Thursday, August 17, 2017
6:45 a.m. Rita, I think our friend here has mistaken what we’re saying.
[Lori SM: So, about choices…is it ‘possible’ to not make all ‘possible’ choices? What is it that pushes us to choose differently? In simplistic illustration, at a choice point, do then our many different strands have an opportunity or vote in deciding what happens, leading to different possibilities? The product then is the cloud of all possibilities we’ve chosen/lived. Because of our makeup, are there paths that were not available to us because we did not have the strand that would have opened that possibility? Again at a choice point, are options only because of what we bring to the table, or are some choices built in – and yes, I guess they wouldn’t really be choices then – because of an agreement we’ve made outside of 3D? And finally (for this moment at least), if at the point we return to All-D and able to take in the many paths and outcomes, is it possible when communicating with those still in 3D to answer from all choices, rather than just the one line that led to the path the discussion arises from? Or does the lack of shared timeline negate that?]
[Rita:] If she has, others may. And it ought to be cleared up easily enough.
If so, that will be a first.
No, some things involve merely a turn of the knob; other things involve long explanations.
What is being overlooked in this question or set of questions is that each choice in effect produces a different version of ourselves, one following the “heads” choice and the other the “tails.” In duality, choices are always binary, so even an extremely complicated choice will boil down to a series of yes / no decisions, each in effect involving a split in consciousness. Thus, all choices are followed out, and at the end of a given life the “individual” resembles a probability-cloud, more than what any single version would appear as.
And you know that will need to be spelled out. Time for some coffee.
Again, it isn’t complicated, only different from certain assumptions.
From the point of view of you at the moment – seemingly one version of a 3D individual –you are the end-product of a series of choices, implicit or explicit, throughout your life to date. And, if you cling to that view, your future is to see another long series of such choices, each of which will result in your taking this or that path, continually and cumulatively shaping you. Certainly this is the common-sense view.
But from the view beyond 3D constriction, “you” are either any particular version of the whole individual, or “you” are the specific version of the probability-cloud that is the whole individual (what are seen sometimes as alternate timelines).
From any one version’s view, life is largely a matter of missed opportunities. From the complete individual’s point of view, there can by definition be no missed opportunities.
I’ve given this some thought, now and then. It sometimes seems to me that our various versions, which seem like the only ones that can be real (until we once become aware of jumping timelines), are a tracing-out in consciousness of a path that must exist inherently, from the creation of the universe. But I can’t see why we need to trace it out, nor why the timeline I experience has to have me tracing it. I would much prefer to be tracing a version that wasn’t shattered by JFK’s murder, for instance, and all its consequences. It’s difficult to phrase clearly, but I wonder why do I – why does everybody, but I’m the one I know – have to tread path filled with things (or indeed, containing any thing) that I don’t want? Why I am here post-World War II, I understand. This is where I fit, so to speak. That was the condition that existed for me to be shaped into. I imagine that all versions of me took wing in 1946, and that is what that world was.
Not so fast. Now you are complicating things, not by tangling them, but by casting your net wider, bringing in complicating circumstances.
In other words, setting forth context that modifies a narrower view.
In explaining anything, there is strategy. From familiar to less familiar, for instance, or from outline to detail. I am necessarily doing both, and by bringing in a true but unconsidered complication, you demonstrate previous simplification for the sake of exposition. Nothing wrong with doing that – isn’t that one purpose of questions? – but be aware of why a given question may seem to jam up the works.
So let us finish with the original question first. The explanation at its simplest would be, Each version experiences its life (usually) in isolation, unaware except perhaps abstractly, theoretically, of the equally real existence of that cloud of other results of previous and future choices. So, from its perspective, there is no voting, no creation of possibilities by consensus. Each version is the result of the automatic (necessary) living-out of all possible paths. No hesitation or voting necessary or possible.
But the second part of the question – quote it here again – is not based in misconception. Or, not so much.
[“If at the point we return to All-D and are able to take in the many paths and outcomes, is it possible when communicating with those still in 3D to answer from all choices, rather than just the one line that led to the path the discussion arises from? Or does the lack of shared timeline negate that?”]
I cite this less for the question itself as for the light it sheds on the purpose, process, and advantages of communication with guidance.
Very timely, with my workshop beginning tomorrow.
Yes, coincidence, no doubt. Your own mental world couldn’t have anything to do with what comes to you.
Very funny, but I accept the correction. It isn’t a connection I had automatically seen.
Any one version, communicating with guidance, may be seen as communicating with the probability-cloud that is the sum of all versions. It exists in non-3D, of course, and therefore in effect exists outside of time. (“In effect,” but we can’t stay to explain the concept.) Therefore it knows the effects of different choices still to come. It knows the effects of counter-factual choices in the version’s past. You see.
I do. When I first dipped my toe into these waters, I was trying to know the future. I have long since realized that there isn’t any “the” future, given that all possibilities exist, equally real but all but any given one seeming merely theoretical from a given timeline. Now I see what seems obvious – but I hadn’t put it together. The reason we can get guidance is because we are connected to – we are a part of – the entire range of all possibilities. So if we want to change timelines, we can do that, and we call it free will. If we want greater wisdom in the face of possible choices, we can have that, and that’s why.
That’s right, and that’s enough for now. Let the implications seat in, for yourself and for those who read this.
All right. Thanks, Rita, and maybe later today, given that I have my workshop coming up.
A couple of days off are just as well anyway, from time to time.
Okay. We’ll see.