Tuesday, April 7, 2015
F: 2 a.m. Back again, Rita. Feeling pretty buoyed up. Shall we continue down the list, or do you have something in mind?
R: Let’s finish the deferred questions, though there are some you did not print out, that we can get to another time, when Charles lists them for us.
[Charles:
[You said, “…no level of consciousness decides its own state of being. Our lives are always guided and shaped by the next higher level of consciousness, which is itself shaped by its next higher level of consciousness, and so on and so forth. No one pulls himself up by his own bootstraps.” You also said, however, that the answer is “merely cryptic until we can provide the context.” Will you provide the context or answer the question I don’t know how to ask?]
R: This seems simple, but if I miss the point of contention, Charles can say so and perhaps we can re-address it.
The answer per se was, nothing exists in isolation. Nearly anything must be examined in, considered in, isolation, because of the inherent limitation in sequential processing within 3D, but no clock is understood as clock by examining the gears and cogs and imagining that they function on their own or in isolation.
F: Our minds in 3D have limits on how much they can hold in active memory at the same time, I take it, and therefore we have a hard time seeing things in connection. You have it easier over there, I take it. (Well, not “over there”; old linguistic habits die hard. I mean, beyond the confines of 3D, of course.)
R: Do you remember the guys’ description of our mental switching systems?
F: I do. They said we are in a process of continual switching from one moment to the next, as the “present moment” drags us from one point to the next. It is our switching system that allows us a sense of continuity. Skip Atwater once asked if there was an equivalent in non-3D (though we didn’t use that term then) and was told there was no need outside these specific 3D circumstances.
R: That’s right, because the mind itself exists in the non-3D dimensions – or, a better way to put it would be, it exists in all dimensions but is not confined in its operations to a finite amount of processing power as experienced within 3D.
F: That’s a significant correction, or say refinement, of what we had been told, that the mind exists in the non-physical – follows non-physical rules – but expresses through the brain which exists in the physical and therefore follows the rules of physical existence.
R: As always, we are having to provide data that is distorted in the transmission according to the understanding of the person receiving it. You and I could grasp what they said in the way it was said, and that allowed us to make a significant improvement in the way we understood things. If we had not gone through that intermediate understanding, we would have had no place to stand to reach farther as we are doing now. Understanding is always a halfway house. There is nothing you can know that will not look different as you come to know more.
F: It’s funny how some moments keep looming larger. It was a big day when you introduced me to the concept that sometimes, to understand A, you have to understand B, but to understand B you have to understand A. As I have seen this repeatedly come into play, I have come to see, so much more clearly, why some things can’t be said but have to be given indirectly.
R: So then, summarize your understanding of the limits of understanding – conceptually – while in 3D. but while you do that, remember that you are only partly bound by such limits, because intuitively you can know so much more than you can logically.
F: I draw an analogy to computer processing. A computer has only so much RAM, so many things it can manipulate in active memory at the same time. No matter how much storage a computer has, it is limited in its simultaneous processing by the limits of its RAM. If it wishes to consider more data than it can hold actively, it must swap out some of it – put some into storage so it has room to retrieve some from storage – and this even if it does it so quickly that we humans don’t notice the continual swapping going on. The analogy would seem to say, we can only grasp so many connections simultaneously by way of logic, though the chain of connections may extend without predictable limits, as we swap out previous deductions (taking them for granted) and swap in new data to be considered in the light of what has been processed.
R: And isn’t that what we have been doing here for these few months? The limit is partially on how much you can stand to bring in at a time – how much strain on the body a given number of minutes of connection imposes – but it is equally how much the reader can absorb and hold simultaneously. You will notice that in re-reading the material, there is only so much you can hold at a time until you get a form of “museum fatigue.” This by the way is why Charles’ process of summarizing will make the material more accessible. Not that his voice will be clearer, but that the process of synopsizing shrinks the amount of RAM needed to express the same material, thus in effect expanding the reader’s effective ability to hold numerous things in relationship.
F: Now, does this answer the question Charles posed, including his clever “or the question I don’t know how to ask”?
R: It uses that question as a jumping-off place, put it that way. It is vitally important, going forward, that you try to remember that in effect you have a bias in your perceptual strategies that makes it difficult to remember connections and interactions, and tends you toward seeing things in terms of units and differences, distinctions. Obviously, if you do not correct for that bias, you will not see things clearly, and how can you correct for something save by keeping it in mind?
F: I can see that bias as responsible for people’s seeing things differently, as each one defines different units by carving the turkey in different ways.
