Tuesday, May 3, 2016
F: 5:40 a.m. Miss Rita, anything to say, this morning? Presumably you are aware of our weekend workshop.
R: Anything going on in 3D is available to those in non-3D provided there is a “hook,” as you say, on either end, or on both. And we can talk about that, if you wish.
F: It sounds interesting. Please do.
R: A “hook” on one end – on the non-3D end – would be strong interest rooted in one or more of many things. A hook on your end – on the 3D end – would be a desire to communicate with us, or, indeed, any strong emotional link that resulted in automatic feed. I will proceed a bit slowly, so as to proceed carefully. I think you have found that careful explication helps sort things out, and produces greater clarity.
F: Yes. I still proceed headlong, and the result is that I lump a lot of things and don’t see them very clearly.
R: That has its place too. It is a useful trait for an explorer, or in fact a wanderer. But mapmakers had better take more time about their explanations.
So let us look at hooks.
I think the point of approach is, once again, the fact that in life there are no absolute units, only relative units. There is no indivisible thing, any more than there could be an entirely separate thing.
F: By life – I want to point out for the studio audience – I know you mean non-3D life as well as 3D life. I know they are connected aspects of the same thing, but I thought I might as well mention it, so as to be clear.
R: That’s right. That is why “afterlife” contains a misunderstanding. It is all life, and we all share it.
Well, you will remember that we said that “individuals” in 3D are actually conglomerations of strands, coexisting in a physical body, experiencing life one moment after another, and thereby becoming a functioning whole. This resulting functioning mind continues to function as a (relative) unit in the non-3D – indeed, it so functions even while the body is living in 3D, though we have never laid great stress on the point.
Now, consider that each strand may be considered to be the equivalent of a past life, and thus the living individual may be looked at as a new complication of preceding individuals. Well, each of those individuals had their abiding interests in 3D. Therefore, potentially, the non-3D mind comprising them may itself have any or all of those same interests.
F: So if one of my strands had a life as a medieval knight, say, I might have an abiding interest in armor and chivalry and such?
R: That’s right. And depending upon your mixture of strands, that might be a very isolated interest, puzzling to you because alien to your other strands. Or it could seamlessly integrate with the others, or many relationship in between, as usual.
F: Always bell-curves, not either / or.
R: Correct. That’s just the way life is. If you can’t abide shades of grey, you’re exploring the wrong field.
F: Don’t I know it! But I’m very comfortable with shades of grey.
R: It may easily happen that a given strand remains fascinated – or engaged, anyway – with the things that interested it in 3D, and in that case you might say it – and therefore a part of you, if it is one of your strands – remains tuned in to such things.
F: It receives feed because it is interested by default, so to speak.
R: You could look at it that way. Bear in mind, though, that it is only one strand among many, so there are competing interests. Since we are in non-3D, we are natural multi-taskers, so that isn’t a problem. I mention it lest others form too concrete an idea, too like 3D limits.
R: So that is one hook – a strand’s prior lived interest in a given subject. Other hooks are much as you – we, actually – have described them in discussing sources of guidance: relatives, interests, psychological affinity – many things.
Bob [Monroe], for instance, maintains his watch on The Monroe Institute. That doesn’t mean he directs it – though often he would like to! – and doesn’t even mean he always knows best what would be best for it.
F: Though he no doubt thinks so.
R: Oh yes! But it is an abiding interest, you see.
F: And I got a big chunk of download as you said that and I was busy writing it out.
R: Go ahead.
F: That’s what a “patron saint” is! It is a non-3D mind with an abiding proprietorial interest in a given aspect of human activity.
R: As long as you remember that all definitions are relative and provisional, yes. On the 3D end, the churches may “decide” (or think they are deciding) for logical or pragmatic reasons to consider a given individual (historical or imagined or legendary) to be essentially connected to something. [I noted but did not write down that churches might refer to Hindus, say. The argument is not confined to the Christian churches ] But this is at least as often decided from this end, with the connection intuited in the 3D and perhaps, as I say, attributed to reason. Either way, it is a loose recognition of continued emotional and mental kinship.
F: St. George and England?
R: Here we get into the subject of archetypes, and that we will leave for some other day. Let us stick to the defined and practical, for the moment.
F: Well, it seems to keep associating with other things as I think about it. You became as intertwined with TMI as Bob did, for instance, so I suppose your connection with it is as strong. This, besides your connection to Bob before your life together. So I suppose you could say there is a group in the non-3D clustered around TMI as there was in 3D.
R: Yes if you tread carefully. Remember, or maybe we haven’t ever mentioned, come to think of it – we in non-3D are not the seeming unit that we were when our consciousness was focused moment by moment. So in effect, Rita at age 40 and Rita at age 80 might be considered two different people. You see?
F: In respect to what different things currently going on in 3D might attract them.
R: That’s right. It is a slippery subject, hard to translate into 3D terms, but in effect I here am as many things as I was there – only here I am not focused by an insistent ever-moving, ever present moment. So the coupling is looser, you might say.
F: So the you who lived as a young married in World War II coexists with but is not subsumed by or replaced by the you who was a young mother or a college professor or the head of Bob’s consciousness lab, or the gadfly asking TGU to explain life.
R: They all exist. Why should they cease to exist? But you can’t be repeating that whole paragraph every time you refer to someone in non-3D life, so the distinctions get blurred and so does the understanding.
F: I do see the problem.
R: Now, to return to the question of hooks, on the 3D end it may be experienced as an emotional connection with one or more people, or with a subject, or even an attitude, or – as in your case particularly – with an aspect of life such as history, considered as a subject. The individuals may be those you know, or those you only read of, or even fictional characters.
F: Can you explain that last? I think I have an idea, but —
R: The studio audience, yes. This may be too big a subject for a remaining few minutes, but consider, fictional characters are creations. You in 3D continue to be creators, just as we in non-3D. And the way to create is to infuse one’s own life into an idea, or a material object, or an abstract set of relationships. Thus, music, fiction, inventions, social groupings for whatever purpose – these are all creations. As creations, they share the life of their creators. The iPad on one’s desk, or the desk itself, has life. It may not be obvious, but it is so, because remember, everything has life; everything is life. Since the 3D is created from the non-3D, and since the material of creation is consciousness, everything is equally alive, regardless of appearances and regardless of your ability to discern it.
To imagine something is to create it. To bring it into 3D manifestation is but to create it at a more enduring level. To create it and (so to speak) distribute it among many minds it to give in more scope and perhaps longer life.
F: So, Hornblower, for instance.
R: Certainly. Or Jake Barnes, or Robert Jordan.
F: We in 3D may actually engage with them, and yet they never lived.
R: Another long subject. Never lived isn’t what you think. George Washington is dead. He does not exist in 3D except as an image in people’s minds. Is he any realer to those in 3D than Hornblower?
F: I certainly would have thought so!
R: Oh, certainly in the sense you mean, for he did live. But at another level, was he not imagined out of the non-3D? “Take this and this and this element, place them in colonial Virginia in 1732, and see what happens.” How different is that from C.S. Forester or Ernest Hemingway saying, “Take this and this and this element and place them here”?
F: I see where you’re going, but it still seems qualitatively different.
R: It is different. Hornblower couldn’t found the United States. But at the level of a create mixture of elements functioning together relative to 3D minds, different but not so different.
F: Hmm, I guess I’m glad our hour is up. We’ll need to think about that. Meanwhile, thanks for all this.