Sunday, August 6, 2017
6:30 a.m. It is difficult to come up with an image that is not defined by some part of the distance metaphor, in that to us in 3D, distance does not seem to be a metaphor but a reality. So maybe the image that will work has to be some non-representational image, only how is that even possible?
I hear “move to a different” – and can’t even fill in the final word. Well, it’s a puzzle. The idea I get as I wake up is that we need to move from a visual representation at all, but if not visual, what? I can’t imagine. Rita?
It is an odd situation, isn’t it? We know what is wanted but cannot provide it. You are expected to provide it, but you don’t know what it is. Yet this is not as unique a situation as you may think. It happens often, but usually is not considered in the context of psychic input. ILC [Intuitive Linked Communication] often is not recognized as such, but of course it goes on all the time. Edison puzzling over where to find the answer to a problem he has set himself, Tesla receiving a string of brilliant insights, Einstein with his thought-experiments, de Gaulle or Churchill with their pole-star certainties among their errors and perplexities – can anyone look at the record and not see the continuing interaction of 3D and non-3D mind within the individual?
I know that is a rhetorical question; the literal answer would be, “Sure they can. It’s just a matter of being willfully or helplessly blind to the evidence.”
Of course. But time and circumstance will change that blindness. That’s what we’re doing here, among so many million others. The next civilization will have very different certainties.
So, you need me to work in some way to find the right analogy. Why?
This is an example of your unconsciously thinking, “they know everything, over there.”
Well – don’t you? I mean, in such a vast network of interconnected minds, what can be hidden from you that one of us in 3D could find?
Look at all those assumptions.
Yes, I saw them as I wrote it out. Non-3D knows everything. Non-3D is completely cooperative and totally interpenetrated (meaning, everybody has access to everything). There isn’t anything we in 3D could have to offer non-3D.
And the largest assumption of all: that 3D and non-3D are different ends of a polarity! And this after you have been intimately concerned with reshaping your point of view!
I see it. It’s all pretty ingrained.
Of course it is. And overcoming the ingrained and replacing it, or rather, supplementing it, is no small part of the work, quite as important as anything we might sketch
Oh!
Yes, go on.
As I was writing that out, a couple of mental leaps; I doubt I can even remember what they were. But I got, the 3D and non-3D not only adjust the microscope to see different co-existing things, but are the microscope.
Much better. Keep going. As you spell out an insight – whether in words, as you usually do, or in a mental suspension, or in mathematics, or in other ways – it miraculously clarifies and extends: That is the 3D / non-3D interface working. And, something the 3D person is often slow to recognize, in effect we both learn something. But, continue.
Well, let’s see. If we are the microscope, and we are using the microscope, that isn’t a very visual representation of us, and so the linear metaphor doesn’t come into play to emphasize distance. Instead, the common cooperative purpose provides a non-representational metaphor. As advertised.
We do often tend to think that it is a matter of us in 3D catching crumbs of information from the non-3D – I do, anyway – and I can see that although this is natural, it is incorrect. Given that we are in 3D and non-3D simultaneously, I suppose it couldn’t ever be separate just because of that.
You aren’t in 3D and non-3D simultaneously, you are in the All-D, the only place there is, which has its 3D and non-3D aspects. It is to overcome this here / there idea that we are working.
So you might say not only are we here in 3D to develop ourselves under its specialized conditions; we are here for the advantages it offers in terms of our specialized viewpoint.
It isn’t just viewpoint, but yes. Until now we
Oh!
You keep doing that. I’m smiling. Go ahead.
Well, it came in a big chunk. It’s always startling, and if I were to try to continue the sentence, there would be a drag to it that I don’t trust.
Understood. Proceed.
You showed us – the guys and you showed us – that our 3D lives are about making choices. Then we saw that all possible choices are made in different versions, presumably thousands if not millions of versions of us, as each choice represents another two versions. That was dizzying and puzzling, because in that case, what was the point of choosing? Then we saw that we are part of the total version of ourselves which is all versions, a sort of probability-cloud. Now I see, or seem to see, that our lives here, our choosings, are not so much centered on the end-product we create as on the view during the journey. Our lives, moment to moment, are our beings’ microscopic close-up, supplemented by our beings’ wider view from outside 3D. Is that more or less right?
Probably the most immediately valuable part of that insight is that your life matters moment to moment; it isn’t as if it were a long practice for the Olympic games, with the main event after you die. Your life is the microscope your total self has. It says, “here is the moment-by-moment report.”
Like Buckminster Fuller’s thought that every blade of grass is an on-off switch, reporting.
Same idea, yes.
So where do we go from here?
It is a good place to pause. Where we pause is as important sometimes as where we continue, because it allows the reader space to ponder.
I have been thinking, as you know, how technology has allowed us to proceed in a way impossible to earlier generations. More or less immediate transmission of a given session; more or less immediate feedback from others who may be at a great distance. It’s very good. I find it harder to imagine the loneliness of great pioneers like Thoreau, writing always alone, receiving little feedback and that only after long years.
