Rita: Ice, water, and the All-D

Saturday, September 2, 2017

12:40 a.m. Wheezing, can’t sleep further for a while. Rita, shall we dance?

Let’s dance, then. Continuing on our theme of one world, not two; the 3D and non-3D aspects integrally connected, not separated and independent. Specifically, at the moment, the causes and effects of contradictory values in the only world there is.

Just for clarity, I know you mean by that, the All-D, not “only Earth” or “only one version.” One shouldn’t have to make such clarifications, but if we don’t, I know that somebody somewhere will get thrown off the track.

Well, that’s part of your job here, to watch out for such pitfalls.

Let’s look at political and religious and ideological hatreds. Let’s go deeper and look at visceral fear and hatred of “the other” in whatever form it manifests. Do you think these are mere 3D phenomena with no relation to the non-3D aspects of yourselves? Is there any reason to assume that your emotional life is any more compartmentalized than your mental life? And is there any reason to think that your emotions, any more than your thoughts, are generated in 3D and not sometimes reflected down from the non-3D?

A lot of rhetorical questions.

Rhetorical in form, but they may be addressed as questions requiring or rewarding an answer, and that will lead us farther. You simply must begin to stitch your ideas together if you are to understand either 3D or non-3D life, let alone both. Naturally this would follow, since, as we keep reminding you, the two are actually one. It is in trying to understand the 3D part of the world as if it existed in isolation that so many perplexities arise. It is in the same mistaken process of dividing integral things that the non-3D life becomes incomprehensible and, worse, unimaginable.

We find it hard to see why non-3D conditions should breed fanaticism, say. Isn’t fear a product of 3D’s sense of isolation and disorientation?

Let’s peel the onion slowly. Again – and I know it is hard to overcome the habits of a lifetime – you are going to have to cease examining in isolation two aspects of an undivided whole. You can’t get anywhere by doing that – nowhere you want to go, anyway. The non-3D does not exist in the absence of 3D conditions. It exists integrally connected to those conditions.

I get what you mean, but my head is spinning, trying to figure out how to express it. You haven’t so far.

No, it’s slippery.

As usual, it is a problem with words, and definitions and cramming into 3D terms descriptions of a world that transcends 3D..

It isn’t a new problem. Everyone who ever tried to translate how the world really is has faced it and overcome it to a greater or less degree. And of course every attempt has been an attempt to translate into modern language things seen and hinted at from long before.

Nothing new under the sun.

Nothing new, but nothing ever exactly expressed, exactly understood, either. You don’t need to do it perfectly. Only, try.

All right. As I feel your thought, it seems to amount to this. It is as if we are several beings in one, and how we see ourselves depends as usual on how we set the knob of the viewing device. We may see ourselves as 3D beings, that’s one. We may remember that although our everyday awareness centers on 3D, we extend beyond 3D into the other unseen dimensions (though I think “dimensions” is itself only a metaphor), that’s two. We may hazily envision ourselves after we die as inhabiting only the non-3D dimensions, which I no longer think is right, and that’s three. Enough to be going on with.

Number one is now too limited for us to accept, and number three is the converse of number one. Only number two meets our needs. But if we build from number two, we must keep it in mind when we examine other aspects of this life.

So, 3D-only and non-3D only are equally unreal because impossible. Only 3D and non-3D, or, let’s just call it All-D, is possible. This, despite the fact that we continually fall back into our prior way of thinking about things.

I think that’s sufficient for our purposes. Now that you have spelled out the underlying logic, let us from now on refer to our All-D existence, remembering that this is shorthand for saying that the 3D commonly perceived and the non-3D as we have painted it are not in fact two states at all but two conditions.

Like ice and water, say, the way the guys once described the difference between us and them, between the physical and non-physical, when our ideas had only gotten that far.

Yes, like ice or water. Conditions, states, not different realities.

Now, when we describe a problem or, let’s say, a situation in either what we have been calling the 3D or non-3D, it will look different and will begin to come back together if we refer to them in their All-D aspect.

I know that wasn’t quite right, but I had to get the sentence finished. You want to correct it?

Not so much “in their All-D aspect” as “being part of the All-D.” In other words, reminding ourselves that what goes on in one aspect affects the other.

So, passions. If there is a political hatred in All-D, the 3D portion of it may well be generated or aggravated by conditions of separation and the pressure-cooker conditions of the ever-moving present moment. But the rest of All-D is not elsewhere. It doesn’t have a different ZIP code. The same political hatred manifesting in the 3D is manifesting throughout the All-D, only manifesting according to the nature of the environment.

Hard to think about environments without the idea of physical separation sneaking in immediately.

It is a continual problem. But that is enough for now, both as a convenient pause to encourage people to ponder, and to give you your rest, if you can take it now.

I think I can. I’ll type this up next time I’m awake and active. Thanks, Rita, as always.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.