76th talk with Rita – 4-7-2015

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.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.