It was a different civilization. The civilization you will not live to see will look at you as similarly more isolated and more working in the dark. That does not imply linear progress. New circumstances have minuses as well as plusses. But, it will be different, certainly.
I look forward to heckling from the sidelines. All right, Rita, our thanks as always. It’s often surprising, what comes. Today, certainly.
The importance of the analogy has really become clear to me as the meeting at Frank’s “common cooperative purpose,” which is the unifying point between 3D and non-3D (All D). Rita moved me from life as a linear journey of achievements in understanding to a moment-by-moment choice to be in conscious, common cooperative purpose, the interface between 3D and non-3D. All of this is probably stating the obvious and what’s already been stated, but I see it differently now. The common cooperative purpose could be as simple as telepathy or guidance or as complicated as receiving concepts that can change the world. The interface still sounds like a here-there metaphor, but is closer to something like a bridge, rather than a distance thing. And something new is created in the interaction. This sounds so like Aristotle’s concept of the enthymeme–a live social construct it takes us both to build. I’m rambling, but today’s discussion felt like a significant step to me. Much thanks to you both.
(p.s. Funny to see the different spellings of my name.)
Sorry about the misspelling. Undoubtedly someone else’s fault, but I corrected it now. I would be interested in more (post-length, if you wish; I’ll post it) on what you’re saying here. It is obvious to you because you are part of the temporary joint mind that brought it forth. Pursue it a little, please, if you wish.
Hi Frank. I’m confused by what seems to be a contradiction within today’s conversation with Rita. I, too, have come to think of us in 3D “catching crumbs” of information from non-3D. You said you see that “although this is natural, it is incorrect”. But just a bit earlier in the conversation, if I understand correctly, Rita talks about ILC assisting Edison in problem solving, giving Tesla a string of insights, etc. That sounds like catching some pretty big crumbs. What part of this is incorrect?
On another note, I would like to hear more from Jane too. It sounds like she gained some clarity but I didn’t quite get it.
The point is not crumbs (i.e. whether they are small or large bits of infomration) but that it isn’t a matter of it being transferred from the non-3D as donor to the 3D as recipient.. Those insights came with the active cooperation of Edison, Tesla, etc. Or do i misunderstand your question?
Here goes, Frank, with your help. Not sure how clearly I “get” it. Please edit in any way you see fit. That last paragraph might be a little over the top.
The goal is being able to really “get” 3D and non-3D as one. Or, we’re forever caught in a limiting 3D perspective. That’s why constructing an analogy is so important–it’s how we consciously make the leap ( a very real leap) from one perspective to the other. Then (as Seth says), it requires complete commitment from us to live by the new perspective; belief becomes possible through the analogy. As Frank/Rita says, “You are as connected to the non-3D now as you ever will be.” It’s essential we get that.
Frank and Rita’s discussion of the “continuous interaction” (Intuitive Linked Communication) that engages us in “common cooperative purpose” at the interface of 3D and non-3D sparked it for me. To me, in the interface “a state of grace is provided you in which you can take action without care, without the anticipation of impediments” (Seth, in Evolution, Dreams and Value Fulfillment, Vol. 1). Because taking action through our choices is the point. Then, no matter its state, “…the physical, cultural climate [we live in] is understood as a medium through which the ideal [us] can be expressed.”
It’s still pretty linear, bu this is how I put together what I heard Frank/Rita say:
3D Interface non-3D
(between/among equals)
The common cooperative purpose
(Einstein, Edison, Tesla, etc., came here)
(neither here nor there, but both–All D)
^
^
my moment-by-moment choice to be there
So, for me, it’s not a theorizing exercise–in a sense, it’s a call to arms. It’s how, now, we make ourselves “better” people or make the world a “better” place. Even though I’m driven to “see” it, I believe it’s a feeling representation, a knowing through the feeling of the alignment of “here” and “there.” Not sure where that leaves us with the analogy! But I can see ‘where’ and how the oneness can be grasped as something very real that we create interactively, together, and how both sides benefit.
I put it up as a post, and we’ll see if it meets response.
Thanks, Frank. It helps me build my own ‘felt’ clarity, so I can better live it. Thanks to you and Rita for being there.
Indeed very impressive, Jane, thank you very much.
In fact, it is splendid told in my opinion.
In a way it is felt as “an alignment in thought” with you. Thank you a whole lot. I could not being able in expressing myself as good as you, especially not in the english language. Intuition is a good “sense” when to read it.
And yes, it is not theory for myself either. On my part it is “how to overcome the fear of death.” The whole concept about Life & Death as “a endless circle of repetition.”
“The trick” is to Live a Safe Universe, and not “a fearful Universe.”
According to Seth: “You cannot do both, either you live in a Safe Universe or you do not.”
Hm, back to the famous own Choice either “here or there.”
Always, Inger Lise
Personalizing what Rita said for my use – I wrote a sign and hung it on the wall: “I’m not in 3D and non-3D simultaneously, I’m in the All-D, the only place there is, which has its 3D and non-3D aspects.”
I am opening to the non-3D aspects/dimensions of the ALL-D where I exist that have ALWAYS been there, and it’s really liberating!
Thanks Frank! Great work!