Friday May 4, 2018
5:05 a.m. Okay, let’s go at it again. Active and hostile forces? Or some other aspect of present-moment reality?
Let’s look at the unknowable nature of the world. You don’t need to be able to know a thing in order to know that it can’t be known. There is value to knowing that what you know (or think you know) is more an approximation than a measurement. But let’s look at this unknowable essence in light of the filters that make it difficult for you to see clearly.
Some of this you gave us long ago.
And some we didn’t. Repetition in different contexts is necessary, as we have pointed out repeatedly. And it isn’t repetition so much as revisiting the same thing in its different aspects.
I wasn’t criticizing, exactly. More like commenting on how hard it seems to be to get beyond certain places. It is as if you – we – get stuck.
As if we lose traction. Yes, we’re aware of that, and there is something of that. But then after we have imprinted a central question in your mind, unpredictably there will come the “aha!” moment that readjusts things, and that’s what we work toward, because it is that moment that provides, if not a new scaffolding, at least the foundations for one.
In this case, what we are working toward is an understanding of the present moment as it really is, rather than as it is commonly experienced. Get that, and many things will become clear in association with one another, things that before that moment you will have held separately.
I sometimes think that the fact that we experience the world in separate mental buckets is the single biggest obstacle we face in seeing things right.
And it is of course the inevitable result of your immersion in 3D. So the obvious answer is –.
Oh, I get it, no problem. The obvious answer is to get into better contact with our non-3D component, which acts as compensating source of gestalt perception, seeing whole what we in 3D see only in pieces.
That is sort of true, but subject to so many qualifying elements as to make it a hazardous guide. It would be a bit safer to put it this way: Your 3D brain has left and right hemisphere functioning that (generalizing) provides sequential and gestalt perception. As they work together, you get a better handle on things, as the view of the whole orients the details and the details check the whole. So it isn’t strictly a 3D v. non-3D division of labor. And in a larger sense, you in 3D may be considered as the left brain of your All-D self, your non-3D components functioning as right brain. However, remember, this is metaphor, analogy, not careful description.
Strange morning so far. It is 5:30, 25 minutes, and only three pages. But I notice it goes like that sometimes. I’m at the end of another notebook (that I began March 29), so I know that things do pile up, if I keep adding word to word. Still, some mornings it is like pulling teeth, or rowing against the tide.
The key is to keep rowing.
I know. Next time I’m going to sign up to be coxswain, calling out, “Stroke. Stroke. Stroke.”
And now you are thinking more of filling pages and minutes than of actually learning something.
Recalibrate, I know. [pause] Okay.
So many things to keep in mind at the same time. We need an image to contain these elements: contradictory forces and values; extreme plasticity of the present moment; the entire unknowability of reality not because “God is keeping secrets” but because the lesser does not have the receptors to understand the greater; the extension – suspension – of an All-D creature between 3D and non-3D; the connections among them in all directions – contemporaneous, along soul-development lines, back to the Sam, etc.; continuous relative readjustment looking like alternate versions of reality or like perpetual revisions of reality.
And that isn’t a complete list, by far, is it?
No. But you see the problem. If we have an image holding various elements in relationship to one another, in effect your RAM increases to be able to comprehend it, because the icon requires so much less memory than a comprehensive description would. In the absence of such an image, such an icon, the readjustment can’t be held even if it can be fleetingly realized. But you don’t come to an image first and draw the conclusions afterward. The readjustment has to come first, to precipitate the image.
A chicken-and-egg situation.
No, not really, the new realization always has to come first. Then, when it has been capsulized or incorporated into an image, the further implications of that image may be developed, leading to greater insights. Of course, this means you should be careful in choosing your images.
Do we choose them, or do we receive them?
Well, that’s a good point. But in practice there is little difference. The concentration on the problem will bring the new images within your range, and whether it is you associating ideas or you actually doing the work of thinking about it, the result will be the same, or anyway will serve, either way.
So what is our coordinating image?
You tell us. That’s how it has worked so far, mostly.
