Rita — A matter of scale

Friday, February 12, 2016
F: 5:30 a.m. All right, Rita, I have re-read what you gave me yesterday. If I had any thought of steering today’s discussion by a question from the content of yesterday’s, I’m going to have to give up the idea. So I hope you’re ready to proceed on your own.
R: Last year, you wouldn’t even have re-read the material. At any time, you could pause, go back, and ask something that came to mind. Or, you could set a slip of paper to one side, to mark down questions as they arose. We had spoken of your doing that, remember.
F: Yes, but I usually don’t want to take even a small amount of time to do that.
R: Nor with your reading. The “full speed ahead” inclination, like any other, has its inherent advantages and drawbacks. It cannot always be easy or evident which a given habit is [I think she meant, provides], except in context.

Very well, I said we want to re-cover the ground covered last year. So let us begin. You will recall, I began by insisting on the unity of all things. Separations are merely relative separations, separations of function perhaps, or even what we might call separations of convenience. Sometimes the only way to look at a thing is to look at any one (or more) separable part of it, in order to bring it into range. You cannot study the world’s oceans all in one place or time, but you can study a drop of seawater in a microscope, or a species of fish in isolation from other aspects of the total “ocean” experience, or the effects on ocean of atmosphere, or any of many other specialized studies. You see? This is what science does – it says, the whole cannot be studied; let us examine it in pieces.
Now, this is not the place for strictures on materialism or reductionism or any possible error science may have fallen into . nor is it the time to decry over-specialization, nor the ignoring of inconvenient aspects of reality. I know that your mind tends to go off in that direction, but retracing old grievances or hobby-horses is not pioneering.
F: Got it.
R: You needn’t feel chastened, particularly. It is just a reminder that one does not explore new territory merely by turning one’s eyes in a new direction; one’s mental terrain must be re-assessed, as well. There’s no seeing new vistas without new eyes to see it with. Sometimes the new eyes follow new experience, and sometimes they enable one to have the new experiences, and mostly life is an alternation between the two, — but in any case, new wine for new wineskins, to remind you of your favorite analogy. So for a while we may look at things more as scientists and less as mystics.
F: I don’t know that I think of myself as either, but certainly you were always the scientist in training and temperament.
R: And so in his own fashion was Bob Monroe. Science is less a matter of procedure than of attitude. To want to know better, to want to have larger concepts supported by the data you are aware of, is the scientific attitude. Thus many a person who dreams of being a scientist – or dreams that he or she is a scientist, rather – is not, and many who do not think of themselves as scientists, are. It is more than a matter of measurement or protocol.
Now, in examining any phenomenon or situation, we may begin from the familiar or the unfamiliar, from the closest or the most remote, form the most similar or the least. Also, we may move into analysis of ever-smaller subdivisions, or analysis (though it will seem to you synthesis) of ever-larger interconnections, larger systems.
Ultimately you wind up hedging your inquiry in some way or another – if not by design, then by default because of constrictions on your time.
F: I put a period after the word “time,” but you weren’t finished, were you?
R: You felt the hesitation, because we easily might leave the list of constrictions at the one element of time, or just as easily might lengthen the list because the other limiting factors would be of interest. But the countervailing consideration is, as always, the fact that side-trails although appealing do not further the immediate argument. Let’s leave it as is, because the main point is, you can’t examine everything and so you are forced to choose.
However – and here is the nub of what I want to get across this morning, a simple point that will be obvious to some but a new realization to others – what you examine need not be pieces per se. you may, if you wish to, examine the whole of reality per se, and although this means ignoring vast amount of detail, it may be done and done productively.
F: You’re going to have to say more about that. And we’re going to have to restate, I think, if people are going to get what I just got. I think you are saying what we examine is a matter of scale, and we can examine things at a smaller or larger or in-between scale, and whichever way we examine things, we will see only things at that level, because the whole thing would be too much to hold.
R: Your understanding is correct, because passed mind to mind, but I can not be sure that the understanding has been passed [merely] by words [in the absence of direct mind-to-mind communication]. It will be worthwhile for you to restate that in different words, just to be sure.
F: I got an image of a microscope – and I suppose a telescope would be an equally illustrative metaphor, but microscope is what I got. If you look at reality at any given focus level, what you will see will be whatever is in focus at that level, by definition. But that also means, that is all that you will see. Whatever is larger or smaller or farther away in any sense will be as if it did not exist, or existed only as a blur or as a distorting side-effect.
R: Yes, and so anything you study will exaggerate itself in importance, a sort of scientific equivalent to the adage about
F: Lost it. I got “absence makes the heart grow fonder,” and although I know that isn’t what you want, it blotted out the vaguer sense of what you do want.
That which the eye gazeth upon becomes the more desired.
F: Did you just make that up?
R: Maybe. Anyway, that is the sense I need to convey. It is natural for you – for anyone – to tend to lose sight of all of reality outside the area of concentration. It’s just natural – and for that reason, it must be guarded against, for it is not a conscious but an unconscious choosing, hence beyond conscious control.
But, given that you cannot hold the whole in your mind at any one time, and given that anything sufficiently far from your experience will probably be invisible to eyes not expecting to see it, how are you to proceed?
Let me add, dropping the body does not thereby allow you to see and understand the entirety of 3D creation, let alone the entirety of All-That-Is. So don’t get your hopes up (and don’t fear) that your curiosity will be satisfied merely by waiting until you are safely dis-incarnated. The part never understands the whole from its own point of view. [That is, no partial view can adequately represent the whole.] That’s what a point of view is, a perspective, a place from which to observe everything else from an assumed stable platform.
And so – well may you ask – in that case, what’s the use of the inquiry? And the answer is simple but perhaps not immediately intuitive.
F: Interesting.
R: The very way you just got it – directly – is an example of what I propose to talk about next.
F: I see. Shall I?
R: Go ahead.
F: We cannot see things except from our own point of view. So to look at Rita / TGU / All-That-Is, as she postulated yesterday, a three-in-one that does not depend upon a person remaining in body, each layer has its own’ appropriate scale of examination, and each is constricted to that scale – but – at the same time we are intimately connected to the other levels, in the same way a body is intimately connected to trillions of individual cells.
R: And information and insights may be passed directly between levels, which is a definition of the reason guidance is available and — looked at another way — a definition of the function of humans in 3D. And that’s enough for the moment. Your hour is up.
F: Thank you for this, Rita. It’s very good to be working together again.
R: And what makes you think we have not been working while you were unaware of it?
F: Touché. Till next time, then.

