Nathaniel on impurities
Friday, January 19, 2018
5:45 a.m. All right, let’s continue. I just got the thought of the use of impurities in glassblowing. Your prodding?
Not exactly, or let’s say not necessarily. But it is a useful image. Even your impurities produce color in the glass. However, the difficulty with that very useful image is that glass, once it cools, is relatively stable, relatively hardened and shaped. So, remember, it can always be re-melted; also, in a long enough span of time, it runs, like any other plastic form.
Not sure about the physics of that. I know that glass panes very slowly – over hundreds of years – do tend to puddle.
In any case we are more concerned with the reality we are attempting to describe than the images we use in doing so. Our point is merely that nothing lasts forever, in 3D, or, therefore, in All-D.
In that if the 3D changes and the non-3D does not, the unit changes nonetheless.
Even that (correct) perception over-estimates the permanence of the units you think yourselves. If one is immortal but transformed, one’s nature is a matter mostly of one’s opinion. Immortal? Unchangeable? Finite shelf-life? Transient phenomenon? All yes, all no, all both and neither.
Context is all, then.
Context determines how you see a thing, and if it is a thing of enough facets, enough complexity, it will appear in very different guise depending upon the mind you bring to the examination.
But, a word about impurities in glass, as it may shed light on our subject. Remember always, the purpose of life in 3D and out of 3D is not to replicate clear light. What would be the point of that? It is to produce millions of shades of different colors in a continually changing light show.
Of course, you must understand, that is one way to put it. The light show may also be regarded as a side-effect of what’s really going on, instead. Any statement that begins with, “The meaning of life is…” ought to be, and often is not, followed by the words, “in one view of things.” Do you really think that the purpose of life could be summed up in a sentence, or an encyclopedia for that matter? Much easier to continually say, “The purpose of life isn’t this or that or that either.” That’s truer.
Within that constraint, let’s say merely that the fact that you and every compound being include impurities does not indicate a design failure, nor a deliberate malign turning. This will become clearer when we look at the nature of impurities, as they manifest in the 3D crucible.
Are you making a differentiation between impurities in 3D and in non-3D?
Remember what we just said. How could anything that affected your 3D component fail to affect your All-D reality regardless if your non-3D component were unaffected directly? So, the question isn’t as relevant as you might think. But we get that your underlying thought is – Do the non-3D creatures sin, so to speak? That amounts to asking, Does the 3D set of conditions produce (or allow) sin; can non-3D creatures (unitary beings) sin?
I guess, more or less. Good questions, anyway.
Remember the myth of Lucifer’s sin. Lucifer chose; Lucifer refused to accept hits (to coin a pronoun) place in the scheme of things. Many consequences followed, but the point here is that a unitary being is portrayed as having free will. Having free will, he-she-it was able to choose to do this or that. Is it sin to choose, when one has been created free to choose?
Not if you realize that the answer depends upon the nature of sin. If sin were as simple as “not obeying the royal will,” yes, simple, but not illustrative of anything real. That is a system made for servo-mechanisms, not independent souls. When you activate a servo-mechanism, you expect it to do exactly what it was designed to do, no more and no less. If it deviates from your command, it is to that degree malfunctioning.
Does that sound like a functioning independent being, created to reflect the light in its own unique way?
So, if instead sin is seen as “missing the mark,” is it possible for non-compound beings, existing outside the 3D crucible, to sin? That is, do they have a mark to hit? Are they able to miss it?
I don’t know.
Back the question up. What is a mark, seen in 3D terms? What in your lives you are leading right now would be a hitting or a missing of the mark?
I suppose, being the most fulfilled version of our raw materials that we can be.
And if your raw materials include cruelty, lust, envy, malice in any of its forms? Selfishness, pettiness, anything negative you can think of. Were you created to manifest them? To fight them? To incorporate and transform them?
I don’t know. I get the sense there’s something wrong with our definitions here.
And so there is. Good. Setting that aside for the moment, another guess at what would be the hitting or missing of the mark?
I can only fall back on my own experience of what satisfies me in my life, but I don’t suppose it is in any way universal.
You can’t know that, one way or the other.
No, I suppose I can’t. Well, I enjoy creating and I enjoy helping people, but that doesn’t mean I am particularly gregarious or even comfortable in the world, nor does it mean that the enjoyment of creation makes any given day seem worthwhile.
So, your conclusion here would be?
That I miss the mark when I turn away from creativity and helping people.
Stated that baldly, does the statement satisfy?
No, it doesn’t. But if we knew ahead of time what you’re getting at, we wouldn’t need this process, would we?
Let’s say your missing the mark is simpler (not necessarily easier) than that. Let’s say, missing the mark is not listening to the inner voice as you live your days, thus not doing the most that would be possible with your life as raw materials.
Sin as self-sabotage.
Well, what else is it, if not that?
But that implies forces that we are here to resist, as well as forces that we are here to flow with.
And can you see how that might easily be misinterpreted into “Thou shalt not” and “Thou shalt”?
It’s still far from satisfactory. It’s more up in the air than ever.
All right, you made me smile. I get it, who said we were anywhere near resolution. So?
Vast impersonal forces. You may have heard the expression.
We deliberately repeat it rather than vary the words, so as to impress upon you the concept as it continues to exist, remembered or not. You exist – we exist – everybody and everything exists – in the context of vast impersonal forces.
Vast – as in, magnitude beyond the human scale.
Impersonal – as in, nature and purpose well beyond the human scale.
Forces – as in, unbound energies, not in any way structures or (same thing) individuals.
To sum up, before we pause. Your lives in 3D are mixtures of qualities. This could scarcely be avoided in 3D existence even if you were not compound in nature. Mixtures are not uniform; they may be internally consistent or internally at war, but they are collections as well as, prior to, being in any sense individual.
These collections are “externally” affected by their own internal characteristics, their own vulnerabilities [I think they meant predilections], seemingly coming at them from outside themselves. That’s the point of the crucible, to allow them to confront themselves.
Well, inherent in the smelting in the crucible is confrontation with the impurities, so that they may be burned out (seen one way) or incorporated (seen another), or transformed and transmuted (seen yet a third way). But where did they come from, these impurities? And how does it assist anything, this smelting process? And for that matter, how will it assist you in your daily lives to know any of this?
Let me guess: “To be continued.”
It’s your clock, not ours. But yes, to be continued, for as long as you wish, for as long as you are able.
Okay. Well, thanks as always.