Rita: 3D and non-3D are only real together

Tuesday, August 29, 2017

[I did a session Monday night but didn’t type it up until early Tuesday morning.]

8:45 a.m. That seemed to work out all right. Maybe if I had gone right to this after typing and sending last night’s, it would be fresh in my mind and we could get farther, who knows? But I’m ready to resume if you are, Rita.

The silent pondering you do also assists the process, so don’t think you are slacking off whenever you don’t have a pen in hand. Most of anyone’s mental processing takes place behind the scenes.

Seems like it, in my case. But of course now that I have learned not to assume that any given bright idea is “my” idea, I am more aware of being more a receiving station than a processing center or transmitter.

Well – maybe. Don’t carry that idea too far, because it is a very loose metaphor and will easily send you off on wrong tangents because your mental habits will carry on the consequences of the metaphor. That is a danger or metaphors, or indeed of any figure of speech. There really is no substitute for “grokking.” Anyway, now you may wish to get into the habit of considering anything you do or think about or are drawn to as having unseen but real non-3D associations.

I have been thinking about sex in that context, since typing up last night’s session. The closer you look at sex the more mysterious the whole thing is, and when you try to hold the non-3D aspect of our world in mind while thinking about the subject of sex, it’s pretty hard to do. Impossible, I would guess, without direct feed from our non-3D components.

As is true for nearly everything. That is why we were prompted by the guys to equate the guys (non-3D interactions) with what Jung called the racial unconscious. Its proddings are non-rational but not meaningless or arbitrary.

I remember.

But neither he in body nor we had the necessary context to reformulate things as we are doing now.

I thought we were going to talk about suffering in the world.

Not exactly. That is one aspect of a larger question, that I know has obsessed you for a long time: What is the reason for it all? What does life accomplish? You – like everyone who has ever thought about the subject – have come up with interim solutions, temporary islands of meaning. But as you examined them in light of later developments (even, sometimes, “mere” mental rearrangements), each in turn proved unsatisfactory. So the question of why there is pain in the world, why there is always so much experienced grief and trauma, why things don’t run smoothly, is only a subset of the question: Does the world have a purpose? Can it possibly be running right, or is there something wrong? And the more suits of clothes you try on, the less any of them satisfies.

That’s the situation in a nutshell. You going to clarify it now, I hope?

I can see why the guys tended to leave it at “all is well,” let’s put it that way.

Too much context to explain?

Well – yes, that, but more too much difference between 3D thinking and communication and non-3D. It’s hard to make meaningful statements beyond a certain point. Your patience (I mean anyone in 3D, of course) helps. But that is one reason why we are inventing new shorthand expressions as we go along, to compress complicated understandings into concise symbols so we can say much in little. That is the only way to fit so much rearranging of ideas into mentally manageable limits.

So start with something small, like the meaning of life.

To quote a friend: “Very funny.” That is what we have been doing, and for how many months, now!

You have to remember always, that 3D is not as real as it appears. It isn’t not-real, it isn’t absolutely real, it is somewhat-real, or real-in-a-certain-way-of-looking-at-things, no more.

Yes, we’ve been through that.

But now go through it realizing that your life is only a subset of a larger life. The 3D is integrally connected with the rest of All-D, remember. So by definition the non-3D portion of you (or, you might equally well say the non-3D you are a portion of, or, better, the non-3D you are aware of, which, like the 3D you are aware of, exists as part of your All-D being)

Getting to be an unwieldy sentence that will get people lost.

3D and non-3D are always together. They live together. They don’t live separate lives, they have separate (well, overlapping) awarenesses of what they nevertheless jointly live. So to look at 3D life as if it were real would be to say that the physical world stops at the top of the oceans, and anything beneath the ocean surface is a different world. Metaphorically, this would be true enough, but only somewhat true. Of course the world contains both above- and below-surface; that doesn’t mean one can fly off in one direction and the other in another.

I want to be sure nobody gets thrown off there. You’re saying, the distinction is partly realistic, partly arbitrary and misleading.

Just like the distinction between 3D and non-3D. My immediate point is that to consider 3D events as meaning what they appear to mean when you consider them without remembering that they extend into non-3D is to misread the situation. In that context, 3D life as life considered in itself, without remembering that it extends to the rest of All-D is only somewhat real, for you are disregarding a good deal of the picture.

I see that, or feel it, rather.

You don’t really understand “A Woman Named Golda” unless you know that Ingrid Bergman and Leonard Nimoy etc. are individuals playing parts. If you take the movie, which is a representation of a realer reality, to be real in the way the rest of your external life is real, you will suffer unnecessarily. To suffer in the context of the movie is acceptable, is even desirable. But – to change the metaphor – should you suffer real grief over the death of Spock in Star Trek 2? Yes, grief within the fiction of the film; no, not grief for Leonard Nimoy, who did not die there.

It seems you are edging toward saying something about the non-3D actors playing our 3D characters, so to speak.

Don’t carry the metaphor too far, but that’s the idea.

You aren’t saying World War II wasn’t real.

It was real within the 3D context, but it extended beyond 3D, as everything does, and that’s the point we are moving toward.

Real but not fully real.

Let’s say real in 3D terms, but 3D isn’t as real (because not as truncated) as you commonly perceive it to be.

And is that a place to pause, or is it my being tired?

Not a bad place to pause. Nor do you need to type it up right away. You might continue the experiment of typing first, then receiving.

Well, we’ll see. Okay, till later. Thanks as ever.