58th Talk with Rita – 3-5-2015

Thursday March 5, 2015

F: 4:30 a.m. Morning, Miss Rita. Here we go again. “Web to weave and corn to grind.” And why I woke up with that quote from Emerson, I have no idea. At any rate, let’s go.

[Sheila’s question: “[Rita spoke about establishing `intent’ with some examples in this sentence: `In short, establish your intent firmly; you wish to explore, you wish to be of service, you wish to grow in a healthy direction, you wish to preserve your autonomy without either retreating into isolation or losing your protective boundaries.’ So in preserving autonomy, don’t `lose your protective boundaries.’ Rita, how can we can maintain our ‘protective boundaries’”?]

R: Maintaining healthy boundaries is no different in these matters than in everyday 3D life. It is a matter of remembering that you are in charge of your life and your life’s decisions, no one else. You don’t want to be a bully, trying to lead others’ lives for them (even “with the best intentions”), and you don’t want to shrink into yourself and be unable to assert yourself when necessary, that’s all, nothing more. We are all members of each other, I was taught as a little girl, and that is true; it is also true that we are autonomous. Preserve the healthy tension between self and other and all will be well.

F: Okay, that was easy enough.

[Jude McElroy’s question: “This question is a bit yesterday and a bit today. How does energetic healing work from the 3-D segment affect the non-3-D segment? I had always just assumed (silly me) that when we engage in healing work we use our non-3-D segments to effect 3-D results. Are we affecting non-3-D which just trickles down (sideways?) into the 3-D area?”]

R: I would say you use your non-3D segment to affect another’s non-3D segment, and in both cases you and the other observe from what appears to you to be the 3D.

F: May I?

R: You may.

F: I think you are saying, our minds are in the non-3D, and that’s where the juice is. That is where the being – us, them, anyone – is outside of 3D constructions. If I as healer (or sender of healing energies, or facilitator of the person’s own healing, however you like to think of it) intend to assist another as healee, the intent is focused in 3D but expresses in non-3D, takes place there, and is conveyed by the healee into 3D manifestation.

R: Close enough. So essentially Jude’s assumption is right except for slurring over distinctions between 3D and non-3D – and such distinctions mean little in practice, less so than in theory.

F: Okay. Nancy’s question?

[Nancy Ford’s question: “I am dealing with a conundrum regarding the idea that most seem to hold: – – that of time `carrying us along.’ I do not experience it that way. I notice time passing by looking at the clock. In my physical life, that reading does not always agree with my experience. Often my inner clock will feel hours off, either earlier or later, sometimes even gaining or missing a day. There are also perceptions of `losing time’ when focused on something, and at other periods, I am instantly `thrown back in time.’ I don’t seem to recognize being carried forward; often I am surprised when the sun is going down already. The question is: What accounts for the discrepancy?”]

R: When I say time carries you along, I am referring to your physical presence (and of course the awareness of that presence that goes along with it, even if only at a subconscious level, as when you sleep for instance).

Notice that you are describing your inner clock agreeing or not agreeing with “external, objective” time. The only way there can be such disparity, such a discrepancy, is if your own mental subjective (non-3D) time is operating vis a vis a physical, objective 3D time. You see? Your mind may be anywhere or seemingly nowhere, as when I was in a coma or when you are asleep; your body will continue being carried along the ever-changing present moment, as it must be. And, when you are still attached to your body, your mind will remain tethered to it, however near or far it may range.

F: You don’t cease to be in Tuesday merely because you don’t experience Tuesday, and you can’t cease to be carried into Wednesday merely because you don’t want to go there. Nor can you get there any sooner than it comes around on its own.

R: Correct.

F: Well, we’re flying along this morning.

[John Wolf’s first question: “Certain statements that Rita makes, fly out of the paper at me: `… not chosen consciously by the soul, but by the underlying spirit … a matter of the spirit’s choice for its utility to the soul.’ This implies to me the choice is made not only within the Greater Being but well beyond. I don’t remember catching that flavor before. Am I interpreting that as intended?”]

R: The short answer is no, for the moment let’s leave it that the soul refers to the mind experiencing 3D, and the spirit refers to its unbroken and unbreakable links to that from which it was created – with the caveat that “from which it was created” does not mean, in non-3D, what it means in 3D. Just as we don’t have and don’t need carpenter’s shops here, or woodworking tools, so neither do we do the equivalent of physically fashioning materials into something new. But – we’ll get to that, perhaps, at a later time. There’s much groundwork still to be laid before that can mean too much to you for the moment, let’s leave the matter the way I’ve stated it.

