Monday August 28, 2017
9:40 p.m. Rita, how about if we proceed? We can talk now and I can transcribe tomorrow morning, and that ought to work out.
We can try.
So, can we tie all this stuff up with your larger theme of 3D and non-3D being the same space?
That’s the over-all theme, and as with most of what I have to say, it aims at helping you see familiar things in an unfamiliar – productive – way.
Learning the world all over again.
You could put it that way. Very well. We were talking about the traumatic residues – for that’s how they will appear to be – that shape your life partly by causing you to shrink from them. Obviously a factor that causes you to close off access is going to produce a very different influence than one that encourages greater access.
Certainly. Only, all paths are taken.
And that is the puzzlement, isn’t it? But on the line you take, or anyone takes, there are problems. A little thought and you should see that there are problems on all lines, of course. If you happened to stumble upon a line with no problems, promptly you’d be bored, which would serve as a problem!
Funny, but true anyway. I get it.
Well, the timeline you live has problems. Sometimes they seem external, sometimes internal. That is a distinction without much substance, but I remember how it appears. (Once you fully realize that all problems are non-coincidence – that is, all of them affect you, or you wouldn’t be enmeshed in them – you see that “external” or “internal” is almost entirely a matter of words and point of view.) your problems can be ignored, or resolved, or dealt with to any degree of effectiveness. How you deal with them determines the timeline you move to, of course.
Not sure we’ve ever spelled that out. I get that any decision (including, sometimes, a decision not to decide) is in effect an opportunity to switch timelines or continue. I say “in effect” because I sense that is a 3D way of looking at things: past à present à future as if they were being created and destroyed instead of traversed. But anyway, we can “jump” timelines (consciously or not) by our decisions.
Correct, and that shapes your experience, in that you shape your version of a life-story. But all paths are taken, as you said, so from a higher point of view it hardly matters which way you go.
So hard to make that seem both real and sensible. But – we’re hanging in there with you. Go ahead.
Now connect your image of 3D life (making choices) with an image of your more-than-3D overlap, in the dimensions you live unconsciously. You see they’re going to be necessarily affected as well, because you’re all part of the same all-version version of the life you are living.
Hence, our choices in 3D affect the non-3D as we make them. Yet, at the same time, they don’t, because all versions are taken by somebody.
It is that very source of confusion and paradox that should remind you that you are wrestling with something new. Once you get a handle on it, you will think you knew it all along. (As, of course, you did, do, and will!)
You’re having way too much fun with this.
It makes up for moments of frustrated incapacity to get a point across.
How nice for you. (Smiling.) Okay, so we in 3D each carve out a path. Sticking to one version’s view of things, we drag our non-3D components with us – or, come to think of it, probably sometimes they are dragging us. But as long as we look only at one version at a time, it isn’t quite so paradoxical.
No. And probably this is the way to get to it, a little bit at a time. First realize that you (as you usually define yourself) is not a real being, but only one recognized part of a being. If you live in all dimensions, as you do, you can hardly amputate all the part of you that experiences non-3D and call the rest “you.” It isn’t like there is one discrete part of you that lives in 3D and another discrete part that doesn’t. That isn’t it. You, as a unit (relatively speaking) live in All-D. The fact that part of you cannot consistently recognize reality beyond 3D does not mean that you are two parts.
How about this? If I were standing in waist-deep water, that wouldn’t mean my legs (that were in water) were a different part of me than my arms (that weren’t). That doesn’t quite say it either, though.
But it’s better. Let’s say, your legs are a part of you with one function, your arms are a part of you with another function. Sometimes they function together, sometimes separately, but in no case are they different organisms, only different parts of the same organism.
That helped. Language is still in the way, though, with that continual popping-up of “part.”
But the idea should have gotten through. You, as a functioning entire being, exist in all the dimensions, so what you do “here” affects what you do “there.” And it isn’t even a matter of doing, so much as being.
This is hard, isn’t it, for such a simple concept?
It is the thinking of a thing in a different way that is hard, and that is only a transient difficulty.
So, traumas and the non-3D portions?
Try not to think in ways that imply separating out the non-3D and 3D. It will take some getting used to, but it can be done. So, I would say, instead, what is the effect in the non-3D portion of you of your 3D problems, resolutions, and struggles. A small-seeming difference, but it adds up.
All right. What, then?
Have you never wondered why humans should have to go through so much trauma, inflicting it, receiving it, witnessing it?
You know we have.
Surely a very badly designed universe, wouldn’t you say?
If I didn’t know you are setting me up, I might be tempted to, sometimes. “A Woman Named Golda” has me thinking of the insoluble Arab-Israeli conflict that seems to exist mainly to assure that the world doesn’t run short of hatred.
And you agree with Shaw that the world probably isn’t here to function as a moral gymnasium.
Probably not, no. Certainly not exclusively.
Then?
I guess I have come to think that it is the result of free-will conflicts, inevitable in large numbers. But for that matter, nature seems to rely on its members killing and eating each other.
Then this will provide us with an excellent starting-place next time.
Are you trying to get people to hate you?
That’s show biz, right? Always leave them wanting more.
If you say so. All right, I’ll type this up tomorrow and we’ll see what happens. Probably won’t want to do another session after transcribing, but how knows? Till then.