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.
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.