August 5, 2017
11:40 a.m. Rita? Jane Parenteau suggests a way of seeing things. Useful?
[Jane Parenteau: Is it useful to say that one perspective is from walking on the ground, the other from an airplane? Both are seeing the same world; one view sees more of it. Too simplistic?]
[Rita:] Provided that one remembers that the whole reality experienced in All-D is projected from a deeper level of reality, yes, useful. That is, the 3D and non-3D are equally real – which means that the limits to that reality, as much as the extent of that reality, are the same. Our life is not absolutely real, any more than it is exactly what it may appear to be at any one level of perception.
I sort of hashed that last. I think you meant for me to say, different levels of being see reality each in its own way and none of these ways of seeing things is more than one way of seeing things.
That’s right. It’s the same thing in terms of the greater reality we speak of but can’t define. The more you can see, the more you realize there is to be seen. Life is as simple as the observer of life, no more, no less – as far as the observer is concerned. You don’t expect a child to do complex mathematics; don’t expect simple souls to see complexity, nor hasty ones to see deeply.
So, within that caveat, let’s look at the proposed metaphor. Let’s extend it logically. As proposed, it confounds observation with what is to be observed.
I get that. I can straighten it out pretty easily, I think. Your non-3D view of reality is the birds’-eye view, and we lowly worms of scribes are the groundworm’s view. That’s observation. The reality underneath the observation could be looked at as, sky=non-3D, ground=3D. Except as I am writing this, I see a different metaphor that would perhaps work better. Is this your input?
Does it matter?
Perhaps not. Let’s try this. The observational differences are the same – the points of view – but instead of sky and ground, let’s say sky and sea. The sea is a denser medium than sky, but not as rigid as land, and somehow the different depths possible to people with different specific gravity (different gravitas?) seems important. So, the Water Planet?
There remain disadvantages. Birds and fishes are very different beings. Hard to imagine a being that is one thing at one end and another at another. Plus, we don’t really want to come up with an image that emphasizes division or even distinction over unity and graduations.
So, no advantage.
This kind of work repays effort. The idea of All-D as a hologram (rather than merely the 3D part of it) is in itself an advance. This image of two viewpoints – bird’s eye and land’s eye – is also valuable. However, we still need a unifying metaphor for the All-D as an undivided realm rather than as one with two different pieces.
We’ll get back to you. not in the next 20 seconds, though, probably.