TGU — The dynamics of interaction

Wednesday, May 16, 2018

4 a.m. I’m ready if you are ready. You’ve been giving us good stuff, and I’m anxious for more.

Of course – or perhaps this isn’t an “of course” – you realize that being anxious for more can get in the way of receiving more, if it manifests in the wrong way.

Well, I think I do know that. The ideal state is – as they say at TMI – to be in a state of expectation, without expectations.

Even that may be overdone if it moves from acceptance – from receptivity – to what we might call famished over-anxiety, like an underfed dog desperate for anything at all to eat. It isn’t a problem here; we mention it as a general truth.


After all this time, you realize that we often use whatever you have been reading, or whatever has happened to you, or whatever memories are active, using them as springboard to segue into something useful to you. Dreams, of course, are the same process. It occurs to us now that the process could do with an explanatory word, because one might jump to either of two wrong conclusions about it, and clearing this up will help illustrate our larger focus on the interface between personal and impersonal.

You might think (1) They put that memory in play, or led me to pick up that book, or arranged that conversation or meeting, or whatever, or (2) They took advantage of what happened and said, “We can use this.”

And, let me guess, the right answer is sometimes one and sometimes the other, or maybe both and neither.

More the latter, because the dynamics of our interaction – of interaction between non-3D and 3D components – is not as simple and straightforward as logic might suggest. The way you usually think of us allows the “individual” analogy on our end to sneak in.

It isn’t one-on-one, in quite the way we think of it.

That’s right. It’s all well and good – and useful, which is saying the same thing – to say you have a guardian angel, or a higher self, or a non-3D component in the sense of an individual spirit connected to an individual soul. Those are only approximations, verbal makeshifts, because, remember, the very idea of an individual is something of a compromise. And it isn’t quite wrong (in that the definition isn’t quite definite, if we may put it that way) but a closer look is in order.

By the way, notice why religious and philosophical thought is so often over-simplified: It isn’t so much inability to explain, nor intent to deceive. It is that no one can keep explaining so many misunderstood aspects of reality every time, and so the simplified concepts will keep sneaking back in as unexamined assumptions. Also, what is a religion to do for the simpler minds that are unable to hold fine distinctions or are unable to perceive ambiguities or deeper conundrums? It is one thing to say, “Tell them the truth as you see it,” but another to know how to do it so that they may hear, when you already know they cannot understand.

So truth gets told as stories.

Parables, yes. And don’t think that isn’t what is happening here, often enough! An explanation is always a parable, in that it is only as much as the explainer understands, told in a way adapted (ideally) to what the listener may be able to understand in turn. There are transmission errors between reality and the explainer, not merely between the explainer and the student.

Well, that’s encouraging!

We smile. It should be, actually, in that it ought to remove the pressure to be right in everything (or any thing!) you say. You do the best you can, and the hell with it.

I hesitated to write that last, thinking, “That’s me, not them,” then thought, “No reason to assume that.”

In fact, the assumption would contain a deeper assumption, which is the one we are working to undermine here.

That there is a “you” and a “me.”

Well, yes and no. There is a relative difference, if not an absolute one, but we’d say the mistaken assumption lies in assuming you know the nature and confines of either “you” or “me.”

If you will hark back to the very beginnings of our explanations, when you and Rita were posing questions, we distinguished between the relative isolation and single-being-ness of the 3D and the connectedness of the non-3D.

[I felt a long hesitation.] We almost went off on a side-trail there about what it means to be a single being.

But it was a linguistic misunderstanding, not worth pursuing. In a sense, we in the non-3D circumstances could be considered to be all one thing, hence – a single being. This might lead you to see more similarity than actually exists in our state of being single and yours. Then, between our state of being plural, and yours. If you wish to pursue it sometime, we could, but it may prove less fruitful than it appears, because as we say, it is based more on a linguistic, than on a physical, similarity.

You as 3D-oriented beings are suspended between 3D and non-3D perceptions. It’s hard for you to keep your concepts clear. Yet it is that very confusion of, or let’s say overlapping of, concepts, that lets you offer a valuable perspective to us in non-3D (which, you realize, includes you as part of the All-D).

That’s sounding more confusing than it is, I think. What I get is that our 3D-oriented perceptions are a counterpoint to non-3D perceptions, and that we are on both sides of the fence.

That’s true, but we doubt it will seem much less confusing, to many. And it brings us back to the point we are belaboring. Life is different, richer, more complex and interactive, than your concepts of it. It always is; there’s no way around it. So on the one hand, you needn’t worry that you haven’t quite got it all neatly wrapped up. On the other hand, the wrapping-up process isn’t a waste of time.

Now – speaking of wasting time – it is taking us a long time to relate this to the trance of the ever-present moment. The connection is this: The living present moment is the trance. It is the creative place. It is the magic cauldron. Nothing can be done at any other time than the living present moment, because no other time exists! The only reason you don’t realize that in every cell of your body, in every response of body-mind to the changes always around you, is because of the scripts and filters that stop you from living there in active consciousness.

I remember some of this from The Cosmic Internet (which I woke up realizing we should have called Using the Cosmic Internet). Screens, scripts, filters get between what really is and what we think really is.

Yes, but. (It’s always “Yes, but” as long as you are learning. It is only when the word “but” drops off that you move into dogmatic certainty.) What we said isn’t wrong, but it will look different when you remember that neither end of the “you / we” polarity we sketched is quite as simple as the sketch implied.

The vast impersonal forces were not taken into account, if only because one can’t say everything all at one time. Even the vast personal forces were scarcely hinted at. We were dealing with the subject – of necessity – as if both you and we were more simple than is the case.

It occurs to me, Seth overcame the drag of the vast impersonal forces by dictating.

He didn’t overcome them, exactly. He employed them, as we do, by fitting his conversation into the current moment, but yes, the pre-preparation of his books allowed him to give “Joseph” a product unaffected by side-trails or digressions, productive or otherwise. Those came in during conversation.

I sometimes wish you guys would give me dictation. It would be easier.

How do you give dictation to somebody who doesn’t follow orders?

I don’t know, tactfully?

We’re smiling too. And that is enough for the moment.

So, looking back, what was today’s theme?

The dynamics of interaction.

Thank you, and till next time.


2 thoughts on “TGU — The dynamics of interaction

  1. Re: I sometimes wish you guys would give me dictation. It would be easier.
    How do you give dictation to somebody who doesn’t follow orders?

    Haha! These little responses are often when I link in with them in the easiest way. It delights me.

    The concept of how our own different personalities contribute to this “great work” reminds me of something Shirley McClain said in an interview. She said that in acting a part, Meryl Streep drops her own personality and totally gives over to the role she is playing, whereas she, Shirley, always remains herself. Shirley said she looks to find how the character she is playing walks, how she moves through her life. So Shirley steps into that dance, BUT she is still Shirley doing that dance.

    Both are great actresses. One way is not superior to the other. They each add to the richness offered to audiences.

    BTW: I just got the Dragon voice-to-text software, so am starting the transcriptions of the teachings I have been getting. Each in our own way… :–)

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.