Rita– TGU’s view of reality

Monday, February 15, 2016
F: 7:30 a.m. So, all right. A little later start and a little out of tune, but so what? Miss Rita?
R: The organic, living, inter-functioning nature of the All-That-Is is a very different picture than the dead, inert, mechanical –
F: I know. I’ve been trying to deal with it and already I’m stymied.
R: Describe the problem, to put it on the record.

F: When you come to talk about “everything,” the words we use are all inadequate, because they mislead. Rita was trying to make a simple point, but any word I could find – the world, the universe, reality – was misleading, and you can’t just throw in a full paragraph of I-Mean-This-When-I-Use-This-Word without destroying the flow of the thought. So I guess I’ll have to put the explanation here, and maybe invent a word for us to use.
R: Try “the all-D.”
F: Meaning both the 3D and the non-3D. Well, we’ll see if it works out. What we are meaning to do is to convey “everything” as a concept. In other words, not only all physical reality but all non-physical reality as well. So rather than say “creation” – which implies only the 3D universe – or “the universe” – which implies creation too but to some may also, misleadingly, imply the astronomical usage – or “the world” – which certainly would leave people uncertain as to what we mean – we hesitated.
So let’s try Rita’s paragraph again using her suggested usage, and see if that serves. It amounts to saying that seeing the all-D as organic and living (that is, the spiritual and physical worlds both) rather than seeing the physical world as mostly dead and the spiritual world as either living or non-existent (which is the materialist position), represents a very different viewpoint.
My phrasing is clumsy because it is never stylistically good to include so many parenthetical statements or so long a sentence, but in this case I see no choice. Anyway, Rita, I think your invention may work. Do you?
R: As you always put it – we’ll see. But I think so. To resume: It is one thing to see the 3D world as mostly dead and the non-3D as non-existent. It is a second thing to see it as a mostly-dead 3D and a living non-3D. but it is a very different third thing to see the 3D as fully alive, cooperating with and interacting with (and indeed being a part of) a living non-3D.
The all-D is alive. It is conscious. It seems to have purpose and will inherent in its nature. This is what mystics sometimes realize but rarely are able to describe and even more rarely are able to explain. Indeed, perhaps it can’t be explained at all, merely realized. It is what some call an all-pervasive God, the pantheistic or panentheistic position. People’s incomplete perception of the truth produces division in their opinions, divisions that cannot be bridged at the level they hold them.
F: Allow me.
Of course. Division of labor. Your part is to put it all into words, either by expressing or transmitting or by explaining, and this requires explanation of concept received but not spelled out.
F: [I omit itals to make for easier reading.]
Some people believe in God, and no matter what form that belief takes in terms of rules, it amounts to a sense of the all-D’s inherent living purposiveness without a sense of its indivisibility or its comprehensive consciousness.
Others believe only in what their sensory apparatus reports to them, which amounts to blindness to the non-3D and to the non-sensory interconnections within 3D, let alone the connections between the 3D and the (unperceived and hence presumed-to-be-nonexistent) non-3D.
Others believe in 3D and non-3D but do not believe in the purposive nature of the all-D, and may call themselves “spiritual but not religious.” They do not experience the 3D as inherently conscious necessarily.
Okay?
R: Good enough to begin with. A broad-brush approach, necessarily, of course. The point here is that we are exploring the nature of reality from a particular point of view that needs to be firmly established if anyone is going to be able to get anything new from it. It is one thing to be religious, another to be “spiritual but not religious,” a third to be materialist. We are postulating a fourth position that differs from any of these in the one vital respect of seeing All-D as a unity of conscious (hence, obviously, alive) parts.
The difference doesn’t so much invalidate any of those other orientations as demonstrate them to be partial. They are each a way of seeing things, but are each an incomplete way; hence the conflict among them.
F: So let me ask: Does our All-D mean All-That-Is, or are there different levels to be considered?
R: All I can say is that we are describing things – that is, describing the All-D – as best we can. This is the world from TGU’s point of view. It may be that there are wheels within wheels, or levels above levels, and indeed, there must be. Remember, any view puts into focus only what is at the scale of the viewer.
F: Any reality above your pay grade must remain a mystery, then.
R: We have been given clues, remember, in human scriptures and metaphysics, and the one we have to keep coming back to is, “as above, so below.” We cannot know but we can have confidence that the All-D repeats at different scale, essentially a fractal. But anything beyond our range is, by definition, beyond our range. We will have quite enough to do to make clear that which we can perceive, without haring off toward that which is yet beyond us. Finish the leaning appropriate to the third grade, before beginning high school courses. (This of course is only an analogy. We do not mean to imply any sort of imposed structure to the learning, only to note that any level of understanding rests upon what was previously acquired, and makes possible anything to come.)
F: I keep forgetting that this is The World As Seen by TGU.
R: We gave you TGU’s view of “the world as experienced by consciousness limited to 3D,” and this is intended to be a complementary approach.
F: Thanks for the compliment.
R: We would say “very funny” except that we recognize (and approve) what you are doing there.
F: Well, a lot of people no longer know the difference between complementary and complimentary, I thought I’d better note that there is a difference, and send those who need it to their dictionary.
R: Yes. Complementary views allow you to shift perspective, and get to the view beyond perspective.
F: Meaning, I think, that parallax brings farther stars into view.
R: You can do better than that.
F: Yes, I knew as soon as I wrote it that it was too sloppy. Parallax is what happens when you take two views of a far-off field and see if anything changes. That’s how you find distant planets against a star-field background. Terrible and probably inaccurate description but anyway that’s what I meant – take two far enough views, and you’ll infer things from the difference between them that you couldn’t see directly.
R: Perhaps you shouldn’t write science textbooks.
F: Laughing. Perhaps not. But it gets the idea across, I hope.
R: It should. And we can pause here.
F: Only eight pages, instead of our usual nine or ten, but that’s okay with me. Less to type.
R: Also, this makes a unit and there is no point in beginning another aspect for only a few words.
F: Till next time, then, and I know you know you have the thanks of many people you never met, and many you did meet.
R: This is seeing it from the usual point of view that sees people as separate, of course. The unseen connections may be quite as strong, remember.
F: True. Okay, then, till next time.

7 thoughts on “Rita– TGU’s view of reality

  1. Ah, such juicy stuff! Thank you very much! I was just thinking about that nasty thing called Cartesian dualism. It kind of cripples both the physical and the spiritual aspects of being. A nasty peg to hang oneself from. Our culture seems to be an amplification of that ethos – destructive both to material and spiritual aspects of being. I am getting a feel of a giant – geez, the words…all-D. Have seen something like that in a dream.

  2. My Guidance tend to throw texts at me serendipitously from a multitude of different viewpoints with many synchronicities in attempts, apparently, to rid me of any language-strewn certainties and still provide me with a feeling of what is going on and how to accommodate it in my life. Thus, Marjorie Perloff’s “Wittgenstein’s Ladder: Poetic Language and the Strangeness of the Ordinary” came my way. Wittgenstein was famous for interrupting classes when inspiration, read guidance, was speaking. He concluded, of course my interpretation, that word-wrapped information could be successfully exchanged only interactively in person to person conversation clothed poetically, that meaning meanfully only existed in such contexts. Rita and you seem to be doing this quite well. From my small experience, it appears to me, none have provided this vital material nearly as capably as you are.

  3. I am still chewing this…How we have a culture that pretends 3D is dead and non-3D can be ignored. Materially successful but a totally dead end from the allD perspective. I’ve always been some sort of pantheist – that is, after all, where we all are coming from, and many cultures still have that in them. But it has been quite clear that one keeps mum about that stuff in polite company and among educated people. Descartes certainly cast a mighty spell that has made human imagination and mind quite impotent. The exploration of non-3D has been left to the freaky fringe department. The sharpest minds are busy figuring out better algorithms to get rich quick. Or maybe that is exactly as it should? The idly curious and the treasure-hunters will not find anything of interest in the allD. Which is the threasure of treasures, if one can just fathom it. Don’t know if I am up to it, but just nibbling the edges of this cookie really gives me joy.

