Saturday, July 21, 2018
1:20 a.m. So, guys, more on cognitive dissonance?
Yes, but in a direction you haven’t much thought about: cognitive dissonance among your (everyone’s) non-3D components as they interact not only with the 3D but with each other. But this requires that you be able to see things differently, in order to understand.
Well, I’m listening.
The misunderstanding that persistently warps people’s understanding is that you keep thinking “we and they” in inappropriate situations. It is important that you realize that things interact, and that “all is one” does not preclude conflict, but assures it. Just look around.
The second point I get intuitively, but the first point is not yet well stated.
Well, think of it. You define yourselves in contradistinction to the rest of the world. That is, whatever “we-ness” you are thinking in terms of, the rest of reality is made to serve as the “they-ness.” If you say “we men,” the they is women. If “we humans,” it’s non-humans. If “we channelers, or we roofers, or we Democrats or we fans of Colin Wilson or whatever, the choosing of a “we” automatically de facto constellates a “they.” That isn’t hard, surely.
No, I’m with you so far.
Well, you do it with “we in 3D” versus “they in non-3D”; we Terrans versus ETs; we of one persuasion, of one ethical value system, of one set of rules of conduct, etc. But what may not have occurred to you is this: As long as you are defining yourself or others, in any one way, unintended corollaries are going to come into play.
So, you’re thinking of yourself for the moment as an American, say, or a student of history, or a fanatical or mild or indifferent participant in politics or religion or science. While you are thinking of yourself in that context, it makes a difference if you think of yourself (automatically; that is, unconsciously) as 3D only or as All-D, because if the former, you are never going to consider the ramifications in the non-3D; if the latter, you are going to see any distinction, any source of conflict or separation, differently. It isn’t that suddenly conflicts will be defined away as nonexistent or meaningless: It is that suddenly they will be seen to extend farther than you used to dream.
We’ve touched on this idea before, I seem to remember.
It is our teaching style to lightly touch on various points as seeds for future development if and as it becomes a natural further exposition. So, yes, we have touched on it before. But all your work with Rita – It’s All One World particularly – serves as stepping-stones to this, which we now propose to explore in some depth.
You are not what you think you are. Yes, you are more than your physical bodies; yes, you are an extension of something greater than your present 3D persona; yes, you are part of All That Is. But now it’s time to look at things a little differently.
I think, smiling, “What, again?” And I’m all for it, so, proceed, by all means.
It is at once simple in concept and difficult to explain in a way not likely to be instantly misinterpreted. That is to say, it may take a while.
The thing I got right away – and we have touched on this before, too – is that war on Earth is a reflection of war in non-3D. Conflict of values means conflict of being, in a sense, and that is not a matter of conflict among 3D puppets but of conflict in non-3D spilling over into 3D, you might say, since non-3D is primary and 3D secondary.
That is a precipitant way of putting it, but perhaps it will advance the argument. Remember what we told you, a good while ago: Reality contains all contradictions, and must balance every negative and plus, with nothing left over. We don’t mean “negative and positive” only in moral or emotional or any other terms, but we do mean it in each of them.
There is no point in papering over the discord and seeing only the harmony. There cannot be only one half of any dichotomy.
You can’t have up without down, in without out, etc., you always said.
Not can you have love and light without fear and dark, or how would you recognize them? (And there is a thought that would do with some further exposition!) Regardless of anyone’s preferences, conflict is built into all situations other than homogeneity, although it is also true that conflict implies cooperation, another set of linked opposites dependent upon one another.
This being true – and it is, take our word for it if you need to – then remember that you are not denizens of 3D only, but of All-D, and your own consciousnesses are not confined to 3D only, but may expand beyond it at any time to experience more of the rest of your being. Then, how can you be subject to conflict in 3D and not also in non-3D? Conflict is not a matter of limited perspective and perception of separation, alone. It is also a matter of being what you are, in a reality largely consisting of beings who are not what you are.
In other words, the afterlife is not going to be harps and clouds, love and light and perpetual rest.
It is not going to be only those things.
How long would you want perpetual rest? How long will love and light satisfy you, given that fear and darkness continue to exist and have their rightful place in things? How long before harps and clouds – that is, harmony and non-material non-shape – satisfy someone who remembers the joys and sorrows of an ecstatically pointed 3D existence? “Heaven” as a way-station, sure. “Hell” as a place of (self-inflicted) punishment for one’s sins, sure. “Purgatory” as the burning-off of dross so that one can get back to the pure metal, sure. But these are processes, not destinations. Life is movement, growth, choice, change, development. It is also conflict, cooperation, every emotion, every intellectual achievement, every stage of self-mastery. Is love and light, clouds and harps, going to top that forever? Should it?
So let us return to basics. Anything less than everything is going to be partial. This is as true of non-3D as 3D and should be obvious, if you will keep in mind that “spiritual” and “physical” are not separate but are merely relative polarities within a greater unity. Your 3D self is part of a greater All-D self that could be subdivided into 3D and non-3D but would remain one thing. Thus, what affects you in 3D affects you in non-3D, and vice versa. What you are by your choices affects the non-3D in turn. What you are created as (from non-3D) affects you in 3D, obviously. Again, these are not hard concepts, but may be unfamiliar ways of seeing, hence require being spelled out a little.
Thus, war in the non-3D among the adherents of different values, just as in 3D. This doesn’t mean armies and weapons, any more than it necessarily does in 3D. But it does mean conflicts of values, conflicts of views, conflicts of advice and counsel and assistance. Ultimately all is love, all is one, all is well. Only, neither you nor we live in “ultimately.” So hold on to the reassurance, but don’t count on experiencing it in the meantime before you become one with All That Is. And that implies surrendering your sense of individuality, which you aren’t ready to do yet, and why should you? And who is going to make you do it?
And that’s enough for the moment. You can see – if you can’t, think about it – that there is going to be cognitive dissonance between whatever one believes and whatever deeper insight one obtains. That is why we prefaced this by reminding you that only Beginner’s Mind would allow you to avoid the pitfall of trying to cram this new idea into an accepted system. Think of it, rather, as benign dynamite.
Oh, I like the term! Benign dynamite, meaning, it’s going to blow things up, but it can be trusted.
In the absence of proof – which can come only later – it’s either trust or distrust. Neither one is entirely reliable, nor entirely desirable, but in practice you usually have to choose. Only remember, there’s nothing to stop you from choosing again, and again. What some people call flip-flopping, others call changing their mind to follow the evidence.
At any rate, enough for now.
Okay, very interesting. Our thanks as always, and see you next time.