Nathaniel — levels of reality

Tuesday, October 10, 2017

4:55 a.m. You wish to continue on your own, or from the quote from yesterday that was called to my attention?

We can begin there. As usual, where we begin matters less than that we begin.

You said, “your reality can’t really depend upon observers.”

And we said it is a separate topic, not because it didn’t belong, but because it has so many facets if it is to be understood. This conversing sequentially in words that must be carefully defined and then explained anyway is cumbersome, as you have experienced, and makes it necessary to creep, because only the smallest bite-sized items can be discussed at any one time.

“Bite-sized” was clearly my phrasing, but it was a funny feeling, as if you or somebody came prying into my mind looking for it, rather than that I offered it. Just as, now, I was tempted to say “prying into my lumber-room,” even though that is a phrase out of Sherlock Holmes and I’ve never been really sure what a lumber room really was. I mean, I had the general idea from the context, but I didn’t understand why they called it that. So why would it pop up?

The process is still [that is, remains] more complex than you understand. Your end of the line is no more simple and unitary than our end.

I get, that was David Poynter, putting in his oar, and of course he would be involved; this is his own life’s work, carried on, using traits he developed in his lifetime.

And you might enjoy writing a story about me, “making it up” rather than trying for accuracy, as you did for Joseph and could do for others. But this isn’t necessary, only desirable as amusing and instructive.

I’ll keep it in mind. Thank you, David. I’m aware I owe you most of what I brought to this.

Which amounts to owing it to yourself, so it isn’t really worth the accounting. But in any case, to the point –.

Yes. To the point –

If reality depended upon observers in the way the phrase suggests, your lives would be remarkably contingent, hanging always by a thread. For, what if the observer were to be distracted? However, it just isn’t that simple, as usual.

In the first place, the sentence you just quoted wasn’t what we said, it was what you concluded when we said the level of one’s reality depended upon the level of the observer. We meant something different from what you heard, but that mishearing may itself be productive, so we mentioned it as a possible topic. If we can, we will address that first, and then expand upon what we meant.

Do you remember being told that everything in your 3D world is conscious, being made of consciousness, but that each form of consciousness is different, appropriate to various circumstances? A rock, having no external freedom, has absolute internal freedom, while an animal, say, has far more external freedom, which means that each individual manifestation of animal must pay attention to its environment and circumstances, hence requiring both a group mind and an individual mind, both “instinct” and individual alertness.

Well, those rocks hold the world together with their undeviating, unblinking attention. They are the stage scenery that prevents the whole thing from being free-form kaleidoscopic ungraspable swirl. They are the holders of stability. So that is one level of observer. This is not to say that rocks know what is going on around them, so to speak, any more than you as reality-holder for the microorganisms that live in your physical body have any knowledge of or interest in them. But the rocks – the external mineral level of reality, that is – hold the space. They keep things stable. They are a form of unwavering awareness, the energetic blueprint for the continual re-creation of the world so many million times a second.

The interaction of various forms of consciousness is the world as you experience it. Clouds, wind, rain, anything you experience may be said to embody a specific form of consciousness, and whether you can envision it, or even allow for the possibility, makes no difference.

However, that wasn’t the point we were making. We were discussing observers in the context of performances (call them) at a lesser level of reality.

“Lesser” is going to get us into trouble, I think.

Comparisons don’t have to, and shouldn’t, imply value-judgments. A tree is taller than a person; the person can walk and a tree cannot. Which is “better”? But if you cannot recognize differences, if you have to pretend that equality of worth means identity, means pretending that observed differences don’t exist, you will never get anywhere. You have to begin with what you observe, not with what you think are abstract truths.

So, to stay on the point, what is Hamlet (the individual) in the absence of Hamlet (the play), and what is the play in the absence of  performance? (Yes, it can be read, but for the moment consider that as a one-person-at-a-time audience.)

Are you saying –? Well, let me give you what I get, and you can tell me. I get that you are logically dividing the sense of “observer” into two. One is, the world is maintained by collective observation; the other is that there is also observation at the next higher level of reality. And if you keep giving me more insights while I’m trying to write up the old ones, I don’t know where we’re going to wind up. Is it faster this way?

If you can get it in a burst (which, by the way, is facilitated by your general attention to the subject and your specific attention to one aspect of it and our connection, so that sudden “aha” moments are possible), it is faster, yes, because then we don’t have to go through the long dance of getting you there by words and readjustment of words and correction and revision of words.

I see. So, while I was trying to express where I was, I got that the group-mind aspect of human life also maintains the world. Our collective underlying unstated agreement on what’s what assures that it remains what. As long as we all agree that Africa is where it is, there it remains, regardless what individuals or even groups may think. As long as we agree that water is heavier than air, that the various elements have the characteristics they have, that time flows as we observe it (though this one is more tenuous), that’s what we get. Our collective observation (or call it our collective continuous re-creation) maintains the world at a different level than the minerals do, but working with it. Different forms, flowing together.

And there is a lot contained in that observation that may be teased out by thought and intent. But now, let’s set this out carefully: This next higher level of reality we are talking about is, and is not, what you call TGU, or any one of us you are talking to.

I think I get the sense of it. It’s going to be hard to set out separately and also set out together.

But it can be done.

You – the TGU level we experience or can experience during our 3D lives – are part of us. You exist at our level of reality. As we said some time, energy is matter (since matter is energy), therefore the non-3D portion of All-D is, by definition, as real as the 3D portion and no more real.

