TGU — linking things up

Tuesday. May 1, 2018

6:10 a.m. A little later than usual. Shall we continue where we left off?

Si, don Salvador.

Very funny.

So yesterday, you updated your files, as you sometimes put it, and the process of bringing into consciousness separate pieces that had each remained tape-looping – that is, three mini-programs that had remained autonomous – integrated them.

I’d better translate that, I think. We did say what you mean, but it was so clumsy and, for that matter, more allusive than specific. Yesterday I discovered that three knowings that I had held throughout my boyhood – each held separately and not in any common context – were actually three examples of a knowing that proceeded from a different way of experiencing the world, a way that had no support in anything in my life. Oh, except comic books, come to think of it. Superman (the TV show, too). I saw what everybody knew was fiction – impossible fiction – and something within me said the underlying reality was true.

Same thing happened at age 23 when I read Colin Wilson’s novel The Mind Parasites. It rang true, only now I was on the brink of life and wanted to find those powers, the course of those powers, and instead had no idea how to go about it.

You see, another active linking up of what had been disconnected memories. This is how consciousness is forged.

A little late in life, I’d say!

No, not at all. This isn’t the first time and it needn’t be the last time, and the process can be continuous (relatively so, anyway) or quite intermittent, or very very occasional, depending partly upon one’s personality and temperament, partly upon other things. But knowing what is possible is the beginning of growth. In fact, even knowing that more is possible is enough to continue the process.

In a sense, it is an act of faith, or say an attitude of faith. Believe that more is available, and it is.

Believe more is available, and more is available to you, because you open yourself to the possibility. Believe in the evidence of your senses and your social environment, and maybe not And this is a good segue into the effect on the individual of the times s/he lives in.

While writing that out, I got a sense of a young Muslim in a Muslim society accepting the religious reality of the world in a way not open to a secular Muslim, say, or a non-Muslim in the same society.

No, you added that last out of the momentum of the sentence and the seeming logic to follow. Calibrate.

Okay.

It is a very fine line; it requires a steady hand on the knob of the microscope.

Yes. Got it.

The sense was of how a Muslim environment provides a certain combination of taken-for-granted attributes.

Shall I do it?

Yes, only do it slowly and carefully.

The point here, I take it, is that the environment we are raised in gives us our unconscious assumptions about reality. Our family does – particularly our parents; our contemporaries [our age cohort] as we interact with them; our neighborhood, and the extended network of established patterns that we call society. It all provides us with accepted patterns. No, I mean it all provides us with established patterns which we as children react to. We accept them, and perhaps we rebel against them, but they are primary and our own opinions are secondary.

Your summary is correct, but the nuance at the end isn’t quite right. A 3D individual’s own innate convictions are primary (though the fact that they are convictions rather than merely obvious reality is unlikely to be realized), but the reality of the world as it presents itself is equally primary, so to speak. But don’t forget, whether the individual connections match or don’t match those of the individual’s society, that individual was placed in (formed within) that society not by accident but for a reason. As in the rest of your lives, placement within a society does not equal victimhood.

From any 3D individual’s view, the world around it pre-existed ­it, continues on its own terms regardless of it, and is therefore superior to it. Yet at the same time, that individual knows that it itself is primary, that it is more important than the world considered as an abstraction, and – sometimes – knows that the times either answer to the individual’s wishes (seen as magic) or conform to patterns agreeable to the individual (seen as providence, or perhaps good fortune).

It is this schizophrenic view of reality that most people live as normal. The lack of integration of the two viewpoints is a cause of

Sorry, lost it.

Let’s say merely that just as you took mini-programs that were tape-looping and in seeing them in their proper context changed your consciousness to that degree, so it is with others. As individuals re-associate fragmented mini-programs, and are themselves brought more into alignment (as if they themselves were mini-programs, you see), the consciousness of the whole similarly advances.

However, it is a mistake to jump from the individual to the whole of humanity, as if various levels of association did not exist or were of no consequence. And this too is part of our theme.

As with individuals, so with societies? Level after level of progressively greater integration?

Well, just look around you. Nobody really experiences just oneself and “the world.” Instead, one experiences the family, the local tribe (so to speak), the village or neighborhood, the larger, more impersonal, more conceptual, city, province, country, empire, whatever.

Now, all those various levels of abstraction are more than abstraction. They exist in reality and have their own unifying thought-form, call it. You and your family —

I can’t figure out how to put this, because I don’t quite have the right words, and that’s because I don’t quite have to concept. I sort of do, but not quite. I’ll recalibrate.

You know how you sometimes say, “There’s no such thing as a France”? In saying that, you mean that France is an abstraction, and you are right and mostly wrong. It is an abstraction, but abstractions have their own souls. There is a soul of France, and everyone born among it (don’t know how else to phrase it but “among” it) partakes in it. They may rebel against it, or embrace it, or live entirely unconscious of it, but they live within it. Similarly, every province, every city and town and village and family. They all have their own soul, and the individual partakes of each. You might think of them as like overlapping Russian dolls, one contained within the next.

This is real, and not just playing with words, and we can associate it for you in two words: power spots.

Interesting association.

Do you think the earth is inert and dead, or even is living but not conscious? Do you think it has somehow managed to exist in 3D and not also in non-3D? how could it do that?

But this is part of a much larger discussion, of course, so try to keep in mind the relationships among the parts.

For that, we rely upon your periodic sweeping-together of elements.

Yes, but don’t. What you work to understand is yours. What is handed to you is only an opportunity to do the work. It doesn’t get done by itself. The little we have said here today might offer several intriguing avenues for new understanding.

And that’s it for today?

As you realize.

Very well, thanks as always.

 

5 thoughts on “TGU — linking things up

  1. “Si, don Salvador.”

    Oh man! That cracked me right up this morning – too funny! Like Adaequatio, (which intigued and therefore hugely sidetracked me) when I saw your first reference to El Minister Del Tiempo last week, I looked it up, checked it out on Netflix, and am now firmly hooked. The episode I watched 2 nights ago was the best yet: the one where “Pacino” plays the priest and “Angustias” plays the Abbess. His expressions of long-suffering when people kept asking him to take confession….hilarious! And the cooking and semi-romantic interactions between Napoleon and Angustias….oh man. What a great show! I’ll be watching the next episode tonight.

    Re: “We accept them, and perhaps we rebel against them, but they are primary and our own opinions are secondary.

    Your summary is correct, but the nuance at the end isn’t quite right. A 3D individual’s own innate convictions are primary (though the fact that they are convictions rather than merely obvious reality is unlikely to be realized), but the reality of the world as it presents itself is equally primary, so to speak.”

    I was drawn to your initial “primary/secondary” but then got lost in TGU’s expansion on it. Would you be able to simplify any of it further? If not, no worries, I’ll keep re-reading and see what comes. I know sometimes concepts are just “nutz” to try and describe with present day language/vocabulary….it’s like words just do not exist that convey an exact meaning, especially of some higher concepts…

    Thank you for sharing and for the great morning chuckle.

  2. “It is an abstraction, but abstractions have their own souls. There is a soul of France, and everyone born among it (don’t know how else to phrase it but “among” it) partakes in it. They may rebel against it, or embrace it, or live entirely unconscious of it, but they live within it.”

    This put me in mind of a Garrison Keillor story in which he states that, in Lake Wobegon, everyone is Lutheran. Even the atheists – because it is the Lutheran God they don’t believe in.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *