Tuesday, November 13, 2018
6:45 a.m. For the past several days I have been busily undoing the results of months of careful eating, putting back the pounds at an incredible rate. Why?
Maybe your idea of yourself – your ideal image – is not realistic. Maybe you don’t exist ideally at a slim rate but at a more substantial one. You can see this easily in women who are always dieting, in order to try to reach their “ideal” size, even though others may see nothing wrong with their actual size. You don’t think of it so much with men, but if you once have your eyes opened, suddenly it should be obvious.
So there’s something more serious going on than would appear.
Any aspect of life, carefully examined, will reveal more profound connections than first appear.
Okay, so in this case –.
Why should you expect a given set of causes, unchanged, to produce different results?
That sounds pretty much like chastisement. At least, I can imagine people taking it that way, easily enough.
And that is often people’s experience. But how much good would it do, how accurate would it be, for someone to chastise you for having asthma and saying if you would only breathe differently, you wouldn’t have a problem? There are alternative pitfalls here. On the one side, the fallacy of thinking that effects are always the result of moral failings as cause. On the other side, the fallacy of thinking that physical effects have only physical causes.
I see that, easily enough. We even wrote out little book Imagine Yourself Well to point out the possibilities that arise from seeing and using the connection, but made a point of saying, “This is no panacea.”
Well, the same factors that govern physical health and illness govern physical conditions in other ways.
I’m getting, our fluctuating mental state affects our appearance (looking at weight as an issue of appearance, for the moment) the same as it does our functioning (our health in general).
Is there any reason to think otherwise?
I hadn’t thought of things that way.
Do so now. Mental states habitually fluctuate. Physical states customarily change relatively slowly. Your physical condition in general, not only your physical health, fluctuates accordingly. In some things, minor things, mental fluctuations produce unstable (or labile, depending upon how you want to look at it) conditions. Your mental world fluctuates, your physical expression fluctuates. Expressions on your face, say.
[One dictionary definition of labile is “readily or continually undergoing chemical, physical, or biological change or breakdown”; a second is “readily open to change.”]
This is one of those times when I feel a rush of potential connections, and I can only slow way down (instead of speeding up, which used to be my reflexive response, trying to catch something on the wing) and hope it comes through.
Plus, you see, all at once your wheezing worsens, and your nose fills with mucous. Coincidence?
I would have assumed so, except I wouldn’t have said “coincidence” but “unrelated.”
“Coincidence” says unrelated. That is what it means: two or more things happening at the same time, but unrelated by causality.
Only, in the larger sense there are no “unrelated by causality” happenings, only “unrelated by causality at a 3D level.”
And, as soon as you drew my attention to it, the wheezing stopped and my nose cleared. And of course these are fluctuations I have noticed for years, especially the former.
And although you know that everything is connected, you have learned that not every connection may be sniffed out, nor is it necessarily important to do so.
That’s true. It would require an impossible level of vigilance, and for what? So, let’s return to the complex of connections I caught a brief glimpse of just now.
This material won’t be something new to anybody; what is new will be the context it is set in.
As so often.
Sure. You think of yourself sometimes as an explorer, rarely as a scientist. But what is it that scientists do, if not look closely at phenomena and ask themselves how much more they can understand.
Put it that way, you are the scientists. I’m more like your lab assistant, keeping your science notebook for you. or, Watson to your Holmes, recording your adventures.
In any case, let’s look at it, backing up a bit, as usual, to focus the microscope slightly differently.
Your lives in 3D are bounded, deliberately. That is, limited. Physically you can be only in one time, one space. Physically you can be only in the present ever-changing moment. Physically you can experience only separation from others, not overall unity. Physically you experience cause and effect, that is, impetus and consequence, only with a built-in delay, whether long or short. (Even the fastest response is not immediate.) These conditions are necessary and useful components of 3D life. You know all this. And you know that the partial escape from this – the saving grace, you might say – is that your minds (being in non-3D though expressing through the 3D brain) allow you wider latitude, if you let them.
Now, here is a way to think about it. A lot depends upon how you automatically (that is, habitually) define your mind and its scope. If you accept 3D limitations as the end of the story, that’s one thing. If you recognize that the mind transcends 3D limitations, that is another story.
It is in your connection to the non-3D that your limitations are defined and at the same time transcended.
Did I get that right? It doesn’t sound right.
It is right enough, it just needs a word of explanation. Your world is a function of your view of the world.
“Argue for your limitations, and they are yours,” Richard Bach says.
By George, you’d think that man knows a thing or two!
Very funny. And so –?
The thing that started to break open a whole lot of things for you (until you got overwhelmed by the width of the incoming signal, so to speak) is the realization that facial expressions (as one example) are directly and immediately connected to fluctuating mental states.
And therefore so are many other things, shading off into physical interactions. Blood pressure, adrenalin levels, heartbeat, breathing, perspiration – which I suppose means the sympathetic and parasympathetic systems, and ultimately everything.
Of course everything. The universe has no absolute divisions. Well, you can see the usual spectrum of effects, ranging from those that are entirely responsive to mental fluctuations, all the way to things like bone density that are in effect entirely unresponsive to mental fluctuations. It isn’t just health. In fact, “health” as a concept is a lot fuzzier than you usually think. It, itself, is a ratio – as you were told some while ago – and not a thing. You have a given blood pressure or inflammation or tumor or absence of inflammation or tumor, etc., but you do not have a “health.” You might say you experience a “health,” but you are saying your ratio of factors is satisfactory or not, and to what degree and in what particulars.
So next time we could pursue this, if you wish.
Fine with me, always interesting and always a pleasure. Till next time, then.