    Language is such a strange creature. Snares can be made with words that trap people into useless slavery, and worse. It is so mundane, it looks so harmless, words are everywhere, while we lock up knives…What if I start to apply more of my words into bringing forth the allD in here or in consciousness and less into the survival of me? The dream about allD I had: a giant living system that had layers upon layers of happenings and processes and all intermingled in a mind-boggling vastness of complicated effects. I’ve never really thought about that dream because it seemed too vast fot the feeble me. I thought it is something I can put off because it is too big to comprehend. Now I ask myself: why put it off, why not examine it to the extent I can? I mean, this is fairly interesting. More interesting that get rich quick. So, I’m tweaking my mind a bit here. Much fun to have these thoughts. Feels good to be off the beaten track!

    1. Hi Kristiina,

      Many of my thoughts “of late” echo yours. For far too long, I had allowed myself to feel “enslaved” by those who were very clever in their word-usage, but all the while “arguing for the limitations” of the Materialist view. I am now, finally, coming out of that “illusion”, and find the dialogues here quite refreshing (they certainly speak to that large part of me that does not want to see everything “neatly explained away”/parceled up for our consumption). That ol’ Cartesian split (if that’s the correct term for that “spell” cast by Descartes) has pushed some of us “seekers” to the fringe; for me that is okay; I’m not trying to uphold a reputation in some laboratory, or church pulpit!

      Likewise, I find I’m pretty “quiet” locally, in our quite-intellectual college town (tho we have found a few “kindred souls” here w/ whom we can talk about this stuff, w/out them whipping out a convenient “DSM” manual!) I’ve found there can be a bit of a “double-bind” in this country; one who openly talks about “consciousness” (as other than a brain function) can run afoul of those who may be very clever at working out their algorithms/theories of everything, but scoff at the idea of “consciousness” being a “basic” (instead of epiphenomenon), and those of some religious persuasions, who may see such studies as “trafficking w/ the devil”. As I mentioned, we’ve found persons locally open to these ideas (tho they are not many so far).

      I’ve decided to become a dedicated “studier of Consciousness”; it is a very exciting “field”! I do also like the term “All-D”, and the reminder: “As above, so below”. I’m finding much excitement in daily “meaningful coincidences”, dream life, and my fledgling attempts at OBEs. In “waking life”, I find that creativity (for me thru writing and jewelry) is a good “channel”, while still being able to do the “normal” stuff of 3D.

      The Journey continues…

      Craig

  4. I am having trouble understanding the concept of all D.
    The closest I could come is this experience:
    When I was in college, in the early 70″s, some friends and I ingested a psychedelic substance while we were at Daniel Boone Natural Bridge State Park in Kentucky. We hiked through the park to an overlook where there was a beautiful vista of the mountains and trees. This occurred while we were at the height of our chemical experience. There was a strong breeze blowing. As I viewed the scene, it seemed to me the trees and the wind were involved in some sort of cooperative dance, in which they appeared to be one unit. The energy of the wind, seemed to caress the trees and the trees appeared to writhe with the wind, so as to take the most advantage of the wind. They moved in unison and cooperation with each other. It was both breathtaking and alive. Definitely a peak experience. I remember thinking that I had never noticed this phenomenon before and wondered if what I was seeing was “real” or the effects of the drug.
    Would this be an example of what Rita is referring to? A glimpse of the all D?

    1. I don’t think so — though, by the way, I have no doubt that what you saw was real. My sense of it is that Rita is using the expression All-D as a shorthand term meaning all of the physical (3D) and all of the non-physical (non-3D) considered together, but avoiding the more metaphysical concepts that may be added to words like All That Is. So the All-D would be everything we live, whether we are or are not conscious of living it. That’s my take on it, anyway.

Leave a Reply

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