Friday, September 8, 2017
6 a.m. Rita, we have a couple queued-up questions we could address, or we could let people continue to ponder and I could do other things. Your choice. Or you could have more to say, I realize.
Three excellent questions, and we can probably deal with them fairly easily. So, let’s see.
[Jane Peranteau: So, are you saying that the real difference between 3D and non-3D is having a perspective, in non-3D, that transcends, for lack of a better word, emotional entanglements (that include blaming, side-taking, judgments, drama, etc.)? The non-3D perspective allows you to see the bigger picture–the heat is spread over a wider area.]
[Beth Hines: Since 3-D is part of All-D, and “as above, so below,” then it makes sense that frictions we experience in 3-D are also present in the All-D. I am to assume said frictions are less intense there, or perhaps just dealt with in a better manner since we have our whole self at our disposal?]
[Ramona Thiessen: As I consider this material another Jung quote comes to mind …. “One does not become enlightened by imagining figures of light, but by making the darkness conscious.” The feeling I have in general, not just these specific sessions with Rita, coming from your writing/explorations is an intersection of magic, art, religion and science. Not separate boxes with clear cut lines, more so a sharing of boundaries. Each culture containing bits of all the others. A deeper understanding, not different worlds. The compound reality.]
[Rita:] Jane and Beth are asking more or less the same question. Given that the non-3D by definition shares the experiences of the 3D (being, after all, part of the same world), and given the difference in physical properties of the two parts of the world, how do manifestations differ? The question could be answered simply, but offers a springboard for a somewhat more complete answer.
I felt myself losing the thread there, just sort of saying “answer” to end the sentence.
You let your mind wander off into wondering how I intended to answer.
Can’t perceive and interpret or analyze at the same time. Okay.
The short answer to Jane would be, “yes.” Beth’s short answer would be – well, perhaps it wouldn’t be all that short. So, let’s address the underlying assumption that both questions share, that we in non-3D are more reasonable, less contentious, than when we same forces are operating in 3D as if individual and separate.
Yes, it focuses things, you see. When you remember that “we” and “you” are the same substance, the same bundles of strands, the same compound beings, then you remember that differences in our reactions and actions are due to differences in terrain, not in our substance.
Which is what the guys told you and me right at the beginning. In fact, they told me that as I was writing Muddy Tracks in 1997-98. But in those days the same words carried very different connotations.
Which is why simple statements unaccompanied by sometimes lengthy descriptions of context do not always illuminate, or perhaps we should say illuminate only fitfully, in patches.
So, as you look at things from the perspective you have worked your way to over twenty years’ work, what do you see? Yes, emotional entanglement is damped somewhat by our environment. Or, not damped, but the manifestations here are damped. You in 3D experience the hot iron on the skin in less propitious conditions, you might say, but it’s just as hot here, in a way. And as Beth says, it is true that to a degree frictions are less intense here because the localized agents (i.e. 3D individuals) are aware of, and function as part of, their larger beings. However, there is an important caveat here that takes it all away, and that is that the larger beings themselves, even the Sams over them, are not neutral, calm, unbiased observers, but, just like you in 3D, partisans. You must not look for an end of strife and contention merely because you die to the 3D. “As above, so below,” only the manifestations are different.
That’s sort of what I had come to myself. Disappointing, though. It makes Plan B (death) less of a solution.
It isn’t any solution to the question of the meaning of life. It may be the way out of an intolerable local situation, perhaps. But this shouldn’t be disappointing: It should (or I suppose I should say, may) offer you a context that restores meaning in what may seem a meaningless existence. After all, if 3D struggles don’t mean anything, if once you die you say, “well, that dream had its unpleasant moments,” the only meaning it may have had (and you can’t even be sure of that) is personal. And is the whole 3D show nothing but what Shaw called an Englishman’s conception of it, a moral gymnasium?
Instead, recognizing that these struggles are (in a way) real, and recognizing that the struggle extends through All-D – that is, the entire world, not only that part of it you perceive through the senses –
Yes. Those recognitions should help restore your sense of meaning. A sense of meaning cannot be grasped by an effort of will. You cannot merely decide, “I am going to see my life and the universe at large as having meaning.” Life would be simpler if you could. But you all know people who try to live by a code they can’t believe in. The disparity between what they really believe and what they try to believe sickens them.
Carl Jung’s pastor father.
That is one way it manifests, yes, loss of religious faith.
I seem to see it in people who are fanatically devoted to science as an abstraction. It seems to me they are trying hard to convince themselves that their abstraction provides them the sense of meaning we all need – and their tinge of hysteria tells me they aren’t quite able to suppress the doubts.
Same process, yes.
But if 3D and non-3D are engaged in a struggle of values (call it), but ultimately all paths are taken, where is the struggle? I mean, we emerge from 3D life as probability-clouds, I gather (regardless what it seems like to any of us in a specific version of our life), so don’t we cancel out?
No. You are confusing things, and it is a confusion that hasn’t come front and center yet, so, well done.
You were shaped before you entered 3D, in any particular life. You lived all the possibilities of that life, each different version expressing its own unique combination of coin tosses. You “arrive” back outside of 3D (again, so to speak) as the probability-cloud you describe, showing every single possible result of creating a Rita, or a Frank or whatever. But those were your possibilities.
Yes, I got that as we were writing it out. I don’t have it in me to be Hitler, say.
You are an expression of your possibilities, not of any possible combination that might be imagined. So, you couldn’t express as Hitler, Hitler couldn’t express as you. Your respective “probability clouds” will be different because the makeup of the respective individuals is different.
I think you are saying that the conflict of values continues at other levels.
“As above, so below. “ The world needs predators and scavengers both, as the guys pointed out to us long ago. The body needs red blood cells and white. Mathematics needs positive values and negative. That’s what a binary system is, it is a working-out of contraries. So don’t expect to evade it by dying to 3D. And this is why the popular idea of angels playing harps, sitting around on nothing, has no grip [later, I thought, “traction” might be a closer word]. It has no life, no appeal to that deep human need to contend. (I don’t mean to contend one against the other necessarily, though of course this is common, but to contend against something, even if it is the wood one shapes or the animal one tames or the obstacles to successful gardening.)
Well, I think that did clarify things. Did for me, anyway.
And Ramona’s is less a question than a comment, and we can let it stand.
Got more than I bargained for, this morning. I didn’t know if we’d do a session or not. Thanks as always.