[John’s second question: “[Rita said, `If everybody on earth realized their connection, it would change everything, for sure – but it would not bring utopia. It would (and hopefully will) move the conflict and potential reconciliation up another notch.’ I read Rita’s statement today to mean, we `hopefully will’ head to that part of the crystal where mankind can play that movie (using her analogies), and aid the movement of consciousness of our 3D and non-3D parts, BUT there’s ramifications to that connectivity and fear reduction. Also it’s been coming through to me that we also have to face the responsibilities that come with `more freedom to create.’ Am I stretching too far in connecting these dots?”]

R: It’s difficult to make a clear response, as the question is fuzzier than it may appear. So let me instead restate what I do mean, not necessarily rejecting any interpretations but not necessarily endorsing them either.

I say, merely – but it is a big merely – that human life proceeds according to the level of connection predominantly expressed at a given time. Perception determines the nature of a given stage of culture.

F: I see why you romped through the first four questions. This one is going to take some explanation, isn’t it?

R: Let’s find out. It isn’t like I have a prepared script here, you know. I’m doing improv.

[Improvisation, an acting technique requiring people to stay in character no matter what happens. She is taking off on an email I had written the day before.]

F: Very funny. Or are you using that to lead to something?

R: Everything leads somewhere, but sometimes a joke is just a cigar.

F: Shaking my head. Not used to being the straight man.

R: Here is the underlying thought. Forget about society evolving, either in a straight line or with however many detours and regressions, from point A to an ultimate point B or beyond. That is a linear cause-and-effect way of thinking about things that is very natural to a culture that thinks in terms of Progress and Growth.

F: And the great god Evolution!

R: Yes, I know; I heard your reaction to the idea often enough. But yes, evolution too. These three concepts are much cloudier and self-contradictory than they first appear. What good is a concept of Progress – especially Inevitable Progress – if it must be stretched to include so many periods of obvious overturn and regress? Why believe that the object of life is Growth of consciousness (any more than it is growth of 3D things) in the face of the fact that so often periods of greater consciousness are succeeded by periods of far greater unconsciousness? And as to Evolution, that is a concept easily stretched too far. It is a linear way of seeing the result of very non-linear processes.

F: In other words, it unintentionally distorts the interpretation of the evidence because of the filters it applies.

R: That may be said of practically all human knowledge, but yes, that too.

The more accurate way to see things is not as a process moving toward a culmination or a journey whose importance lies only or even primarily in arriving at some destination, but as a – well, think of a good analogy, Frank. You have the idea.

F: I do. Well, what I got is a series of bubbles, but that doesn’t quite do it. I know, how about scenes from a movie? Different scenes – no, there is an implied order, that won’t work. Kaleidoscope won’t work.

R: Maybe it will, actually. When you shake a kaleidoscope, the new picture does not obviously depend upon the previous one. But now we need another analogy to put beside this one.

F: Thoughts!

R: Yes, that will do nicely. Thank you.

I have said there is logical construction and there is association of ideas – two very different ways of thinking. You might look at the development, growth, flourishing, and decline of a given civilization as each one being internally logical but externally only associated. This is only the beginning of my point, because we are meaning to talk about human destiny, not merely the fate of a given civilization, but it is a start. Would you care to elaborate?

F: Any given civilization has certain characteristics, encourages and enables and discourages and makes impossible certain things. But one is not necessarily an improvement over the previous one, it’s just different. The Romans were different from the Greeks. Were they “better” in some objectively measurable way? The medieval world, the world of the Renaissance, the so-called Age of Reason, the romantic age, the rationalistic 19th century, the catastrophic and revolutionary 20th century – each differed from its predecessors not as climbing stairs but as picking up these characteristics and dropping others.

R: And that is only Western Civ. You could traced the same thing everywhere, even more so if you could trace the history that has been forgotten, the history behind history.

So – to sum up in a word what might easily take a chapter – a civilization (even if planetary rather than confined to one or another geographic space) that enabled its citizens to live in direct connection with their non-3D components while in 3D would not be a first on earth, hence would not represent some new unprecedented pinnacle of development But it will be very different from what you have lived until now, and that is what should engage your attention.

F: Do you mean to end on so cryptic a note?

R: It doesn’t seem to me particularly cryptic. And it will repay thought. Plus, your hour is up.

F: Okay, I’ll have to re-read, as is becoming usual, to see if the question seems adequately answered.

R: If not, there are always follow-ups.

F: True. Very well, thank you and so long for now.

2 thoughts on “58th Talk with Rita – 3-5-2015

  1. Has there been already in our earth history a civilization “that enabled its citizens to live in direct connection with their non-3D components while in 3D”? Am I understanding Rita correctly?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *