Tuesday, February 16, 2016
F: 5:45 a.m. Always there is the reluctance of the body to factor in, to overcome. The spirit willing, the flesh reluctant.
But – onward. I always am glad I did it, once I’ve started. Rita? The world – that is, all-D, 3D and non-3D both, from TGU’s point of view?
R: I remind you, and our listeners, that
F: Lost it, sorry.
R: Take a moment
F: [Pause, regathering myself.] Okay.
R: The object of this second run is to give the same facts a second look from somewhat the opposite perspective. So in a way there will be nothing new, but in a way it will all be different.
F: It reminds me, what you’re saying here, of how the Indians and the plainsmen kept themselves oriented. Every so often they would look back, to see what the country they were traversing looked like from the other direction, so it would be recognizable.
R: They were giving themselves perspective, orienting themselves in a 360-degree rather than a 180-degree fashion, you might say. Yes, that’s what we’re doing here. Any exploration can be describe going forward, or going back over the ground, but it is more orienting to do it both ways if possible, and an aerial view would be so much the better. We are sketching relationship as much as – well, objects.
Bear in mind, then, our intent is not to describe something no one has ever seen before; it is to describe relationship between things seen and not so well understood. That includes anything you and I ever discussed, whether I was in or out of body.
As far as I am concerned, we have already sketched life in 3D and non-3D as much as it needs to be sketched from the point of view of the 3D-bound individual. Now we are looking at the same reality from the point of view of the non-3D-bound individual – not, exactly, your own non-3D component (though that is part of it) but the dweller in these parts not particularly bound by a tie to 3D.
F: Hmm. Meaning not the non-3D portion of compound beings?
R: Meaning, more, the non-3D neighborhood as it appears to each other. The logic of our lives once the intense 3D focus is no longer out-glaring subtler lights. So, either connected or not connected to compound beings, but in either case with our center of gravity firmly placed here, not tugged at from 3D.
F: Interesting visual, that. Or, not quite a visual, more like a sort of illustrated concept, the tug of the 3D on non-3D components tied to it.
R: That is how it can be experienced.
F: All right.
R: You remember, I asked once how TGU spent their time, and they said, “we relate.”
F: You didn’t find that any more satisfying than I did.
R: No. It seemed to give us nowhere to go.
F: I remember they said, “You might think of us as teachers, but what if we said we were roofers?” – something like that. Meaning, the nature of their occupations couldn’t be easily related to us because we would find it hard not to force any explanation into 3D terms.
R: And one way of looking at events would say that that interchange was for the purpose of establishing this conceptual link between us, I being on both sides of that questioning and therefore being uniquely able to understand the needs of the questioner and the constraints on the responder – and you being able to establish or hold the continuity.
F: I can see it that way.
R: So, we’re setting out to answer the question left open – what does it mean, “we relate”?
F: It often seems to me that in these sessions we tip-toe toward something, dance around it, decide our time is up, and never quite get to it.
R: Yes, and yet you see we do get there, over time. The tip-toing and the dancing around is as much a part of the elucidation as the straight exposition. It is the invisible context that holds the link, what you used to call the carrier wave. Just like Rob Butts describing when the cat would jump up on Jane Roberts while Seth was talking, it keeps you and the later reader remembering that this does not float in the air but is intrinsically real, continuing, everyday. It is very easy to forget that, and if you do, something very important is lost. Also, it is more effective to dance around a subject, as it seems to you we are doing, than to pursue it in a straight-line fashion, for
F: Sorry, went wool-gathering.
R: Straight-ahead seems more efficient, but carries the potential to be easily walled off from the rest of your life. Just as when you read a book straight through, not pausing or doing anything else, the contents may form an isolated lump rather than being digested and diffused and becoming part of your being.
F: All right, I see that. See it again, I should say, because we’ve been over that ground before. But it is hard to overcome certain habits of mind, such as impatience and haste.
R: Hard, but scarcely impossible, nor do you always proceed at the same breakneck pace.
If you in 3D were asked by someone not in 3D how you spend your time, “we relate” might be as good an answer as any, because it is a common denominator among so many activities and preoccupations that might not be so easily described, and certainly would be impossible to describe in their infinite interactions. Generalized almost meaningless statements are the natural result of attempting to explain unknowns. You remember Bob [Monroe]’s description of showing a non-3D person life in 3D.
F: I do. BB, in Far Journeys.
R: Yes. Remember – Bob explicitly reminded the reader that everything he tried to show would necessarily be distorted by translation into words, into sequential logic, into all sorts of unacknowledged assumptions.
F: But, “you do the best you can.”
R: Right, and that’s our task now, to do the best we can because our conditions and perceptions and assumptions and experience are different from Bob’s, and so will complement his and at the same time inform his.
F: Eleanor Friede [Bob’s agent] told me tartly that Far Journeys was the only one of his books that didn’t make its advance [that is, didn’t sell enough copies to earn him in royalties the amount that had been paid him on signing the contract] – this after I told her it was by far my favorite among the three.
R: Perhaps its time had not yet come.
F: I remember Colin Wilson telling me he had been unable to finish it, and I told him to start with chapter 12, and he did and found it all made sense to him that way, and he went back to the beginning and read it through. So I take it we are here embedding a commercial for Far Journeys?
R: Some will profit by it, some may not, but it is very much a propos.
F: Well, I certainly hope somebody else’s sessions will plug my books.
R: You never know. Now, we must not leave the impression that what Bob was able to convey was Gospel, any more than what we can bring forth. Nor are contradictions in description important in themselves. You don’t want dogma, you want doorways, or at least windows.
F: Things to spark our imagination.
R: Let’s look at that a little bit. What you are meaning isn’t “things to set our fancy going,” but, closer to, things that lead us on, things that give us the impetus to look in a certain direction, to make certain connections.
That is what a doorway is – you might think of our hope as cutting doorways where people have only seen walls. Not that we are “going where man had never gone before,” but that we are demonstrating that the walls were never real in the first place, so why not have a doorway here, or a window?
This kind of encouragement of imagination (call it) can only be done one person at a time, no matter how many people hear it at once. That is, each person reading this is part of a unique equation of Rita (for TGU) / Frank (for sequential exposition) / reader (for association of the material with everything else in his or her life). Thus, there is no mass communication no matter how widely we scatter the seed. There is only one-to-one, and that unpredictable.
So now let us pause again, even though you, as so often, feel we haven’t gotten anywhere.
F: Give people time to get Bob’s book.
R: That will depend upon how much time off you want. Nobody can make you do this.
F: No, but they can’t stop me, either. Okay, then, see you next time.