Implications
Wednesday, November 8, 2017
8 a.m. As I think about it, the implications of this morning’s material keep growing, and the actual change (in ideas) required is less. All it amounts to is seeing ideas differently, but that changes everything it touches, which means, our entire 3D existence. You gentlemen care to help me out on this, even if it involves a second session, or do I have to struggle through it alone?
You are never alone!
Very funny. Care to trace the logic?
It isn’t so much logic as it is relationship. If ideas are abstractly right or wrong according to some absolute standard, then anyone and everyone – not least, one’s own self – may safely be judged by how far their ideas diverge from the truth. But this is much the same as postulating an absolute standard of morality.
I certainly know what that is like! My own background and childhood (and therefore my unconscious thoughts to this day, probably) were formed within the Catholic Church (interesting that I started to write “Catholic Christ”) of the 1940s and 50s. There is no more absolute standard than that, maybe. With time I lost my resentment and came to see the advantages of such a background, but I never questioned the existence of an absolute standard of good and evil, only the human error involved in comprehending and applying it.
Meaning, you agreed with some Church doctrine and disagreed with other.
That’s what it amounted to, yes. I went my own way, trying to use my own thought and judgment (in practice, my own feelings), but I did not ever question that there was some such absolute. Even when I came to see that situational ethics were not only defensible but inevitable, I didn’t doubt that the issue was our adapting that inner code to specific 3D circumstances. In other words, who would want to adhere to the accepted code of Tudor England, or Ancient Greece or Rome, or Tsarist or Stalinist Russia? In socially accepted codes there could be no firm anchor. (I don’t think I’m putting this as well as you might, as I’m having to write and think at the same time.) Yet it seemed clear that in adapting our behavior to the time, we were still doing so in reference to an absolute that I would now say came out of the non-3D, or let’s say, simply, from our All-D awareness rather than our specifically 3D-bounded awareness.
And if there is no such absolute standard? Yet, how can that be?
I don’t know yet. I’m feeling my way toward an answer. That’s why I called you-all in.
If there is a universal, there are degrees of error in perceiving it, in living it, in attempting to comply with it (which, in short, quickly becomes attempting to enforce it). You can see this in the history of every society, every church, every association. Scientists are as prone to it as priests are, perhaps even more so in that they admit no mechanism for repentance and absolution.
It boils down to, this is the ultimate result of eating of the fruit of the tree of perceiving things as good or evil. In other words, 3D Theater, as I used to call it, is inherently partial, partisan, relatively intolerant, uneasy, even, in a sense, hysterical. (And I don’t mean funny!)
That may be stretching it a little. Yes, it may tend that way; it needn’t stay there. As you change perceptions, you change your reality, just as you have been told more than once.
We can undo the effects of the descent into perceived duality? Is that what you mean?
You can’t do it for others; you can perhaps do it for yourself and – as you would put it – leave a trail of bread crumbs for others. After all, think how many, many loaves of bread have been crumbled to bring you (plural) to this point. The work of realigning your perceptions won’t get done automatically; you need to work the problem that is your life. But it can be done; you have vast supportive forces of which you are usually unaware, some of which you will never be aware of. But it can be done. Only – don’t then judge those whose path leads in other directions! To judge them would be a demonstration that you haven’t yet changed directions yourselves.
This has moved a long way from my initial perception, which was that we can look at other people’s opinions as an indicator of where they are, rather than where they ought to be.
Not so far, just in a direction you didn’t expect. Now go do other things.
I shall. Thanks as ever for your able assistance.
Frank? Thank you very much indeed.
….This is felt as “an indicator” of where we are(each of us) in every present moment to live. The old expression about: “We are living in the present moment of all D`s, as all of us “are the sum total” of us ever to be.
Peculiar how the titles by the books to read in these Days seems to follow A COMMON THREAD of alignment with yours in these days.
Following the traces backwards.
I`m going into the “BACKWARDS BELIEFS,” obviously.
A Canadian friend recommended me to read the author Nanci L. Danison books titled as: BACKWARDS BELIEFS, subtitled as Revealing Eternal Truth Hidden in Religions.
And the other book by the same author titled as: BACKWARDS: Returning to Our Source for Answers.
I have not begun to read the books as yet….as not yet finished with The Magical Battle of Britain….. I`m back in 1940 fighting the war all over again in England.