Friday, April 13, 2018
4:20 a.m. I made a note, last night, that we would start with third-tier effects as the intersection of history and psychology. Or, however you wish to proceed.
We could do that, or we could correct the picture by reminding ourselves that yesterday’s sketch ignored the fact that the individuals being affected by 3D events are far more complicated and interconnected than they appear when considered only in their 3D present-time aspects. Really, it is the same discussion.
Remember, we began this discussion by using the large-scale events such as political assassinations because they are well-known; their impact upon people is evident, and their effect upon the common 3D dream is equally evident.
By “the common 3D dream,” I take it that you mean our social awareness, the cultural – well, since I can’t phrase it, I guess that means I don’t have as firm a grasp on it as I thought I did.
It’s a diversion, but one we’d have to spell out sooner or later anyway, and now is as good a time as any. But it is a little slippery, so –
So settle down more, and recalibrate so as to take it slowly. Okay.
There was a time when we would have had an explanation to give, if we wanted you to understand the link between receptivity and the quality of the material you could bring in.
Very well. There are your lives as individuals, and your lives as individuals who are actually interconnected behind the scenes, via shared threads and via common origins: Several of you may be interconnected in either or both of two ways – by sharing a thread, or (less directly, in terms of interconnection, not in terms of intimacy) by common origin in the same Sam. And there are your lives as common participants in a given 3D time-space complex, call it. In each case, there is a veil between yourselves and the ultimate unknowable reality. This veil (it’s a metaphor, of course) is not deliberately placed, but represents the fact that one can only know so much of the truth. The veil may equally well be described as the screen upon which you project your idea of what reality is. Clearly, no two people’s ideas will be exactly the same, yet equally clearly (we hope), you will each have enough in common to share your time-space complex.
Yes, we intend to spell that out a little, but when you deal in sequential processing, everything takes a little longer.
Like the joke, “I can’t do but three things as a time.”
We are inventing the term time-space complex not because we like coining new expressions – we really don’t – but because it is necessary if we are to express a concept in shorthand that will allow it to be wielded in a longer argument. We mean it to express a very flexible definition of a common 3D culture.
I think I have the sense of it.
Proceed, and we’ll see, as usual.
Flexible, because you want the scale to expand or contract easily, as need be. So, a space-time complex could be America in general, or America in the 20th century, or America’s idea of freedom and equality, or Virginia as a state of mind in colonial days, or a common American (or European, or British, or any nation or area or civilization) idea as seen in respect to any given subject.
That’s right. It envisions a concept that will function as a sort of individual on a larger scale.
Only more abstract than an actual individual.
It will become clearer as we look at what we wish to accomplish. So, there’s Frank, the individual point of view that began to be shaped in 1946 and has continued up to this point, that’s one. Then, there’s Frank in his larger consciousness (assuming one can call “consciousness” something he is necessarily mostly not conscious of); all the “past lives” and direct resonances that feed into his mind moment to moment, visibly or invisibly interacting with the conscious reasoning and perceiving and reacting going on that was our first example, that’s two.
Then there is Frank considered as part of a web of consciousness that may be traced by seeing the invisible connections not as they express in other 3D moments, but in the present 3D moment: what you might call non-3D to non-3D to conscious expression in 3D. That’s three, and it is of course the largest yet.
Then – and this will be easy for some, not so easy for others – there is a fourth level (though it is more a turning of the focus of the microscope than a matter of actual discrete levels, you understand; it is, say, a different level of analysis). This is Frank in unconscious co-participation with others as sketcher of the reality that seems objective to him and to all others.
Each of these levels has its own way of seeing the world, you see. That way stems from what each one is. And in effect, the limits of each level’s perception determines for it what is “real,” what seems to be objectively “out there,” as opposed to “in here.”
And they’re all at once.
That’s only going to confuse people, unless you spell it out a little.
I mean, you’ve just sketched four ways of looking just at me, let alone the other billions of people in the world. There’s bound to be some blurring of the picture when it is seen through so many lenses.
Is that not your experience? You[-all] live within a continually shifting idea of the rules and boundaries of what is possible. That’s less because the boundaries change than because who it is that is perceiving them changes, usually without you being very aware of the change. As so often, it’s a question of “Which you are we talking about?”
So what we are trying to get across is this: You see the world as individuals but also as participants in what may be expressed as a group mind. The same person may seem the world in one way at one time (that is, in one mood) and in another way at another time (that is, with different connections activating) and in yet another way as part of a group mind. This is still too slippery to spell out in detail or in clarity; we’re going to have to rely upon people intuiting, rather than merely logically deriving, what we’re getting at. Only, remember to double-check your intentions; don’t jump into Psychic’s Disease merely because the results of your intuitions can’t be checked by logical or factual analysis.
Life in 3D may be said to be a trance. You’ve seen it, within the [overall] 3D trance, when you watch a movie or TV series, or read a novel, and the characters come alive for you. The magnificent seven, or the family in Bonanza, or Horatio Hornblower, or the personnel of “El Ministerio del Tiempo” become real to you. You experience them. How much less real is Hoss Cartwright than, say, James Madison, in the continuing dream that is your internal reaction to external 3D stimuli? You see? “Internal” and “external” are a lot blurrier, a lot more of a metaphysical distinction, than you would otherwise expect, once you look at life through the lens of third-tier effects. You have it; explain it just for redundancy’s sake, for those who may not have it.
This isn’t anything you haven’t said before in effect, if not in so many words. But it does seem clearer now, perhaps because of context. If we – the unknowable “we” that we really are in our inmost being – live amid a 3D reality that is really a trance, really a commonly spun dream, the components of that dream mean less in themselves than we might think. Lincoln’s assassination might be said to be as real, but only as real, as Captain Bush getting blown up in a Hornblower novel. Not that they are equally real or equally unreal; they aren’t, but that their third-tier effects may be equally real.
And here you begin to touch upon another aspect of your lives as creators. “You” created the priest in your novel, yet now you find yourself thinking of him as if he were a real person. If you will cast back to the process of creating that novel, you may remember “fishing for” the characters, feeling for characteristics needed, fishing among the participants in programs you had attended, and in others whom you knew. Was that really a merely-conscious process? “Merely-conscious” may seem strange, but you know what we mean. You selected, but your selection process included mental elements not necessarily visible to the “you” who was choosing in 2007 and 2008. So in a way “Francois” came to you; he was more discovered by you than created by you. And this, even though he never existed in 3D reality.
And there’s our hour. Do you want to give us a starting-place for tomorrow?
Not necessarily tomorrow. You can take a morning off if you wish. But when we resume, let’s say some more about your nature as creators. It is what you are, even when you don’t notice it.
Okay. Well, thanks for all this. This is one time I felt we could have continued smoothly, but for constrains like attention.
Little by little gets the job done. Just look at the track record. Do you think you could write a book in a day? That isn’t how you create your lives, either. Perseverance beats momentary inspiration, every time.