Wednesday, August 30, 2017
7:30 p.m. Rita, shall we go at it again?
Subject to limitations on your energy, certainly. You can type it up tomorrow, perhaps. That worked well.
So, what comes next? Trauma as it appears in All-D, as opposed to 3D, I suppose.
We may make the attempt, anyway.
Not going to be so easy?
There are various points of resistance: your anticipated reader response, your own potential resistance to concept, and my inability, or let us say the limits to my ability to produce a coherent statement.
Other than that, though, no problem.
Exactly. But – it is a logical extension of what we have begun, and it is an area that is often left unspoken and even (apparently) un-thought-of, probably for just the reasons I cited.
Where do you suppose passions come from? Unreasoning certainties? Impatience of opposition or even of contrary thought? Is isn’t only a 3D phenomenon. It doesn’t stem only from the compression of 3D time and limits on emotion and equilibrium.
A little roughly stated, but let’s keep on rather than trying to smooth out the language. We can do that later if need be.
Yes, it is better to at least make a good beginning. The 3D circumstances that force you to continually choose do make for a pressure-cooker existence in that respect. They encourage leaping to conclusions, misunderstanding one another, brushing aside or trying to brush aside disagreement or opposition. But now try to remember that all this takes place within a larger whole that may be forgotten. When you are snarling at an opponent, or engaging in a war with another nation, when you are in raptures of romantic love, or ecstatic with new ideas or with the creation of a work of science or art or mathematics, when you are in religious ecstasies, when you are deep in aesthetic enjoyment of a work of art in a museum – no matter what you do or how emotionally engaged you are, the 3D elements of that experience may be all that you are aware of, but obviously it is experienced by all the unsuspected parts of your being that we are describing as in other dimensions, the non-3D portion of totality. Well, what makes you think it flows only one way?
Rhetorical question, I realize.
Rhetorical, yes, but important. Your passions seem to you either a natural result of some external event or perhaps as inexplicable visitations from the blue. But bear in mind in this context, as in others, that there are no disconnects in the world.
Everything is connected.
Therefore there are no uncaused events, no random connections, only the appearance of lack of causation or of randomness. Again I say, what makes you think your passions stem from the 3D part of yourself that you are aware of?
I read this strange book, many years ago, and I remember almost nothing of it but the title, War in Heaven. And somebody somewhere said when the gods war, men die. Is this not what you are getting at?
Well – stepping carefully, yes to a degree. But we must not slip back to the mentality of the ancient Greeks, seeing their gods taking sides in their wars, even between individuals. And we must not slip into the idea of malevolent others – whether aliens or gods or mysterious forces – interfering in human affairs. What we here are talking about is the interaction within 3D of motives, forces, conflicts, cooperations, experiments, whose inception is beyond 3D confines but is still a matter of human activity. That is, the non-3D portion of 3D humans may set into motion things that you see play out in 3D, and of course you see it as if only the 3D portion is real. That’s natural; it is the effect of experiencing through your senses.
So did World War I have a non-3D component that can be talked about and perhaps understood? I could choose anything, of course, but for some reason World War I is what comes to mind, perhaps because it destroyed the global Europeanizing civilization that had been flourishing, and ushered in a century of disaster.
Or perhaps you are being prodded to suggest it, as you were prodded through 60 years to read about World War II from various viewpoints.
Continuing still. I re-read de Gaulle’s memoirs recently and found them fascinating and truer in some ways than Churchill’s. But anyway—
Here you have an example of the disadvantage to your civilization – I well remember it! – of the division of religion from science from the liberal arts. Each has a piece of a greater picture. Each, in the absence of corrective and supplementary pieces from the other disciplines, seriously misses the mark.
Let us take World War I, since you are impelled to suggest it as a topic. The political and economic rivalries and stratagems that caused it and shaped it are well known. But they do not in themselves explain the “why” of it, only the “how” of it.
That’s my line.
Yes it is, and very useful, too. Carl Jung saw clearly that something else was going on. He felt it, he grasped for it, but he never got it at the time. Now of course he knows, and his knowing informs mine, for this is much more his field of expertise than mine. The fact is, the pressure of the contradiction between the conscious life that civilization allowed its inhabitants and their own unconscious unfilled needs created an intolerable tension. When war came, that widely felt but relatively unconscious dissatisfaction was immediately channeled into war fever.
Yes, there was an English poet who spoke of them “into cleanness leaping,” a spectacularly inappropriate image, as they pretty quickly found out. But you’re right, they were desperate for the chance to leave their old life for a life in the field. That’s some dissatisfaction, when it prefers being blown to bits by dynamite to living out a normal life. I don’t refer to draftees, or to the veterans who had gotten over that initial exhilaration but found themselves still caught in the machine. Nor to the civilians who died in the millions, nor to the additional millions who died of revolution or starvation or typhus or Spanish influenza.
Now remember that we are calling the unconscious the equivalent of TGU, and thus we are saying that the non-3D pushed the 3D into that war. Why?
That isn’t a new thought to me, yet somehow when you put it so bluntly, it’s a bit stunning. The non-3D pushed the 3D into a war that would destroy a civilization – and several empires – and Western domination of the world – and about 20 million lives by death and hundreds of millions by prolonged misery.
And I say – why?
If we assume the benevolence of the non-3D, there must be a good reason for it, but rather than speculate, I’m going to get out of your way, because I can feel another stunner coming.
Yes. Why do you postulate the benevolence of non-3D forces, when you know that 3D life is replete with all kinds of forces – benevolent, malevolent, and every position in between. Where do such forces come from? The 3D world? Hardly. The 3D is the pressure cooker, but it doesn’t necessarily concoct its own ingredients.
And time for a pause.
Correct. But we’re getting there.
All right, thanks.