Monday, March 7, 2016
F: 4 a.m. Well, here we go. Okay, Rita, you said we’d look at how the ex-3D soul experiences itself once it sheds its idea of being basically a creation of 3D.
R: You might as well mention the thought that came to you yesterday after our session. It has its relevance.
F: Well, I was thinking, they didn’t say Jesus was half human, half divine, they said fully human, fully divine. And somehow that seems to me to describe us pretty well. No wonder we’re so uneasy!
R: Half animal, half spirit, is how people often think of themselves. It doesn’t usually occur to them that they are fully 3D creatures, fully non-3D creatures at the same time – and, creators as well as creatures. Life-experience and words and sequential language are too much in the way of such understanding. But now perhaps we can begin to tie this all together if you bring in concepts I started with in December .
Everybody and everything exists in all dimensions. Necessarily. There is no other way it can be. Therefore trees and moss and foxes and people are in All-D, not merely in 3D – and so are rocks and seas and nuclear waste products. Regardless which kingdom, animal, vegetable, or mineral, everything exists in all dimensions, and that include sub-atomic particles, galaxies of stars, and many things commonly perceived as relationships such as heat, light, etc.. I know that is puzzling but let’s not pursue that particular side-trail. The physicists among you may find it an interesting line of thought. Thought, too, exists in All-D.
F: I’m having a hard time holding on to the thread, here.
R: We need to poke holes in the background assumption that reality has an absolute division between body and spirit, between 3D and non-3D, between living and dead, between the sphere of consciousness and the sphere of mere-being-ness. Yes, you may and indeed usually must see these things as relatively separate, in the way you see up as the opposite of down, or inside of outside – but try to make it real to yourselves that these are relative divisions, only. Divisions of convenience. Divisions, you might say, for the sake of making sense of the world. But they are only relatively accurate, and a different scheme of analysis would draw its line of division elsewhere, separating things that had been considered together, and seeing the unity in things that had been considered separate.
F: I’m hoping you can give at least one example of such a scheme – not the whole scheme, of course, but just one example, so that we may ground it. And don’t think I don’t realize, as I am writing this, that it is a planted question! I thought it was “my” idea when I began writing, but by this point it’s clear that it wasn’t.
R: Bear in mind, any really different way of seeing long-familiar things is prone to looking like merely playing with words.
F: Well, try us.
R: What if a better distinction than 3D versus non-3D, or living versus dead, or animate versus inanimate, is, say, stable versus alterable.
F: I didn’t get that quite right, did I?
R: A different viewpoint can’t be conveyed in a phrase or even a sentence, so it may take a few sentences to hone in on it. Let’s keep trying, just for the sake of seeing things differently for the moment.
Some while back, when you and I were asking the guys these kinds of questions, they draw a distinction between humans and every other form of animal on earth, do you remember?
F: I think we were the only ones who alter our environment, and this was by design. We were the necessary tricksters in the world, I think it was.
R: Close enough, but that was in the context of our question. Let us broaden the distinction now to include everything known and conceivable, and divide it between things that by nature push for change and things that by nature push for un-change.
F: Seems to me we all are sometimes one, sometimes the other.
R: Certainly, but it is the way of seeing things, not the specific implementation, that we are looking at. You could divide reality not into 3D or non-3D, or matter or spirit, or living or dead, or conscious or not, but into – call it – changers or maintainers.
Note, I am not advocating this as a practical way of seeing things, though it might have its specific usefulness, but as an example of divisions that slice reality in different ways, lumping things usually thought of as separate, and separating things usually thought of as identical or at least similar.
And, perhaps more useful in our examination, anything examined this way acts sometimes as one, sometimes as the other. The tectonic plates that cause earthquakes also cause geological stability, depending upon the overall situation. Humans disrupt systems but at the same time establish or maintain systems. Energy pouring in from the sun may disrupt electronic communications or may provide fuel for photosynthesis.
Closer to our point, input from the non-3D may disrupt human thought or may act as guidance.
None of this is complicated, and perhaps many people won’t find it even useful, but it is an example of a way to see the world that emphasizes differences – differently. It can’t be said too often. There are no absolute divisions in the universe, and by universe I mean not the astronomical definition but All That Is, in All-D.
All right, let’s return to the main point for today. Everybody is in All-D all the time, because there is no way not to be. Well, you can see, perhaps, that an ex-3D soul, once it ceases to define itself as ex-3D, may experience a blossoming-out as it realizes the rest of itself, or it may mentally shrink from (or delight in, but in any case experience as separate) the rest of what it is. It is what it always was, but much of what it always was has been unsuspected, certainly undefined.
F: And whether the soul experiences itself as human or divine depends on which aspect of itself it concentrates on?
R: You might put it that way. Or you might say it depends upon
F: Dammit, woolgathering.
R: It is always a matter of interpretation. Two souls – two minds – looking at the same data might come to two different conclusions, or one could say might build two different models. But the best model recognizes that all other models are aspects of it, seen differently.
But yes, fully human, fully divine. That is, fully the product of a 3D experience, yet that “product of a 3D experience” is itself an integral part of a non-3D experience.
F: We are puppets and puppeteers both.
R: Let’s say actors and screenwriters, both, or actors and directors. And audience too, for that matter.
But it is not predictable which roles the newly ex-3D soul will recognize itself to have played – let alone, to be still playing! And this is
F: I get it. This is the sense in which All Is Well, All Is Always Well.
R: Of course. Once you realize that you are the actor, the audience, the stage-scenery, the theater ticket and the money that changed hands as the price of admission, you are less likely to obsess over the plot of the day’s performance.
F: Boy, that will sound callous to some people, but I get it. In the larger view of things, Kennedy’s murder is as important as Caesar’s, but at the same time, both murders are just part of the continuing story, with all its ramifications.
R: Let me put in a caveat, here, though. It may not seem to make sense, though maybe it will be clearer later – but it is equally true that every little thing matters. No injury but is distributed among all; no good but is felt by all. Only, the scale changes and what comes into focus at any given scale is what is appropriate to that scale. You don’t know much – scarcely anything – about the Roman politics that led to Caesar’s murder, and there is little reason, beyond curiosity, that you should. And yet it continues to affect you. Yet it is all in the script of the play (not meaning it was predetermined, meaning that is what unrolled). What does Caesar’s murder have to do with an oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico? And yet, it does.
Imagine now, if you can, what the newly ex-3D soul goes through when everything it knew or was accustomed to thinking or feeling is suddenly seen as arbitrary, or as much arbitrary as [it is] reasonable. When everything from your self-definition to anything you ever experienced is suddenly seen to be only a matter of definition, only a matter of how the lens of the microscope is focused – well, it’s easy to lose your feeling of stability. That’s the point at which you realize why Yeats gave thanks for “the body and its stupidity” – even while you’re seeing that that too is only one way to see things.
F: Okay, there’s our hour, sure enough. Thank you as always, and see you next time.