4 thoughts on “Rita — A matter of scale

  1. Frank,
    It is indeed good to have you ‘back in harness’; you enjoy it, and (selfishly) it really helps me grow in better access to guidance!

    Rita’s words today remind me of something I’ve been thinking about, based on what TGU says in Sphere and Hologram. ‘They’ talk at some length (numerous times) about our 3D narrow, more ‘pointed’, flash-light-beam attention, compared to ‘their’ much wider but less focused non-3D attention. ‘They’ thanked Rita many times for the work you and she were doing in ‘pointing’ their attention through your questions.

    Remembering that ‘they’ and I are the same being, that the ‘soul’ I’m growing is a part of greater-me, I get more and more suspicious that ‘we’ (human-me and greater-me) are evolving into ‘something’ that has a greater range (?) of focus: able to shift from that ‘pointed’ focus of a 3D being to the broad attention of non-3D me and back, as desired.

    Is this the ‘next level’? Stay tuned Boys and Girls, I think the ‘ride’ is just getting started!?

    1. Ditto to what Jim says, thank you very much for your works Frank.

      And Jim, what you mentioned here reminds me about what both the Edgar Cayce Readings and Theosophy once upon a time have said. “In the beginning of time” we (as beings) were able to materialize and dematerialize by the will. And by “the forgetting” about “the seamless existence,” we became occupied with infusion into our physical bodies…which turned out to be a conviction in our bodily/biological death.

      B & B, Inger Lise
      P.S. Looking forward “meeting Rita” again.

  2. What I am getting is that you and Rita are exploring the issue of scale. Rita seems to be implying that what you see depends upon the scale at which you are looking.

    On the other hand, I recall many statements similar to “as above, so below”. To me, this implies a similarity to fractals. The idea is that the complexity of an image will remain the same no matter at what scale it is viewed. While this is true for a wide range of scales, there are limits. For example, the complexity of a coastline remains the same over a wide range of scales. Obviously, this cannot be extended down to quantum levels.

    What Rita seems to be implying in the blog posted on 2/12/2016 is that an entity might see entirely different phenomena at different scales.

    I am looking forward to see where this goes.


    1. Rita explicitly endorsed “as above, so below,” but bear in mind, two things that are exactly reflective of each other in structure and even in nature may still offer very different vistas. I can’t think offhand of an analogy, but if you are looking at something on a small scale, you are going to see things smaller than you will probably be able to see if you are looking at something on a much larger scale, even if the two are fractals. At any given scale, certain phenomena are going to be observed easily and others, perhaps, not at all.

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.