Rita: we need a new way of seeing 3D and non-3D

Saturday, August 5, 2017

7:20 a.m. So after finishing getting ready for my weekend course – only two weeks away, now – perhaps we can get back to work, Rita. We have three new questions queued up, but perhaps you would prefer to continue with the thoughts suggested by Nancy’s question that you began to address on Wednesday.

Yes, let’s do that, because that goes in the direction we need to go anyway, and has more extensive ramifications. Not that the other questions aren’t important, but they don’t open the new ways of seeing that this one may.

The part of the question you hadn’t gotten to was “when I work with crystals or healing energy, how does that resonate at the same time in the non-3D?” You did address the fact that 3D and non-3D are not as separate as language makes them seem.

The reason why I want to continue along this line is that seeing the 3D and non-3D worlds as actually one will at some point change your view of reality, which will change your view of possibility (by giving you an excuse to see things differently), which will change the reality you live in. The only way reality changes, ever, is that you reframe it, accepting different rules and boundaries, and letting others go.

Like Thoreau’s Walden quotation, which I will fill in. [“He will put some things behind, will pass an invisible boundary; new, universal, and more liberal laws will begin to establish themselves around and within him…”]

Yes. And of course remember, in one sense nothing new can ever be said; in another sense, new ears in a new civilization always require things to be phrased differently so that they may be heard. So, let’s make the attempt. Let’s continue to make the attempt.

The specific question concerns healing work of one kind or another in light of the fact that 3D and non-3D are always connected. This is a fruitful insight, and can be extended, in that the two ways of generalizing the world (3D on one hand, non-3D on the other) are each describing one part of an undivided whole. Now, your natural response is to say, “of course, that is obvious.” But introspection will show you that customarily you do not think that way. Customarily you treat the two realms as if they were real rather than linguistic abstractions or conveniences of thought. Once the essential (meaning, “in essence,” or “the way things are really rather than the way they appear”) – once the essential unity of the world sinks in, you realize that of course everything reverberates. What you do in 3D affects the whole, which means it affects the non-3D, and of course you are affected by what happens in the whole, which includes the non-3D.

Do we need some new verbal shorthand to incorporate that insight, to remind us on a regular basis?

Probably. You can see that using 3D and non-3D helped you begin to see the two realms as reciprocal and indivisibly interconnected. That was true as far as it went, and was an improvement in understanding over saying physical and spiritual, say. So, let’s see. Do you have any suggestions?

Me? I’m driving the pen. I thought concepts were your job.

Concepts – awareness of concepts, reminders of what you once knew (in a sense) or need to know again in a new context – are my job. I have just given you an understanding of a new concept. Now we need to put it into words, and words are your job.

Rich Spees used to call me “Dances With Words,” and I always liked that, but this seems a little above my job description.

Think about what you always rightly tell people. You aren’t worms, we aren’t demigods. Too much humility – you were told years ago already – is as distancing as contempt. You in 3D, and not just you as one person, Frank, but you meaning all who read this or ever will read this – are as much in 3D as in non-3D. Therefore you are one

Okay, I got it, and that metaphor wasn’t going to get it done. The sense of it was that just as each of us is a unique window on the 3D world, so we are a unique window on the non-3D world; it just depends on which way you’re looking at the interface. And even this continues the linguistic distinctions we’re trying to bridge.

So, find a way to express the underlying concept you have absorbed but not yet verbalized. Putting it into words will solidify your understanding.

Hmm, which in itself could become a problem, huh? A little too much solidity?

You are always going to be somewhere on the line between not enough and too much, and the goal posts aren’t likely to stay in one place either. Nothing wrong with any of it; that’s how people learn. So, think. Try to find a new metaphor. Remember, in these things you aren’t working from 3D understandings alone. You are as connected to the non-3D now as you ever will be. Not as constantly aware of the connection; that is, not so consistently conscious. But that means, it’s just a matter (always) of attaining more clarity, which is done through intent. Again, this is said for everybody, about everybody.

Okay. When in doubt, get up and get some coffee.

What I get, at least as a start, is a sliding scale. I don’t know what the terminal points would be – ultimate density or ultimate matter, I suppose, on one end, and ultimate expansion on the other. And our awareness providing the line between the two. But that isn’t very compelling.

Not bad, though. It incorporates some of what we need. Try again and see if you can avoid the linear metaphor.

Hmm. Well, what if 3D is the inside of a sphere and the non-3D is the

What if 3D is the planet and non

What if 3D is the planet including the planet’s atmosphere, and the atmosphere continually attenuates with distance from the center?

You’re getting there. but keep trying. You don’t want to leave “non-3D” quite so divorced from 3D.

What about a microscope with its ability to refocus?

What about not the microscope, which is how you see, but what you see, using it?

Yes, I get the distinction. Well, a lot of people use holograms as the analogy.

Oh! (At least, a tentative oh! J) A hologram not just for the 3D part of the world, but for all of it.

Rephrase it, but you’re getting close now.

I may be misinterpreting what I have read, but I gather that it is considered to be a daring thought to think that the 3D world is actually a hologram. And now I get that a way to look at it is that reality is a hologram, except that doesn’t quite do it, does it?

Well, you have made one stride, in that you’re seeing that it isn’t 3D-world being a hologram and non-3D world being the projector of the hologram.

That is more or less the way I have been seeing it.

Can a hologram project itself? It would be truer to say that 3D and non-3D, as you experience them, are one level of reality in different aspects.

And  a realer level projects them.

That is a different subject. “As above, so below,” but let’s stick to where we are. This will lead to many things.

They gave me the sphere and the hologram as two alternative ways to see the world, way back when we were doing our sessions.

You would almost suspect they knew something.

Very funny. It has been an hour. I was going to say, not so much to show for it, but I see we’re half through the ninth page here.

We are edging toward a more sophisticated way of seeing things. It takes time and care and thought and readjustment. It isn’t measured in column-inches.

Okay. Well, I guess it’s off to the computer to type this up.

Yes, in 3D and in non-3D.


See you next time. Our thanks, too.


2 thoughts on “Rita: we need a new way of seeing 3D and non-3D

  1. 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?

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.