Oh yes. Why do you think you so often accused yourself silently of making it all up? When time and time again what we said echoed what you had said to yourself, or thought, or suspected, naturally it would look to you like you dramatizing your own thoughts. Of course, in a sense that is your life – is everybody’s life – but not in the sense you mean it. But for encapsulating relationships into distinct awarenesses, there is nothing like a mind in All-D conditions, able to drill down into 3D detail and yet preserve non-3D awareness of interrelation. So – your image?
Well, all I have is a vague memory of Carlos Castaneda’s division between the tonal and the nagual, if I have remembered the terms correctly. But that isn’t an image.
Bear in mind, you have examples of how this is done. You don’t need to begin as if nobody had ever done this before.
Religions, yes, I get that. Siva, Jupiter, The Great Spirit –
No, I felt that too. I was being led astray by something – the rhythm of the idea, we might call it.
Stick to what you know best, and then allude to the others.
Okay. So, in the Christian mythos, there is –
No, that isn’t right either. Frist I was going to list saints and all, then I thought images, like The Garden of Eden etc., which is of course pre-Christian. So, I’m here in receptive mode. Can’t you jump-start the process?
We had hoped you could easily sketch an alternate way of understanding the world, as preparation for revisioning it. What is wrong with sketching the Christian mythos and the materialist mythos, by way of contrast?
Well, Christianity says the world was created out of nothingness by God as an act of intention – he spoke the world into being, and created it and saw that it was good. He created the world, created the Adam as the crowning achievement, related to it directly (talked to it in the garden), saw that it was lonely and created the Eve as its complement. They were tempted into seeing the world as duality, which resulted in their experiencing shame at their nakedness, and resulted in their expulsion from the garden – for their disobedience, we are told. There followed what Churchill called “the lamentable catalog of human crime.” Cain introduced murder, and things got worse, until it appeared there was no way back. Then God sent Jesus to redeem humanity by suffering for it, and I’m afraid I’m no longer a very good interpreter, because I cannot understand the logic here. Nonetheless Jesus somehow in his life and death reconnected God and man and this provided a direct and an indirect link between humans and God. That is, people could follow his example and they could ask his intercession and that of the saints. (But all this is too judicial for my tastes, and I tend to think the important thing is that Jesus somehow connected as a spirt and soul in some way that opened the way for us to connect in similar fashion. All I know for sure is that history changed in the wake of Jesus’ life, as Chesterton pointed out in The Everlasting Man.)
The materialist mythos, by contrast, is simpler and bleaker. The world either always existed or came into existence via the Big Bang — that is, spontaneously, without plan, without cause. Through an automatic process, things developed over time. Evolution (used interchangeably with a sense of a directing controlling intelligence, though never described as such) formed suns, then planets, then – within this planet, anyway – oceans, land, vegetable and animal life and, as a sort of late addition to the entries, humans. Human intelligence may or may not be real; it may be only the epiphenomenon sitting upon life. And life, by the way, is the exception to the general rule that the vast majority of reality is dead. As to the purpose or prospects of humanity or of life itself – there is neither. The stars will cool, life will die out, end of game. Yes, that is the description “science” gives of the meaning of life, as far as I know. That is – it probably isn’t how advanced scientists see things, or maybe it is, but in either case this is the popular view of what “scientists say.” It reminds me of the joke where one guy says, “The world is going to end in three billion years,” and the other guy, startled and appalled, says, “What?!” The first guy repeats himself, and the second guy says, “Phew! I thought you said million.” It’s very edifying.
But now we have gone 80 minutes. Do we stop here, or can you point it up for us?
Let’s give you, and any of your readers who care to participate, a homework assignment. Try to create a story around what we have been saying for these past 20 years, and see if a new image crystallizes that will help move us forward. No harm (and some good possible) if you wish to associate it with Castaneda, or Cayce, or Gurdjieff, or Seth, or whomever.
Interesting idea. Maybe I’ll do that tomorrow in lieu of doing this. (Or maybe I’ll just take the day off.)
In either case, you see what is needed, a summing-up nor for the sake of pausing, but for jumping off.
Okay. Thanks for all this.