7:05 a.m. Very well, where were we? You were rubbing in the fact that we will never know anything absolutely, only relatively.
We were weaning you of the habit of thinking that the answers to everything are available behind the right door, if you could but find that door. Although this very common delusion at first appears to be an empowering ideal, in fact it proves to be a source of quite unnecessary discouragement, as if an elementary-school-age child should first resolve to visit every town in the world in one lifetime and then, when this proves impossible, give up on the idea of going anywhere at any time for any reason. A better ideal is to do as much as is possible, and a little more as one’s capacity expands with practice.
Yes, I like that. Very well –.
So we begin conceptually with the idea that totality – in other words, reality – contains oppositions of forces. We did not succeed in coming up with an image sufficiently concrete, but perhaps with time we, or you, or one of your friends, will be able to snag the passing fish of an idea. Meanwhile, stay with the notion of terrifically charged opposites held within tension from springing apart. By opposites, we do not mean any one set of oppositions – good and evil, up and down, static and dynamic, etc. – but all opposites. It is almost a philosophical point, but although abstract it is not negligible.
No, I get it. “Everything” clearly has to include – everything. There can be no gaps in totality. If a thing could exist, it must exist.
You have the idea, but that is very badly stated so far.
I know, sink into it. Okay. [I do.] My, that’s a useful reminder, just the way I begin my talks at TMI with just a few seconds of silent group alignment that brings the energy together.
All right, to try again: Totality must include everything, by definition. That means – it may not at first be obvious – that no half of any opposite can be excluded. No up without down, no kind without cruel, no selfish without self-sacrificing, etc. There can’t be any energy not paired, in other words, because any quality is a sort of offset from center, so must be balanced by its complementary offset.
All true in 3D duality – and well stated, this time. Of course, even though your 3D-experienced minds find it hard to
I knew I wasn’t from here!
Go ahead, and we’ll fill in the intervening steps you just leaped over.
When I was a boy, or a very young man, one day I got tired of the everlasting either / or. I may have been at least 20, because I think I wrote about this in a journal. Everything I was reading was firmly embedded – quite unconsciously because obviously the author had never considered that there could be an alternative – in either / or logic. Everything was either this, or that. Never “This or that or another.” In other words, choice was never set out as a choice among three or more, always between two.
And now you see that this was experiencing the world according to binary logic. But, go slow here, and you will learn something.
I determined that whenever I came across such a “Choose sides, A or B,” I would look until I found at least a C. I experienced this binary choice all the time as false, constricting.
From which you concluded that you are from a universe not constructed on the binary principle.
I didn’t conclude it till just this conversation, but I did feel for a long time – maybe everybody does – that this system is alien to me in many ways.
So you could envision a tripartite system, say?
Easily. It’s just a matter of dividing reality into three 120 degree slices instead of two 180 degree slices. Instead of flat opposition you get nuance and complementary, fluid, relationships. What kind of color wheel would we have if our primary colors were two instead of three? Secondaries would be as oppositional and static as the primaries, if you could even derive them.
And in human relationships?
Hard to imagine three genders, but I’d sure prefer three political stances over two, three-way competitions and cooperations over two, three-way construction and reconstruction and demolition over two.
Yes, now let us return to where you experienced your leap, which, notice, was experienced as a spark across a gap, not as a careful construction of a pathway. Sparks are not restricted to binary pathways.
Which is why I am more comfortable with intuition and psychic functioning than with logic and sensory functioning, despite the perils of the path?
The question answers itself, so is rhetorical. And of course in this part of our discussion you serve as mirror for others, some of whom will never had had the experience of being mirrored in another. This form of dialogue is very useful for that.
The point we were making, or were about to make, is that not all systems are binary; they may be tripartite and may divide reality in various other ways, and of course how you experience the division of reality – which segments of the orange seem real to you – determines the possibility and limitations of a given system. But, divide all-that-is into twos, or threes, or seven-millions, one fact will remain, and if it cannot be proved, neither can it be refuted nor in practice doubted, and that is that whatever the system, when reality is sliced nothing can ever be left over, nor left out.
“Everything” means – everything.
Self-evident, we should think. Well, that fact has ramifications.
You can’t have a reality with only pleasant things, only constructive and uplifting ones. You can’t get away from the necessary existence of evil.
Correct. But what you can do is be a little more careful about defining things you don’t like as evil. It’s a bad habit – an evil habit, perhaps we should say, nonexistent tongue in nonexistent cheek. And it won’t be a blink of an eye before you’re doing the same to other parts of yourself, and there’s paradise lost, or you are blinding yourself to the things you can’t bear to see in yourself, and there’s a fool’s paradise. Better just to see things as whole, complementary, necessary, and all working for the sake of life itself, which is always good, no matter how you may feel about it if sick or discouraged or enraged or disappointed or just mortally tired.
And with all this, now we are finally ready to begin to speak of the forces of spirit.
The vast impersonal forces in the universe necessarily represent or embody every force there is, those you like and those you don’t; those you approve of, and their opposites; those what seem to you in 3D as constructive and good, and their complements that may (but needn’t) appear to you as destructive and evil. Before you can understand the world, before you can understand yourselves, you must remember that the cause of “the fall of man” was not the listening to the serpent, nor disobeying a god who walked with Adam and Eve in the garden, nor was it sex as people assume although this was not mentioned nor even hinted at in the fable, but eating of the fruit of the tree of Perceiving Things as Good and Evil.
It was the fall into the perception of things as antagonistic duality that led to your unsatisfying situation, nothing more. So, since an apple cannot be un-eaten, what to do? Your way forward is to incorporate that dualistic perspective but now transcend it. Use it not as obstacle or detour but as scaffolding. And the first step – for some a large one, for others not – is to accept the world as it is. “God looked upon what he had made and saw that it was good.” But then, God suffered from inability to cram things into a way of seeing that weighed and measured, approved and condemned. God was more easily pleased than binary man, evidently.
A little sarcasm, this morning.
Yep. A bad thing, no doubt.
Very funny. Okay, more next time?
There’s always more and there’s always going to be more, as long as life and willingness lasts (and after).
Okay. Thanks for all this.