Sunday, April 5, 2015
F: 5:15 a.m. Well, Miss Rita, I trust that you are as gratified by the response this work is meeting as I am. It occurs to me to ask, have we gone far enough that you can give us hints as to what you are up to? If this is to be a book, can you give Charles and me an idea of the central theme, other than “the way it looks from here”?
[pause]
F: Are you there? Wrong question? Are you out hunting Easter eggs, and want the day off?
R: Perhaps it would be as well to move to one of your accumulated questions.
F: All right, we can do that. Interesting that you choose not to respond to what I thought was a simple question.
R: It is, perhaps, too simple a question. I would not care to encourage the idea that this has only one intent, or is aimed at only one expression. You naturally think in terms of a book, or books, and that is possibility, but in thinking of a future possibility, you shouldn’t let yourself overlook a present reality.
F: The blog and the Facebook exposure.
R: You don’t know who reads what, nor what they do with it, nor how it affects them. Nor do you need to know. Nor is it random, of course. That is, it is not – as it may appear to be – a case of someone in 3D happening upon information that then changes them. They may come upon information that changes them, but I assure you, they don’t “happen upon” it.
F: Communication is two way.
R: Look at it like this. In fully forming your thought – in this case, in the two of us fully forming our joint exploration / exposition – we are publishing it in non-3D, quite as much as (and, indeed, more, and prior to) in 3D. People’s 3D minds, call it, are influenced by their non-3D minds which is why they stumble upon the site and read the words, and why the words affect them. And of course you can hear in this sentence how language pulls apart what is actually one thing, pretending for the sake of analysis and clarity that a person’s mind could be divided into his or her 3D mind and non-3D mind. In reality there is no such division, of course, but for the purposes of attaining greater clarity it is useful to consider things that way.
F: Thus, conscious mind, personal unconscious, racial unconscious, according to Carl Jung.
R: Yes. He was not making hard and fast divisions, nor was he oblivious to the fact that relative distinctions were as arbitrary as they were helpful. But it is inherent in the nature of 3D that the mind has to do a certain form of processing only by sequential – therefore fragmented – examination.
F: Just to be sure we’re clear: I hear that as saying that our logical minds process through the left brain and therefore see things sequentially rather than as a whole, and therefore we can only put it back together by a right-brain perception of a gestalt. We have to pick apart a flower in order to see what it is made of, but then in order to see it as a flower, we have to remind ourselves that the whole is not the sum of its parts.
R: This is a long disquisition in itself, perhaps for another time, but yes, your understanding of my implied meaning is correct. You aren’t explicating what I said, as much as expressing the understanding from which I was proceeding.
So, to return to our main point here, it is a mistake – and a very wide-spread one – to think that minds do or even could function in isolation. No matter how isolated the individual in 3D, there is no isolating him or her from the rest of his or her mind, hence from everything that mind connects to, which is – potentially anything and everything.
F: That will come as disquieting news to those who live by secrecy and disinformation.
R: As well it should, to use your phrase.
F: Oh. Do I get a subtext, here?
R: Well, think it through. Why do you suppose you were moved to talk to Joseph P. Kennedy nine years ago, and to publish that talk on the internet in the middle of our explorations?
F: That’s very interesting! Of course. What could be more subversive of secrecy than expanding people’s access?
R: Yes, and now is the time for a few cautions and caveats.
F: I think I could predict at least a couple of them, but go ahead.
R: Yes. They all involve the proper application of abilities. It is so easy to be seduced by possibilities. The most misleading ideas are those that result from new abilities conducted according to old mindsets.
F: May I?
R: Feel free.
F: I think you mean to say, don’t think that new means to connection are primarily a means of evading secrecy in 3D.
R: You went to Joe Kennedy thinking to find out the truth that had been suppressed in 3D. it is a natural first step, to assume that you have just discovered a short-cut through the swamp, or a spyglass through the fog. And those whose life and livelihood are intrinsically tied up in maintaining such secrecy are also likely to react in the same way, from the other side of the equation, seeing these abilities as a threat. In both cases, this is a relatively trivial response. Understandable as an initial reaction, but trivial. It is as if one discovered how to fly, and thought of the new ability as primarily a way to get over a fence.
F: I see that, though perhaps not everyone will agree. Colin Wilson wrote a novel, The Black Room I think it was, about a protagonist who discovers unusual powers that concern spy agencies, and whose only reaction to the spies was annoyance and impatience that their trivial concerns were interfering with his exploration.
R: See it from our point of view. You are learning to extend who and what you are in ways that will utterly transform the human species – you are barely at the beginning of it – and yet by reflex you are considering how this new reality will affect the stock market, or the congressional elections, or the global balance of power, or the Green transition, or anything else. It’s natural, for it takes time, experience, and imagination to transform one’s mental world, but it verges on comical.
F: I’ll tell you what verges on comical, Rita, it’s the difference between what you’re saying here – that I totally agree with – as opposed to your concern in life with politics and ideology and the whole CNN world.
R: I wasn’t wrong to be concerned and to cast my mental vote in favor of certain values, but of course you can’t expect to see things the same way when your everyday reality has been transformed — including your definition of everyday”!
F: So it would be a mistake to advise people to lighten up in their obsessive concern for the political, economic, ideological, ecological, theological dramas playing out all around them?
R: You mean, I think, advise everybody to be just like you?
F: Very funny. And, in fact, that was very funny. No, I don’t expect everybody to become just like me.
R: But – don’t you? Not just you, of course, but everybody? Don’t you all expect, subconsciously, that others will become more like you to the degree that they clear their heads?
F: Maybe so. That wouldn’t speak well for our intelligence, if so.
R: It isn’t a matter of intelligence, it’s just human nature. You assume homeostasis in everything, and one of those things is “what it is like to be functioning normally.” Naturally one’s definition of functioning normally is going to be based on one’s everyday experience – and there’s that word “everyday” again.
F: Enough for now? It has only been three-quarters of an hour, but we’ve galloped through nine pages.
R: This is as good a stopping-place as any. It gives people food for thought.
F: That seems to be your specialty. Okay, Miss Rita, till next time.