TGU — perspective

TGU – perspective

Tuesday, May 22, 2018

5:30 a.m. I just re-read yesterday’s, hoping to get a sense of where we’re going, and I think it did help in that it reminded me that we’re going to talk about strife and contention, aren’t we?

Bear in mind continually that the ILC process – and remember, we, not you, first named it Intuitive Linked Communication, to distinguish it from the idea of passive reception such as channeling – this is an interactive process, and the more you contribute, the richer and more pointed the result. So, your going back and scratching your head and saying, “Do they know where they want to go with this?” may be an integral part of the process. As long as your participation does not interfere with your receptivity, such activity may save us both time, in that it aligns the 3D and non-3D minds.

Now, our long story arc, if you want to think of the process that way, is leading to your own view of your own lives as integral part of the largest possible view of reality.

That got garbled, I think. You mean, maybe, how our lives matter to the world, and how the world matters to us?

That’s the idea. The 3D human part of who you are is not irrelevant to the rest of what you are, let alone to the reality in which it lives, 3D and non-3D. Neither is that seemingly external reality irrelevant to your personal life and your spiritual (call it that) development. Really, it should be obvious: Life has no loose ends, no pieces left over in construction. But although this is obvious as soon as it is stated, it has aspects that may be less obvious – and, likely, will be less gratifying.

So we have arrived at politics and strife, at the problem of evil in the world.

Yes, only let’s restate it for clarity. The problem is many-sided:

  • Why (how) does evil exist?
  • Why (how) is it that I don’t fit in the world around me?
  • Why isn’t it clear if the meaning of life involves a purpose beyond the living of it, and – if it does – why can’t we see easily what that purpose (or purposes) may be?

We could add more questions, and were about to, but thought this is more than enough for the moment.

The questions don’t quite fit together, or I should say, that’s the sense of it I get, even while I sense that they probably do.

What they have in common is that they depend upon definitions. Begin with the wrong understanding and they become unanswerable, or, worse, they seem to make the wrong answers not only right but obviously right, even incontestably right.

So this long process has been to educate us to be able to see things in a certain way.

That’s a definition of education in general, and is as true here as anywhere.

It implies that the answers you suggest to these questions will not only be slightly or greatly different for each person, but will change, or seem to the individual to change, over time.

As will the questions themselves, yes. Once you move to a place where the old answers don’t satisfy, neither will the old questions. It is in fact the same progression.

So you have a dozen people of good will and good heart and good intellect gathered in a program for a weekend with a common shared intent, and the intent itself is somewhat more altruistic than may be realized. That is, nobody is in it for the sake of selfish gain – certainly not in hope of achieving advantage over others, in a dog-eat-dog context or frame of mind. You have two trainers of the same composition and intent [as the participants]. You have exercises and group mind centered upon self-development in a supportive environment. And even in that circumstance, you are mildly haunted by the specter of what chaos and ill-will could be introduced as disruptive elements if politics were to be allowed in.

This wouldn’t have been so at every moment of time but is so in your supercharged moment. Well, why should it be so?

Wow, as you were giving me that long graf and I knew where it was going —

Or as you were phrasing what we gave you in an instant —

Either way, yes – while it was going on, I thought, Wow, if we dared, we could have a program devoted to self-development through (rather than avoiding) political and ideological (and even theological, I suppose) differences. Because the conflict would provide plenty of juice, only I don’t know how it could be managed, even with all the participants knowing in advance that we would be using such differences as fuel for movement to a more integrated – “higher” – plane.

Yes, perhaps it could be done. But the question remains, why should such differences be so potentially explosive even among people of intelligent heart-filled goodwill who are pursuing a common purpose? Which is to say, Why does evil exist in the world?

Doesn’t seem the same statement or description of question at all, does it.

Because we are linked at the moment, I sort of see it, but no, they seem like very different questions.

Well, go back and look at the questions we reeled off. Do they look like they’re all concerned with the same thing?

Again, a perception just beyond the edge of awareness, but it’s only a sense. I certainly couldn’t phrase it.

The common denominator could be said to be multiplicity of viewpoint. Or, fragmentation of one common viewpoint. Or, individual embodiment of part of a whole that is vastly bigger than anyone could embody.

That makes it a bit clearer. You talked a while ago about evil and sin. We devoted quite a bit of time to the subject, actually. Your ideas and expressions may not be what theologians had in mind (or they may, for all I know) but they did illustrate the world we live in as seen from the view you have been giving us.

If you want it in a nutshell, it is this: No one point of view can ever encompass all of what is true, because a point of view is a vector, it is a source of perspective, and perspective itself is a systematic helpful orienting distortion of reality.

That ought to rile a few people, the idea of perspective as distortion.

But that is exactly what it is, whether you think of time or of space in 3D, let alone greater “perspectives,” if you will allow us the play on words. Nearer things loom larger than farther ones, even though you know they aren’t really. But your perspective allows you to makes sense of the world with you in the center. This is useful. It is necessary. And from that perspective issue all your values.

But if you are the center of your world (and rightly so), you are also a tiny part of the world, and equally rightly so. Keep in mind that both conditions apply, and you won’t go far wrong. Lose sight of either, or reject either view, and distortion immediately arises. Thus evil, and a sense of not fitting, and an inability to make sense of the world, are three aspects of the one original mistake, or slippage. And it is in order to correct this mistake with you, to smooth your path, that we are engaged in this conversation.

And, although, to quote the Carpenters, we’ve only just begun, that will do it for now. A long way to go with this, too much to begin anew at the end of an hour.

All right. Thanks as always.

Leave a Reply

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