A friend suggested that this excerpt from Rita’s World, Vol. II might clarify things a bit for some people. Well, let’s see.
The blog and the Facebook exposure.
You don’t know who reads what, nor what they do with it, nor how it affects them. Nor do you need to know. Nor is it random, of course. That is, it is not—as it may appear to be—a case of someone in 3D happening upon information that then changes them. They may come upon information that changes them, but I assure you, they don’t “happen upon” it.
Communication is two way.
Look at it like this. In fully forming your thought—in this case, in the two of us fully forming our joint exploration / exposition—we are publishing it in non-3D, quite as much as (and, indeed, more, and prior to) in 3D. People’s 3D minds, call it, are influenced by their non-3D minds which is why they stumble upon the site and read the words, and why the words affect them. And of course you can hear in this sentence how language pulls apart what is actually one thing, pretending for the sake of analysis and clarity that a person’s mind could be divided into his or her 3D mind and non-3D mind. In reality there is no such division, of course, but for the purposes of attaining greater clarity it is useful to consider things that way.
Thus, conscious mind, personal unconscious, racial unconscious, according to Carl Jung.
Yes. He was not making hard and fast divisions, nor was he oblivious to the fact that relative distinctions were as arbitrary as they were helpful. But it is inherent in the nature of 3D that the mind has to do a certain form of processing only by sequential—therefore fragmented—examination.
Just to be sure we’re clear: I hear that as saying that our logical minds process through the left brain and therefore see things sequentially rather than as a whole, and therefore we can only put it back together by a right-brain perception of a gestalt. We have to pick apart a flower in order to see what it is made of, but then in order to see it as a flower, we have to remind ourselves that the whole is not the sum of its parts.
This is a long disquisition in itself, perhaps for another time, but yes, your understanding of my implied meaning is correct. You aren’t explicating what I said, as much as expressing the understanding from which I was proceeding.