nothing to contribute.
R: Well –
F: Hmm, long pause. What’s up?
R: Two things. I paused to consider, and then you went day-dreaming.
F: Okay, well, I’m back. Are you ready to resume or do you need more organizational time?
R: The thing is, I could answer Bob’s question as posed, or I could answer a deeper question
F: Can’t you do both?
R: Perhaps, and perhaps that is the most practical way. Let’s see.
All right, the short answer is that science as presently constituted cannot aid in the establishment or augmentation of individual or social realization of connection. But this is not exactly because of the prevailing materialist belief that blinkers investigation and results in misinterpretation of data. And even if science, as constituted, did come to the conclusion that the human experience inevitably requires acknowledgement of the higher dimensions, and connection with all other parts of reality, it wouldn’t necessarily change society or any large number of members of society, any more than changing the perception and reality of any number of individual scientists would necessarily change the structure of the “scientific” worldview in general. So the task is not to persuade scientists but to persuade the culture, which will result in changing science, which will result in changing the various present and future scientists.
F: Pretty much the reverse of the process as it is understood. Science supposedly progresses funeral by funeral, as older practitioners and their entrenched beliefs die off and are replaced by younger representatives who have come up hearing new ideas.
R: Yes, that’s the theory, but in practice a culture imposes itself on individuals more than the other way around.
F: So, then, your expanded response to Bob?
R: The civilization he, and you, were born into was already significantly different from the one I was born into in 1920. The world your and his children were born into was different from yours, in turn. This is always somewhat true, but in our time we were and are part of the changing of the guard into a new civilization comprising a new order of humans. That is why change often seems catastrophic, and it often seems that everything is breaking down and the end is near. The end of what was, is near; is in fact in process. But that doesn’t mean the end of life on Earth, even human life. It may mean a Hairbreadth Harry dance on the edge, it is true.
F: I hear you saying that Bob’s question implicitly assumes a greater continuity between the institutions we are used to and whatever follows than is going to happen.
R: Yes, but that needs looking at. Society must change. The individuals comprising society must change. The new relationships, the implied structure within which society and individuals comprising society will exist, needs to come into being.
Don’t you suppose the overseers of reality know that?
Don’t you suppose that the intelligences that maintain the complicated ecology of mind / body / spirit / soul / individual-community / community of individual-communities / thought-form-manifestation, etc., know that?
Do you suppose you are orphans in the universe and it is all up to you and your choices what will happen?
F: Emerson said don’t trust children with edge tools; God don’t trust humans with more power than they have learned to use wisely.
R: True except in so far as the process of learning involves making mistakes. The loving parent tries to assure that the child’s mistakes will have only limited consequences until the child’s experience brings greater wisdom and skill. Do you suppose humanity has no loving parents silently assisting it?
F: Hmm. I get that you are saying it is not by ET’s that we are to be protected from ourselves, but from the other side – and given that we have superseded the idea of “this side v. other side,” I guess that means, from the higher dimensions, which means, from our own greater selves. The larger being perhaps, or perhaps some combination of our awareness that is free from 3D limitations
R: Yes, and be careful – not you in particular, Frank, but anybody – not to silently or inadvertently substitute the word God for the Larger Being. In my discussions I shall always reserve the word God – in the rare occasions where I shall use it – to the ultimate creator of the reality in which we find ourselves. I won’t mention God much because, after all, how much do we need to concern ourselves with ultimates? And if we are of a mind to, how far ae we likely to get? So – be on guard against a tendency to make this “nothing but” disguised theology.
My point, and it is an important point, raised by these questions, is that the way forward is precisely the way that may seem most irresponsible, because it addresses causes and not apparent causes, and employs real forces as opposed to pretend forces. Work on yourselves, one individual at a time, no matter what else you concern yourself with, and you will be doing what you can. Omit to work on yourself and nothing else that you do will matter much, and may in fact hinder.
Do you see why?
F: I’m willing to hear it spelled out.
R: Increasing your connection to your non-3D self – interacting more freely, accepting guidance more routinely, expressing your own preferences more clearly – affects the non-3D world which is where the pattern is laid down for the 3D world you recognize. Trying to effect changes in the 3D directly is more challenging, because for one thing you are attempting to overcome already-manifested effects, and for another, you in 3D don’t know and cannot know which levers to pull.
It is well to recognize your values and act as best you can, to manifest them in the world, but how do you do that? By preaching to others? By serving as example? By organizing like-minded individuals? Nothing wrong with any of these approaches, but consider how limited they are, in that they attempt to reverse already-manifested realities, as opposed to concentrating on contributing what you can to the non-3D consensus of what should come next in the world.
F: Wait a minute! That’s a huge change, casually plopped in the stream like a boulder. First you say, we are being supervised and perhaps somewhat protected by the forces of the higher dimensions, now you say it’s still up to us.
R: That’s right.
F: You don’t see some tiny contradiction there? I’m smiling, but I’m serious too.
R: Of course I see the contradiction, and it is typical of your civilization at this point in its development and change to see it as a contradiction. But from another point of view, it is not a contradiction, and it is to that point of view that you will need to come.
F: Statements like that one have me looking at the clock, and I’m not sure if I’m hoping we’re out of time so I can get out of this, or hoping we have time enough for you to bring it all together. Or both.
R: I said that science as presently constituted cannot bring a culture to the reality it needs to address. This is because science and religion and art and personal exploration are still describing different realities. Only when they again see the same reality will they be able to work together and assist each other in the way that binocular vision adds depth perception.
I said, don’t go looking to other 3D beings – and what else are ETs, but 3D beings, however different their connection to their non-3D dimensions may be than yours?
I said, don’t expect to change society by working on the 3D level rather than at the level from which 3D reality manifests.
And I said, human activity is being supervised protectively by forces which are non-3D and are nonetheless still integrally connected to human existence.
Doesn’t all this give you what you need to know?
F: It sounds to me like Emerson, declining to move to Brook Farm despite its attraction to him because, as he put it, he couldn’t see the point in raising his siege of a hen-coop and marching off to a pretended siege of Babylon.
R: Do you suppose he knew something?
F: It’s just possible that he did. Thanks, Rita. We do appreciate all this. Seems to me we’ve come a long way since December.
R: Yes, long enough for a pause pretty soon, but not just yet.
F: Well, either way, it’ll be all right with me. Thanks again.