Monday, October 2, 2017
5:30 a.m. To continue, then: How can all be well when all is not well, at the same time?
And you heard the answer even as you wrote.
Well, I heard the analogy: How can we be individuals and communities at the same time?
Mostly it is a question of focus. “What you see is what you get” is an expression you use sometimes. Perhaps this is true in a sense not intended by those who invented it.
No, In computer terms, WYSIWYG [said “wissywig”] means transparency: Literally, whatever you are looking at is the result. It means there won’t be translation errors, you might say. But you are using it to mean, depending on how we choose to see things, that’s how they are.
Well – not quite.
Smiling. I get that a lot.
Better than “Dead wrong,” probably, or “Don’t be ridiculous.”
Better. Still smiling. So –
Depending on how you choose to see things, that’s the aspect of them that seems to you to be real. That often seems like the only aspect that is real. In this case, closer to “choose your own reality” than “create your own reality.” It isn’t that you are shaping reality by how you choose to see it, but that you might say you are shaping you, shaping your reality (which after all is the only reality you can know, your reality; you can’t know the ultimate reality any more than we can. Our perception of reality is always going to be less than whatever reality really is in essence).
So, then, accepting that, how does it tie in to the vast impersonal forces you keep mentioning?
First, are you clear that life is how it appears to you, more than how it really is?
I’d never get away with a sentence like that, but I know what you mean. Life is always our personal subset of reality; it is never what –. Or, rather, we never see the entire picture, only our subset which we often take to be the entire picture.
We’ll accept the correction. That’s the sense of it. But – you’re clear on it?
Can’t speak for our readers, but I am, yes. Even the fact that each of us has uncounted versions living different timelines tells me that reality has to be bigger than anything anyone or any one timeline can apprehend. By definition, really.
All right. So then it shouldn’t surprise you – though we suspect that it will – to hear that the shape the world is in is no more fixed than anything else, except in any given timeline.
That makes perfect sense, and you’re right, it never occurred to me. Not sure why. Or, actually I suppose it has been obvious all along, but in a different context that I didn’t happen to associate with this one.
Most of learning is less the acquisition of new facts than the associating of what you already know in different contexts.
And I’m starting to get your drift.
Well, it shouldn’t really surprise anybody that the world they see around them is integrally connected to the version of themselves that is walking that particular timeline. I mean, how else could it be? You and your world can’t be connected only arbitrarily. External events are only seemingly external and unconnected, as Rita was at some pains to point out in the context of the newly dead soul realizing that its 3D life had all been internal after all. It is in the confusing of external and internal that so many people’s anguish takes place. And perhaps you can spell that our in our place.
You seem to be saying, if we didn’t take “external” events to be more real than the internal life we know first-hand, we wouldn’t be so upset at how badly things go. Can that be what you really mean? I know, “not quite.”
It’s hard to find an equally useful phrase, you will admit. No, this requires some careful spelling-out.
Up to you, I think. It’s just a jumble to me so far. [More or less immediately:] I hear you: Slow down and center. So I will.
You will notice a pattern. Once we point it out you will, anyway. When there is a lot to be said, you sometimes start to race your editorial motors, and it doesn’t improve reception.
True enough. So –
If you take external events to be self-evidently real, if only because they seem to be perceived and accepted by everybody around you, you are going to wind up giving them primacy of reality. I mean, they will seem realer to you than the many thoughts, feelings, emotions that make up your life. It is crazy but natural: What is remote from your experience will seem more real than what is immediately at hand.
And don’t think this means only events you may see on the news. The things that happen to you – the innumerable things not necessarily of any importance that make up the external interface with the world also may seem more real, because more undeniable and more unmalleable, then the internal events. So, tying your shoe, eating your breakfast, driving your car, reading your mail, talking on the telephone – that kind of thing – is all going to seem realer to you than your own thoughts! It’s crazy, seen from our viewpoint, except that we do understand the underlying dynamics.
So do I, now that you come to explore them: We are used to crediting our senses more than our intuitions. Sensory data seems objective, intuition or call it non-sensory data seems at least debatable.
Does this seems like a stretch, then? To say that 3D life is a life that systemically inverts the order of importance of things?
I can see it. But seeing it doesn’t overrule the reality I experience. My lungs still function correctly or they don’t, and my part in that seems secondary to environmental forces.
Well, we aren’t trying to say that people in 3D conditions ought to be able to overcome them; just the contrary, in fact. 3D life was designed to work, not to be superseded or outmaneuvered. Our point here is that this systematic distortion in how you understand the world, rooted in how you experience the world, helps explain how “all is well” and “all is not well” can coexist, both being true depending upon viewing point.
It still comes perilously close to saying, “It’s all a show; those mangled bodies don’t mean anything.”
No, that is not the idea. What we are really getting to is that the reality is the energy flowing through those lives, it is not the external incidents that you can see, that result from energy flows, and redirect energy flows.
I’m starting to get what you’re driving at. They are real forces, real consequences. But the reality is in the real part of us, and not in the merely physical part of us.
You’ve gotten it by a spark leaping mind to mind, but your readers may not get it from the words they’ve read so far. Some may, some may not.
Well, how to put it any clearer? Our emotions, and that includes all the emotions of anybody in any news event, are real, and they are the point of the experience. They – and whatever changes they result in, within ourselves – are what we will take with us (so to speak) in the realer All-D world. Nobody carries a burned building or an exploded bomb or a deadly virus from 3D into All-D. They are all, you might say, local phenomena. In that sense, it hardly matters what happens externally on earth (i.e. in 3D). What matters is what happens internally to each of us, because that is what is real and that is what will persist. In that sense, all is well no matter the train wreck.
Although, it does leave the fairly large question of what about the psychological debris caused by the physical train wrecks.
That has everything to do with those same forces we keep promising to discuss. And of course, your time being up –
Next time. Okay, thanks.