Sunday, March 24, 2019
7:30 a.m. Hanns Porr returns with a follow-up to the question addressed yesterday – or perhaps we should say, he feels you didn’t address it, exactly.
[From Hanns Porrs:
[… If from THEIR view the crystal is complete, and from THEIR view we take all variant paths, then the question is unanswered:
1) how do they add situations to something that is complete already? … and thereby help or guide
2) and what good would be such guidance if all paths are taken?
#1 is arguably the more important question, and I would still request clarification. As always, thank you.]
I kind of feel he may be right, and it may be because I didn’t concentrate on the question – certainly didn’t think about it, as that would be counter-productive – and so somehow the result may have been part you and part my own unconscious interpretation. Is that true? And, if not, is it conceivable in other circumstances?
The 3D part of the equation is always going to be there, as we have said many times. That’s just the nature of the process. Even an entranced Edgar Cayce was an integral part of the process, as may be seen by the fact that the information flowed through him in the archaic language he had made mentally habitual by so many readings of the King James Bible. That is, the information he received flowed through his mental channels (bearing in mind that “channels” is a metaphor, not a scientific description) because they were there to serve. There were no others. Or should we speak to you in Swahili, or Mandarin, or 13th-century English? The 3D mind – its mental habits, call it – is always going to be part of the equation. So, don’t worry too much about polluting the information stream, and on the other hand don’t ever be tempted to think that the process confers omniscience or infallibility.
Okay, I get that, and in fact I got it long ago. So should I re-read the original question?
Reread, but don’t feel obliged to cite it. We’ll do what is needed.
Okay. Reread the questions and not the supporting materials, and now it is clearer in my mind. Or is it that it is clearer in your mind somehow?
Defer that question, though it is an interesting one. Let’s concentrate on the one at hand. Your understanding of the difficulty is –?
Mr. Porr is changing definitions in the middle of the stream, unbeknown to himself. He is mixing an All-D view with a 3D view.
A fair summary, though not particularly helpful in context.
You do it, then.
His question centers on the perceived contradiction between all possibilities already existing, and our offering or creating possibilities at any given point. He asks how anything can be added if everything is already there. Surely you can answer this yourself.
I see it is a problem of language. Things you have said may be misinterpreted, and the misinterpretation is what creates the perceived contradiction.
Yes, but spell it out.
He is seeing you adding (or revealing) new possibilities to the total, whereas you meant you may add or reveal new possibilities to any given timeline. And even that is not an accurate way to put it.
No, a more careful statement would have been that for anyone, at any given time, we may reveal or seem to create new avenues – new to that timeline, which means, of course, an alteration of timelines, a jump, not necessarily perceived as such by the 3D individual.
By definition, if all possibilities exist from the beginning, no new possibilities can be created or discovered. This is true of the overall situation. It is not true of any individual timeline, because –.
Yes, I see it too. That has been a silent cause of confusion, hasn’t it? We – you – have been talking of timelines as if they were more set in stone than they are. In reality, they are more like the pathless path, discernible in retrospect but in no way laid down in advance.
You may have overstepped a bit at the end, there, but yes, calling a person’s particular experience a timeline may very well have been misleading.
So let’s state it more carefully. The video-game analogy? One over-all reality containing all possibilities, any individual game containing (in effect) only the choices that appear in reaction to a player’s prior moves?
It will serve. If, in playing a game, a player receives help from unseen sources – or hindrance, for that matter – the possibilities will change. But these are the tangible possibilities of the time and the place, so to speak, not the absolute and theoretical total number of possibilities contained in the game’s programming.
I think that takes care of the first question. But the second?
Express your difficulty.
My difficulty is that I can’t imagine an answer either, and I haven’t been able to in all these years, and I am half-afraid if I try to have you address it, it will turn out to be me making something up to try to make sense of it.
Aha. Perhaps we don’t exist.
That joke is getting as old as the problem.
Well, why not just relax, see what comes, and blot it all out if you don’t like it?
Because I wouldn’t.
Yet, being unable to discard it, you would remain fearful of misleading people.
That’s what it amounts to.
So what do you propose to do? We could defer comment, or comment with your explicit, even vehement, dissociation with the result, or just put it out there for people to use as they are able. Remember, everyone has a sense of truth or falsity – or we should say, for anyone, material will resonate or won’t.
I admit to a certain curiosity. Go ahead.
If you allow it in.
I can only do my best.
Let us restate the question, then, and see if the restatement does not shed some light on things. Is the second question not asking, what difference does it make if anyone on any particular path (even if a pathless path) chooses differently as a result of nudges seen or unseen?
I don’t know if Mr. Porr would accept that as a rough paraphrase of this question, but I can.
It cuts directly to the problem of perceived futility, you see. If all paths are taken (when life is seen from a higher perspective) then what difference can it make if we on this present moment choose to move left instead of right, choose love instead of fear, choose to express and even encourage this reaction rather than suppress or counter it?
I’m very familiar with the problem!
The answer is that you in 3D (we in 3D) are instruments playing the winds of the universe, and the same winds can be made to play different tunes.
I wouldn’t say that is spectacularly helpful.
You recall, we described vast impersonal forces as flowing through 3D reality, animating you, affecting your lives, and being slightly or greatly affected by your reactions. Every iteration is different, as every iteration of a video game will be different, at least until all iterations have been experienced. That doesn’t make “all possible iterations” a zero-sum game.
Hard to see how it doesn’t.
That’s because you are thinking in terms of either/or as if either/or were a choice of opposites. Often enough, it is merely a choice that is other but not opposite, except in the sense of not being the other. To choose red over orange is not to choose opposites, but tones, or, if you prefer, nuances. To say all choices are made is not to say every red is matched by a green, though at first glance that will seem to follow. It’s more like every choice will be matched by the anti-choice, which is not at all the same thing.
Lest people make a big deal over “anti-choice,” let’s say explicitly that all you mean is the opposite choice from whatever we are talking about. A choice of red may be instead of green, but it may be instead of blue or orange or any color, even white. “Anti-choice” as you just used it means, “the other thing one might have chosen instead.”
Yes, useful correction. Well, seeing that, perhaps you can see that every reality-in-total is itself an iteration, and so will have its own flavor as opposed to other “reality-in-total” worlds.
We’ll never get that one across.
It isn’t that difficult. Just remember the Buddhists saying that the world is endlessly created and recreated. It’s the same thing.
Did we answer Mr. Porr’s second question? Seems to me not, but I’m out of steam, here.
Fortunately there is always another time.
Until there isn’t. Okay.