Rita on the causes of evil in the world

Wednesday, August 30, 2017

2:15 a.m. Rita, shall we?

If you are up for it, and up to it.

I think I am; we’ll see. So, 3D is sort of real, but would be realer if we could remember that the non-3D is inherently part of 3D.

I wouldn’t say “would be realer.” I’d say you’d have a better view, a better handle on things, if you could remember that the 3D of anything is only part of the picture, and it cannot be understood unless seen as it is.

Okay. More later, I hope. I realize, I’m not equal to this at the moment.

4:35 a.m. But say that the drama of 3D life isn’t exactly what it appears to be. Why is it necessary anyway? Why is it needed, or helpful, for people to live lives overshadowed by present and past trauma? Surely that isn’t inherent in life.

You have heard of original sin?

I’m not going to argue about it. Yes, I’ve heard of it. Go ahead.

You know your definition of it.

I have said that, since everybody who does evil to others has been damaged originally himself, or herself, you could look at it as a design flaw, or as a continuing result of some original trauma, that keeps being passed along, generation after generation, as damaged individuals do damage in turn. I don’t know that this is what the church means by original sin, but it could be. In any case, it is what I seem to see acting in our lives.

And Velikovsky?

Velikovsky [author of Worlds in Collision and several other books] was a psychiatrist before he became a cosmologist and student of history. Once he concluded that earth had endured massive traumas such as a near-collision with Venus – in historical times – he saw that much or maybe all human irrationality could be attributed to the results of the trauma, including the repression of the memories.

You don’t need to agree with all of his conclusions about the causes of the trauma to see that it is a logical explanation.

This implies that we are malfunctioning as a species, and have been for a long time.

And it implies that it is possible to recover from mental illness – call it that – and resume normal functioning.

But is it true?

If hatred is the child of fear, and terror is the result of a global catastrophe whose causes are unremembered or misattributed – does the description not fit the case?

It may. But is it true?

Wrong question. That is one of the useless questions you teach people not to ask. What is the question you tell them to begin with?

Does it resonate.

So?

Yes, it does resonate. It does seem like life is unnecessarily nightmarish, and has been so for a long time.

And some people say it is by the design of unknown agencies: secret societies, or malevolent aliens, or hostile gods needing to be propitiated, or whatever.

Bob [Monroe] said it was in order to produce Loosh for whoever created reality.

That isn’t exactly what he said. He said it had been discovered that strong emotion produced what he called refined Loosh, and that love produced it just as well or better. So, accepting his fable at face value, why isn’t the earth overflowing with people producing love full-time?

I take it that is a rhetorical question.

It is and it isn’t. It is the kind of question closely aligned to your Useless Questions.

“Aligned”?

No, more like “affiliated.” As an aside, that is an effective tactic you have wandered into, using not-quite-the-right-word so as to not interrupt the flow of the sentence, then going back and questioning it.

It does seem to work better than pausing and sometimes losing the thread. So, how is your question somewhat useless?

Well, it is unanswerable. But it isn’t useless, in that it points you somewhere. But it can’t be answered and isn’t intended to be answerable.

So I take it that we aren’t explaining away Katrina’s murder – or John F. Kennedy’s, for that matter — or any of the atrocities we see around us on a continuing basis. It isn’t that they “aren’t real” and therefore don’t matter.

No, we haven’t ever said that, but naturally that is what is sometimes heard when you say “all is well” in a world where such things continue to happen. Such things are as real as the world itself, but the point is that the world itself is only partly real, as long as you consider it only in its 3D aspects and forget to include it in its full dimensions.

Dimensions? Stature? Extent?

Well, maybe just say in its entirety, or its fullness. The salient point is that to think you understand the world when you are only considering its 3D aspect – even if you make provision for some “spiritual” component – is to come up with a misleading picture. And if you do not understand what you are seeing, how can you remedy the causes, or even properly appreciate them as causes? That is one reason why social panaceas don’t succeed. Misdiagnosis is more likely to kill the patient than cure him.

I have understood that you are working to change our way of seeing the world and our lives by reminding us continually that the 3D and non-3D are part of the same on-going unity. It occurs to me now that in a sense there is no “afterlife”; there is no continuing life after physical death in the sense that we have been assuming it, because times does not continue for us. Or —

You have made about three big leaps, but you don’t yet have the language to understand (as opposed to “grasp”) them. And, not being able to intellectually understand them, naturally you are not yet ready to try to convey them, even in this form. We will have to continue to go slowly.

Well, I couldn’t recreate the leaps even if I were asked to do so. I went from what you were saying to a simple comment (I thought it would be) to, before I could finish the sentence, something entirely different. And I can see that I didn’t mean what the words seem to mean, re-reading them. You’re right, it’s going to take some explaining. For the moment I think I’d better say here that I’m not meaning that we are snuffed out. It ought to be obvious, but you never know.

So let us go back to your first sentence of the two. Yes, I have been accustoming you to remember that 3D and non-3D are the same thing in two aspects. And –?

And I have been assuming this was to help us visualize the life to come, only now I see that it is to correctly visualize the life that is.

Surely that is of much more practical use than speculation or assertion about what is not yet your life?

Well, I guess we’ll see. Speculating on the life to come has never seemed useless or idle to me; it has seemed essential to know what this life is all about, only I couldn’t get any satisfactory answers.

Examining only a part of an entirety is going to do that, no matter how close the examination.

We still need to examine trauma in its proper All-D light, but for now let us pause here.

All right. Rita, this is so satisfying, even if we never seem to quite get where we’re going. As always, my thanks. (I’ll send you a bill for my interrupted sleep.)

It is just as satisfying on this end, as you should know by this time.

Okay. See you later.