R: Yes, and it is why at different stages of life, life appears very different in nature.
F: So, a closer answer to Charles’ question?
R: What we have just been discussing is the context I wished to provide. That is, just because we talk in terms of units, does not mean the units are in any way absolute. So, neither are the relationships, as relationship implies relation between units (relative units or absolute units, the effect is much the same).
F: I can see that. How about if we stop here, though it has been only 45 minutes or so?
R: That’s fine. We’re making good progress.
F: Well, that’s what it feels like. And I get the sense that this is a discrete bloc of information that shouldn’t be blurred by more.
R: Perhaps blurred isn’t the right word, but diluted, anyway, yes. So I will see you next time.
F: Yes, looking forward to it as ever.
I can’t help but think that as I read the posts involving Rita and everyone’s response here (and questions) that I am observing the evolution of consciousness as it is happening — right before our eyes!
I keep thinking of Ken Wilber’s masterful book “Up From Eden” in which he makes an ambitious attempt to develop a model of human consciousness evolution — he proposes a number of stages that human beings progressed through, including the:
1. pleromatic-uroboris — when we were like any other animal, just operating on pure instinct with no self reflective consciousness — just herd instinct
2. Typhonic — Human being began to sense they are different from nature — we are “other” yet still an integral part of all ..
3. Mythic membership — Another advance up the ladder, here we are still not fully self reflective but feel unique as a species on whole — the great scholar Julian Jaynes even dared suggest the ancient Greeks were still partially in the mythic membership stage — he observed that the character of the Iliad did not act like individual with fully realized ego personalities — but seemed more like “players being pushed around on a chessboard” …
Ego stage — Finally — full self-reflective consciousness! We have an ego! Finally, a man or a woman can stand up and say “I am me!”
But the evolution continues — now we are struggling to overcome the ego stage and are clambering toward a kind of even higher trans=personal consciousness — we are struggling against our ego-selves — yet at the same time, we are trying to incorporate our egos and bring them along for the ride, so to speak …
But, anyway, I really see this process in the flow of Frank’s work with Rita especially vis-a-vis the interaction of the readers — in how people here are resonating with the information — they realize that they must transcend the ego (the personality locked in 3D) — but not destroy it — again, take the ego go along, absorb it into a higher dimensional matrix of a more advanced form of consciousness — the ego does not get “eliminated” — it become an important brick in the foundation of a growing pyramid, an ever higher pyramid bringing all of the previous stages along with it …
It’s a unique time in history! We’re cracking the eggshell again! Reading these posts is like watching an incubator full of chick eggs — “look, a crack!”
Interesting insight! Let’s hope.
I find this discussion amazing, not because what Rita is saying, but the questioners’ naivety. Complex emergent systems, “connections and interactions” beyond cognitive grasp, have over the past thirty years become increasingly the focus of science in every direction—“nothing exists in isolation. Nearly anything must be examined in, considered in, isolation, because of the inherent limitation in sequential processing within 3D, but no clock is understood as clock by examining the gears and cogs and imagining that they function on their own or in isolation.” Mind is increasingly recognized not to be trapped in brains or be otherwise restricted. As a result, pantheism or i.e. that the cosmos is alive and persistently evolving as a whole, is being entertained by some pretty sophisticated scientists. A number of sophisticated Western philosophers led by Plotinus (“Nous”) and others beat them to it by centuries. In the East, Taoism, Dzogchen, and Kashmiri Shaivism lead by millennia with sophisticated practices that permitted participants to roam in Rita’s extra-3D worlds. Even they were newcomers, since Shamans have wandering out there and returning with such tales and skills for many, many thousands of years, if Bushmen and Australian Aboriginals are to be believed. Beginning with the Catholic fathers, it seems to me, Westerners overwhelming became addicted to dinking around with rational cognates, Euclid writ large, and became so attached to manipulating word and number abstractions that they forgot who they were, they forgot to feel with their hearts—wisely, it seems to me, Chinese equate heart and mind. (I learned of these connections largely, I now realize, thanks to being directed by my guides upstairs during my 70-year search for understanding “who am I”, which is quite a tale.) Many now are awakening and remembering, but whether enough in time is increasingly doubtful. Please continue asking away so others may learn!
I wouldn’t necessarily say the questions are naive, Don, merely unaware of developments in many fields. After all, that’s what it means to be an explorer — you step off into the unknown. Sometimes it is known to others, but that doesn’t make it less unknown to you. The effort is worthwhile either way.
