Rita — like a newborn baby

Tuesday, February 23, 2016
F: 5 a.m. So, we are dead to the world – in both senses of the expression – and we first turn our attention to who we are and were – as opposed to who we liked to think we were. We judge, and then judgment becomes acceptance. And then?

R: And then you are moving again, and what you are experiencing changes as it changes you. As long as you are stuck in judgment, additional perception cannot easily occur. Judgment is a form of shrinking from reality. You know?

F: I think you are saying that, because we fear that it will be even worse than it is, we try not to look any more closely.

R: That is it approximately, but far from exactly, so let’s leave that thought as only a suggestion, rather than a description. Let’s say, the harsher the judge, the scarcer the witnesses, and the less fluid the perception.

F: Now, we’ve edged into Bruce Moen’s description of our mental process as an alternation between perception and judging, haven’t we? Between open acceptance of input and examination of what has already been received? He pointed out that this is a reciprocal process, one half at a time, never simultaneous, because they are mutually contradictory, though complementary.

R: The description is accurate, but realize, in your new situation, analysis is impossible. The newly untethered soul, even though it is dealing with its own composition and experiences, has no ability to control its own mental process. Like the newborn infant in 3D, it experiences life coming at it full-tilt, none of it making sense and no way to make sense of it.

F: So we experience it as chaos?

R: Well, there are distinctions we need to make here. Let’s begin with analogy to the newborn state in 3D and see how far it leads us.
Consider: What is instinct? Not, so much, what are instincts (that is, this one and that one), but what is instinct itself?

F: Guidance.

R: Go to the head of the class. Of course it is. But it will be easier for you to spell out your idea of what I mean, and then I will correct as necessary.

F: Babies of any kind – animal or human – come equipped with instincts, although I’m not sure anybody knows the boundary between instinct and early learned behavior. I read somewhere, I think, that not all babies have the instinct to suck. But anyway, in general it is as if animals come equipped with firmware as part of their hardware (the body) and as the basis for software (whatever they later learn). Is this firmware physical or mental or – as I expect – spiritual (that is, mental but with a flavor of more developed consciousness than that term sometimes carries)? I think our instincts – our firmware – are probably a little of each. The basis for them is in our genetics, but in our most common-denominator genetics, common to one and all, encoded in matter. But that basis is also mental, or anyway non-3D in origin and function, because it is enabled and controlled from a different part of the entity than the developing fetus, the newborn baby. I suspect that the only reason that instinct seems universal is that most or maybe all babies are in excellent connection with the non-3D consciousness from which they were formed. (They’d have to be; they haven’t yet begun to form the 3D consciousness that can become a de facto opposite pole to the non-3D consciousness).
That’s the best I can do at the moment, and I seemed to feel my concepts being fed to me and expounded upon as I wrote.

R: Yes, that’s the process called inspiration. You stay attuned and make the effort to respond, and another part of you provides feed. It is common, not always noticed.
All right, so consider your instincts to have been your non-3D component using its vast knowledge to assist you in dealing with a totally new and unpredictable and threatening and confusing and seemingly unstructured state of existence. You, remember, won’t have existed before. That is (continuing the analogy) the newly born 3D mind in so far as it is functioning independently has never experienced any of it. It is only the mind that created it, which we later learn to call the subconscious or unconscious mind, that knows the ropes. So in the initial stages, you see, the newly emergent mind is entirely dependent upon the non-3D mind and does not experience it as separate. It is only as the 3D mind gains enough experience that it gradually learns to function on its own, begins to ignore or reject the promptings from the non-3D mind (the mothership, not the mother) and starts to make its own errors and learn its own lessons and plot its own course. There is nothing wrong with this process, and in fact this could be looked at as individuation to varying degrees.
So now, keeping that in mind, return to your situation after you have dropped the body. You are in a sense new-born in an unfamiliar environment. Unfamiliar to the 3D-shaped part of you! but to the rest of you – it is home. You see the implication.

F: The better your connection to your non-3D component, the easier it can feed reassurance, calmness, sure-footedness.

R: That’s right. Instead of being caught in a nightmare or at best a continually changing kaleidoscope, you have a stable place to stand, and your surroundings apparently stabilize. I say “apparently” because of course it wasn’t your surroundings that were the problem.
Now, as you move from perception of chaos to a more structured perception of experience, you thereby engage your process of discrimination, of judgment (meaning discernment, not condemnation) because, after all, that is what the process of sorting things out is, the use of judgment. In effect, your new world clears. But remember, that new world is not a world of externals; it is who and what (and even how) you are.
In a sense, you retrace your existence in 3D, looking more closely at the underpinnings and the more subtle relationships.

