Tuesday, January 29, 2019
9:05 p.m. I received an email yesterday morning from a man named Hanns Oskar Porr, of which this is an excerpt:
[“There are all these infinite strands upon strands and communities, feeding into other strands, etc. So: Does it ever wrap around – like in a hologram, where each point contains all else and at the same time feeds into the others? Does it ever get to the point, where a “higher” level feeds back around into a “lower” level? ( I reluctantly use the words higher and lower, implying some sort of order).”
[He had an experience of cosmic unity, similar to what Rita’s daughter once reported.] “What I experience is maybe best described as an analogy (and that is all it is, an analogy for communication’s sake): it is like being part of a “cosmic hologram” where the part contains the whole and the whole contains that part. This is why the title of your first book struck me, ‘the sphere and the hologram,’ because it basically explains it so well in just that title alone. Even though the idea of the hologram is incomplete, because the holograms we know here in our 3D always have an outside observer/viewpoint. Whereas in the experience you are IN the hologram, or rather, you ARE the cosmic hologram, and vice versa; or stated otherwise, the sphere is the hologram, and the hologram is the sphere. So, you see, this is what I mean by ‘does it wrap around?’”]
8:40 p.m. Hanns Oskar Porr asks a question that I think I understand. “Does it wrap around,” meaning, is “higher” and “lower” only a spatial analogy, somewhat misleading?
Here is what I think it means: Everything is all one thing not only in being all-connected, but in being non-hierarchical. If this is the meaning of his question, I’d say yes, although not intuitively obvious, that’s true. Reality isn’t divided into enlightened and unenlightened, king and pawn, superior and inferior, advanced and retarded – except in relation to any given point of view. Is this right and am I reading the question right?
Yes and yes. This is a clarification that may be important for some, and may be already obvious for others. The world (that is, reality, All That Is) isn’t divided into first class and cheap seats. It’s all one thing, as we keep saying. Reality is neither unorganized nor hierarchical. Instead, it is self-organizing and fluid; it is all one thing and at the same time it is segmented, or compartmentalized, or segregated, or – well, organized in many ways at once, so that different ways of seeing it result in perception of different structures.
You once gave us the analogy of the interior of a crystal, looking one way when a laser is shined through it from one direction, and different when shined through differently. That is, each angle of vision illumines different relationships that exist always but are not necessarily always evident.
You see the limitations of analogy. Words are more fluid than objects, but are nonetheless far more static and unresponsive than are the realities they are used to try to capture. Images are somewhat more supple than words alone, but are also too static, too defined, to capture the quicksilver-like nature of the reality they attempt to reflect. Even the simultaneous overlapping of images cannot do it justice. If you were not intuitive beings, in touch with your non-3D natures, you would have no hope of grasping any of it.
In sum, think perhaps of the ongoing process that is represented by kneading dough. The outside becomes the inside. Neighboring particles become separated; unmixed portions become part of other previously separate pieces. Not the dough in any stage, but the process of kneading is the analogy. Don’t fall for the idea that some people are first-class citizens and others hangers-on. A change of angle of viewing will show entirely different relationships that are no less and no more true. in other words, there is no one way of seeing things; there is only every way, and this of course no one in 3D can ever stretch to encompass.
And this, although very brief, is enough for the moment. Summarize the query before citing.
Okay. Thanks.