That’s correct. And at the same time –

At the same time, you are part of a higher level of reality than the 3D world, so – we are too.

Of course, and you feel that in your bones. How many of you feel at home in your lives? Feeling that “this is not my home” does not mean you belong on Mars, or Alpha Centauri. It means you are not at home in 3D-only. You know it in your bones. You may not know where you do belong, but you know you are only voyaging on earth. (And as always, “earth” here means, physical matter, the 3D-only experience.)

So somehow we are players in the play and at the same time viewers from the stands.

“Audience” is the usual term. Yes, and that is why you often feel stretched, and why so many proposed explanations of the meaning of life do not resonate, or shall we say do not resonate forever, however attractive they may be at any given moment. As your self-definition, or let’s say your observation-point differs, so does what you see. So does the meaning of what you see.

And that’s enough for now.

Well, it never quite goes where I expect it to go, not that I’m complaining! Even when I think I have a handle on it, unexpected aspects surface. Thanks as always.


4 thoughts on “Nathaniel — levels of reality

  1. I continue to say “wow.” That’s because I think we are getting more of it without words. We “feel it in our bones.” All consciousness interacting to re-create the world over and over, keeping it all “stable”–that’s something I knew on some level, but reading it this morning, I felt it in my bones. I read your sessions and feel things fall into place, and I feel aligned with it. Thanks so much.

  2. From Wikipedia: The large houses of the well-heeled of Britain commonly had much very old, well-built furniture in them, more than was to be used in every room at any given time. Every piece was made-to-order, and when not needed it was neither sold nor discarded. At least one out-of-the-way room was selected to store the pieces that were not in use. This was called the lumber room.

    And now we know! 🙂

    1. Thanks Jann,
      love the history about “a lumber-room.” Often to forget the Wikipedia.

      And Jim,
      here comes something which “all of a sudden” among old papers to find (and to have kept) about US, as individuals, and “The Observations” coming forth lately among us here.

      As I came upon some old papers by Mark M. Giese (do not know who M. Giese can be other than a remarkable guy to know a lot about the Seth-Material), where Giese is into “the Library” of the “Society & Mass Events”…etc. etc., not really to have understood before.

      Quote Mark Giese:
      This article was written in December of 1985, nearly 20 years ago (told in the introduction by Mark Giese for the year 2003).

      Quote the Introduction by Mark Giese.
      Reprinted from Spring `86 Reality Change:

      (He goes on to quote Seth): “You cannot understand perceived events unless you understand who perceives them. You must learn more about the slant of your own consciousness before you are in a position to ask truly pertinent questions about the reality you perceive.” (reminding me about Frank’s).

      Furthermore, in the same session Seth is telling, “Until you ask deeper questions about yourselves, these other experiences (such as UFO sightings) will remain mysterious.”
      I am “jumping” through several pages:

      Finally, Seth explains that, when he does “consider those and other such matters (Atlantis, UFOs, and so forth), it will be from a different perspective. By then you – my readers – will be familiar enough with THE UNKNOWN REALITY to understand answers given in a different context.”
      And more:
      I am “jumping” a bit into other pages of the same material and quote another page:
      ” In the same vein, he (Seth) asserts in the 1/12/71 ESP Class material that “Our friend back here could well appear, you see, as a UFO in another aspect of reality, and frighten the inhabitants. You forget that consciousness is the only true vehicle.”

      And another of the pages quote Seth through Jane Roberts:
      “This (The Seth Material) is not the Cayce material, with the information seemingly coming from some vast storehouse of knowledge. In those terms no such storehouse exists. (Forget “Akashic” records. – MkM) Knowledge does not exist independently of the one who knows. Someone gave Cayce the material. It did not come out of thin air. It came from an excellent source, a pyramid gestalt personality, with definite characteristics, but the alien nature of the personality was too startling to Cayce, and he could not perceive it…”
      The Early Sessions, Vol. 8, Session 417.

      Mark Giese comment: So this is saying, Cayce`s source was excellent, the trip-ups were Cayce`s. And as Seth telling: ” It came from an excellent source…” As opposed to a crummy source ? Maybe that`s why a lot of channeling seems to suck (in Mark Giese’s’ opinion) Bad sources ? Consider the source (according to Giese)!
      Recall also, Jane`s dabblings with “Melba of the midplane,” a non-excellent source.
      So, the source and/or the channeler can be the problem (according to M. Giese).

      And ending with a Seth quote: “In the terms of evolution as you like to think of it, ideas are more important than genes,”(Dreams, “Evolution,” and Value Fulfillment, Sess 919)
      I have FELT All these things are very similar with what the Source(s) by Frank’s telling all the way….

      So far to have come to understand more, as Seth says about Cayce: “It came from an excellent source…” Cayce`s Source was excellent, the trip – ups were Cayce`s.
      P.S.(Seth was also careful to draw a distinction between the phenomenon of him/Jane and her Cezanne and William James “world view” material)

      Very true about the old saying: ” Energy follows the Thought.”

  3. “ … the level of one’s reality depended upon the level of the observer.”
    Hmmmmm … Frank, your muddy tracks are becoming ‘perilously’ parallel to some current theoretical physics ‘discussions.’

    Those interested in how science is beginning to eye the kind of things discussed here might take a look at Robert Lanza’s work on Biocentrism.

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.