F: Is it an iterative process, then?

R: Of course. To understand A, you have to understand B, but to understand B, you have to understand A. It’s the same thing. So each new pass over the same data yields new insights which inform the next pass. Understand, this is being somewhat crammed into 3D terms, but that’s what happens. The more you look, the better you understand. The more you understand, the better you look at the same things and the better you understand them. And so on and so forth, unpredictably according to each soul’s nature, because just as in 3D life (for obvious reasons!) there are the same differences in appetite for knowledge of any given subject, even oneself.
So – putting this only as a rough example, certainly not claiming it as an unvarying rule –
— You see your life as you remember it.
— Then you see it as various “external” considerations come to mind. (That is, you start to see it from other people’s viewpoints as well as your own.)
— Then you see

F: Sorry, lost the thread.

R: First comes “objectively,” then the realization that “objectively” doesn’t exist, and things are at the same time different [when seen] from different viewpoints (rather than this view being right and that one wrong).
Then you go into it again, seeing how the interactions produced unsuspected consequences, and you begin to see the hand of Fate, or of Divine Providence, or of Chance, depending upon your predilection.
Then you see that you and the others were not so much pinballs colliding as dancers, and you see that the dance was not improv, nor solitary, and you begin to suspect that there may have been orchestration.
And then, as you begin to look at yourself more closely, who you are becomes more apparent. Rather than defining yourself by your actions, you begin to see yourself by your tendencies, and then by your motivations, and then by your essential composition. And at this point the solid “you” you have been taking for granted begins in effect to dissolve (as a concept) and you start to see wider connections and implications. But this is a good place to pause.

F: Fascinating, says he, quoting Spock. And you are working a la Hemingway’s advice, aren’t you? My having a sense of where we’re going next, and stopping while we’re going well, makes it easier to continue. Very well, till next time, our thanks.

5 thoughts on “Rita — like a newborn baby

  1. Oh, man, I’m starting to feel I am a spammer…but this dissolving of the solid blob of me…that is exactly the thing I see is the terror and the thrill. I know the perceived solidness I am experiencing now is not what it seems. As if we’re radio receivers and the solid me is just one channel one can receive. And encountering different strands in life is like changing wavelengths to parse different channels. And sometimes the static makes yoou wander…what is this thing of receiving? What is it that makes for all these channels? If I could stop identifying myself as a solid channel called kristiina, would it all fall apart? Or would I get a completely different perspective?

  2. Again, much “food for thought”. I can now appreciate the “contemplative” practices more so, altho I personally would not choose to “sit at the foot of a guru/roshi”; that could change, I suppose.

    Not too long ago, I found, during an E.F.T. session, where I was “processing the whole mortality thing”, a very real sense of fear/panic came up, which I recognized (and I’ve had it before, just not recently) the fact that this “Craig S. McLean” will cease to be some day. Kind of a “well, obviously!”, but I realized I was tapping into the “primal fear” I have of “non-existence”. But, I stayed w/ it, and actually (after several cycles of “tapping on it”) reached a sense of relief–of the sort I’ve felt when a real, viscerally-felt danger has passed, such as the time I spun my car out on an icy bridge, and even before we stopped moving, I realized we’d be okay; we’d not hit the jack-knifed semi ahead, flip over, or have a bunch of other cars pile into us.

    It seemed to prove to me, yet again, that “fear” is the worst thing to me, of the “unknown”.

    Hmmm….so it seems to go: Actions–>Tendencies–>Motivations–>Essential Composition. Again, I feel the need to establish closer ties w/ my non-3D aspect, which for me means not so much “second-guessing” my impulses, intuitions, dreams, altered states. That is to say, I won’t just “accept w/out analysis”; I’ll still do that (seems to be a part of my essential makeup!), but I won’t “throw them out” immediately either, especially on the basis on what some learned someone wrote in a book (e.g., “Oh, that was ‘just’ ‘REM-intrusion’…”)

    And, Kristiina, I’ve wondered the same thing, about the self-identity question: does it all just dissolve? I recall an answer, which resonates for me as a working premise, some earlier Frank/Rita conversation, about this “soul” we forge in 3D, from the multitude of “strands” in our makeup. I will have to review that section…

    So… the journey continues,,,


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.