TGU — conflict as mirroring

Monday, March 26, 2018

6:55 a.m. All right, friends, I’m sure I’m not the only one who is all ears for more. Again I have no leads [as to where we’re going], so you’re on your own as to questions.

It is a very long lead-in to a new point of view, so it isn’t surprising that you should lose the thread sometimes, or should sometimes be unable to anticipate the direction. Nor is it surprising that you should be unable to hold it all at one time. That is why a new worldview isn’t learned, or memorized, but grown into. Not only is it closer to looking on a familiar landscape from a new direction than it is looking out at new land; it is also holding together in relationship facts and classes of facts that one has not previously associated. It would be like having studied geography and then being told that it really needed to be seen in connection with botany, then biology, then ecology, then sociology, say – and all of these progressive additions would have their logic, in effect adding tints to the picture but not being logically distinct from it – and then being told that geography really needs to be studied in connection with music, or numerology, or the genre of science fiction. You may need to explain our underlying logic here.

If I get you right, you are saying that a new point of view associates seemingly unconnected subjects, in ways that may seem crazy or, at best, arbitrary. I’ve had this thought and I used to have a different analogy, but it was a long time ago, and I can’t remember it. Yes I can, and it wasn’t my thought at all, was it? TGU – whoever may have composed my guys upstairs at the time, which would have been 2001-2, when Rita and I were playing 20 Questions with them – were talking about logic, and how thoughts we could not think appeared self-evidently nonsensical. Not quite the point you are making here, I see.

Illustrative nonetheless. The person who discovers a mantic art has his or her world-view changed (or, you might equally well say, can only discover that art because of a mind-set either long established or newly come to). But when s/he discovers that any such art works, be it astrology, Tarot, tea leaves, geomancy, numerology, whatever, including some that are made up on the spot, that involves a somewhat different mind-set that puts its trust not in one given way of feeling the pulse of reality, but of trusting, ultimately knowing, that everything is one, everything is inextricably bound by invisible connections to everything else, hence all is orderly and ordered and may be divined. That isn’t the same as saying everything is decided, dead, predetermined. That would be true if there were only one decision-stream, but if that were the case there would be no need for the 3D world at all.

Now – apply this to your view of politics and ideology. Can you see the difference between seeing everything as one and seeing everything as antagonistic pieces? Can you see the difference between non-judgment and judgment (for that’s what it amounts to)? Can you see, in short, that chaos has its own implicit order and that any order always includes its own chaos, in the same way that there cannot be a stable system in the absence of a trickster?

So where is anybody’s excuse for thinking that if their own values do not predominate, all is lost? At the same time, where is anybody’s excuse for thinking that their values are wrong, or are destined to sink without a trace? Mostly, where is the excuse for someone to believe Seth saying that he came to tell us it is a safe universe, and at the same time believe any of the external and internal voices that continually blare that life is not safe, that you may lose the battle of Armageddon, that – in fact – there is going to be a battle of Armageddon at all?

Now, while reading this you may agree and say, true, true, and it’s too bad people get misled. But where will you be ten minutes after turning from these words? Or really, how much of your mind is still living in that unsafe, polarized, divided, hatred- and fear-filled world, with only a larger or smaller ghetto reserved for these beliefs? Instead of thinking that “those” people are wrong (however your life leads you to choose which ones are to be seen as wrong) you might thank them for acting out your own unacted beliefs and tendencies, and send them love, that they may be assisted to overcome their demons, as you hope to overcome your own.

While I was refilling my coffee mug, several further developments flashed by; I trust they are not lost.

Not if you maintain your intent, which maintains the link. That’s why we call it Intuitive Linked Communication, instead of channeling or mediumship, etc.

Well, I got that what you say is exactly right in principle, and very difficult to do in practice. For instance, if one’s [ideological] vis-à-vis is actively promoting hatred, to pick but one of the antithetical values that may be on the other side of one’s political or ideological views. How do we deal with that? I am aware, again, of Robert E. Lee praying every night for his enemies, but I’m not sure how that applies; that is, what it means for us in practice.

If nothing else, praying for your enemies would prevent you from falling into hatred, would it not? You could be just as determined to oppose their values and actions as ever, yet would be fortifying yourself from the often unperceived common enemy, which is hatred, exclusivity, judgment (condemnation), isolation, with all its paralyzing and embittering results. So, that is the benefit to you of praying for your enemies. But it is still better if you cease to think of them as enemies at all. Does your left hand regard your right hand as an enemy when, between them, they carry something? After all, a large part of their function is to systemically oppose each other, if you were wishing to (or were unfortunate enough to have to) see their interaction as opposition. After all – and this is a better, more suggestive analogy than we thought at first – each of them, though pushing in opposite directions, is pushing toward the center. By definition neither hand is the center. By definition either hand is off-center in symmetry with its vis-à-vis, and that cooperative opposition makes many things possible that otherwise would not be. So even at the common level of such concerns, it is easy enough to see that left and right together assist each other.

There was a split-brain patient whose right and left sides fought each other, each side considering itself the true will, each considering the other as interference. A good analogy?

A very good analogy. However, let us proceed a little deeper into the area such analogies do not touch.

Remember, what we have described so far is first-tier and second-tier experience; it is what physically happens (including one’s thoughts about it) and then it is the way one processes what happened. But let us proceed to third-tier experience. How will the same experience affect you in light of your reactions to it?

I get the idea, but this may be hard to bring through. Yeah, I get it. Okay, centering.

“Slower” is a resource always available. Okay, go ahead.

Seems to have several pieces.

  • No two people are going to experience anything the same way, even physically and mentally, because our base platforms are all different.
  • But even within the specific and unique experience any one individual has, the secondary effects will differ depending upon that person’s decisions past and present. My old example of how a person’s life will differ if s/he reacts to things always from love, or sometimes, or rarely.
  • But there is also third-tier experience to consider, which is more or less just that result of a lifetime’s decisions. You had X event occur, and your reaction was Y. But that doesn’t mean your ultimate judgment will confirm Y. You may come to process that event entirely differently after the fact and, in effect. Overrule it, or modify it (or confirm it, but, not necessarily).


That wasn’t so hard, was it? When the logs jam the spillway, find a way to remove the pressure. Slowing down is as good a way as any.

But your hour is up, and – big surprise, eh? – this is anyway a good place to pause.

Pauline on the railroad tracks had nothing on your guys. Okay, our thanks, and see you next time.

2 thoughts on “TGU — conflict as mirroring

  1. “But where will you be ten minutes after turning from these words?”

    Huh. Back in my old habit pattern of thinking. Back on auto pilot. What moves me out of that habit pattern is an unsettling of my belief system or irritation. Someone has said something that is too close to the truth, and I don’t like that truth and what it reflects back to me.

    I don’t usually live out of humility. That isn’t a habit I’ve formed yet. To thank someone for “acting out [my] own unacted beliefs and tendencies, and send them love, that they may be assisted to overcome their demons, as [I] hope to overcome [my] own” is definitely humility. There but by the grace of God go I. It’s a habit I aspire to. It’s right up there with Lee praying for his enemies.

    I like the illustration of needing both hands to carry something. That moves the discussion from us versus them to both sides are necessary.

    Good stuff, Frank. It was good to take the week off and enjoy the folks at TMI’s Professional Division meeting. Lots of food for thought.

  2. “Pauline on the railroad tracks … “ and some of that feeling coming out of the gate at 5000 feet looking down the ski trail. Except this time it feels like jumping from the helicopter to the 10,000 foot ridge … wooopppppeeeeee!

    Somehow have the feeling that graduate school just started …

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.