Interesting insights and observations…I still feel like such a “beginner” here when trying to understand all the information…I’ve not read all the “latest and greatest” theories of “It All”; I only have an intuitive sense of “what resonates for me”. Is this delusional on my part?
Perhaps it is only my “ego” struggling, but yet again today I found myself upset, even “poisoned-feeling”, after reading a supposed “fair and balanced” article on an NDE site. It struck me that the author of said article desperately wanted a Materialist explanation for the NDE, and cited a number of current studies/theories which seem to indicate this was happening (I won’t go into the poor rats which had to be sacrificed for one of the experiments). The author also lamented that the conference he attended didn’t seem to have many people “interested in Science”…
It seems to me that many of the conference attendees, having had an NDE, “got the proof they needed”, and didn’t need some laboratory “proof” to verify their experiences and convictions. I’d read that the typical experiencer can spend years trying to integrate their experiences.
Sorry for the “rant”; guess I’ve still got a “beef” w/ Materialism. Much personal healing and exploration to do…dark, rainy night here, and winter-cold.
Craig
Dark rainy nights are succeeded by bright sunny days, Craig, and they both have their place in life! 🙂
At least you are on the right side of the gulf between materialists and the real world; spare some pity for them.
Thanks, Frank…If anything, encountering such “loaded” material, as I did y’day, let me know how, some days, I really struggle w/ these questions. The article I cited y’day was actually published in a popular periodical, rather than on the NDE site specifically, but was called “fair and balanced” in its approach to the “survival question”. Yet, the author, or someone quoted therein, used the oft-evoked term of “pseudoscience”, when encountering the “lack of a ‘satisfactory’ Materialist explanation” for the phenomenon.
This is a big reason I’m doing the particular TMI “Intensive” that I am. I’m not at all certain who will attend, but I get the sense there will be an environment of honest inquiry, w/ guidance from the facilitators, plus my own “uplink” w/ my “guys upstairs”/Source Self. Plus, by sharing our experiences (which I highly value, vs. trying to “prove” in a laboratory setting), I suspect we’ll all learn something, or at the very least, have the “permission slips” to keep exploring.
Reading the other comments on this thread is also helpful to me; it’s good to know there are quite a few of us asking questions, and not satisfied w/ the “pat” answers, be they from traditional religion, or the “materialism which passes for Science”–we’ve “taken enough clocks apart”, I think.
Well, off on an “Explorer’s Adventure”!
Craig
On the topic of our “limited RAM” and having to learn A to learn B …
I have been experimenting for a time with part of the challenge; that is, the integration of information received over a period of time. One could simply take everything that Rita has said over the past months, and print it out in a book. Or one could use left brain logic to work through the material to arrive at a summary of sorts. But in my opinion these fall short when integrating ideas and concepts; for example, not just a better A or better B, but the formation of C from the evolution of A and B.
You recommended to get the flow started on ILC was among other things to treat it like a telephone, or ask the question, and pretend you know the answer. Those techniques have really worked for me, especially when I can come to grips with the real question at hand.
There is a variation of this technique I am experimenting with to digest and integrate the kind of broad new concepts developed over time (as we experience it) that Rita has been feeding us.
I take some “time out” and ask myself the following open question on a particular subject, “What do I think I now KNOW?”, with the emphasis on the knowing. My mindset is to draw out my “knowing” without overthinking why or how or what proof I have that I know it. Then I start writing—I think the writing is important for reasons you can probably explain better than I—and so far I have been encouraged by the results.
It feels different than getting a message or a “download”, and it seems to integrate information in ways that I wouldn’t normally think of. The process is more like reformulating a “gestalt” version of knowledge that was previously, but maybe not even wholly, received linearly, and inevitably the whole feels different than the sum of the parts. For me it takes work, and still a lot of left brain editing to get clarity from the flow of thoughts.
This morning I experimented with the topic that retrospectively is best described as “the nature of our 3D mind being a part of and connected to one mind in all dimensions”, triggered by Rita’s latest message. What came out of the process was mostly an analogy, a new one for me, that has flavors of Rita, Seth, your TGU, my own “guys”, and who knows. By definition, the product, which I’m not including here for brevity, helps me see a greater whole to the material.
I’m wondering if you or others have had success with similar or other approaches or processes for integration of information.
John
I am sure people would be quite interested in a longer report, John. If you will write it up and send it to me as an attachment on a PEM to muddytracks [at] earthlink [dot] net, i will publish it as a post.