Monday. March 25, 2019
4 a.m. Continuing to pursue Hanns Porr’s question. Lightly editing several emailed comments, it amounts to this:
[Hanns Porr: My original question was really about TGU’s point of view outside of time. That is where I sense there are some inconsistencies. If you see the last comment, I am asking again, more succinctly. Maybe it would be possible to take this up to TGU one more time. (PS: I do have an idea where this can go, but I don’t want to lead)
[As far as question 2, [“what good would be such guidance if all paths are taken?”] their answer is indeed going in to the direction that I felt it may have to. I could give you my direct take on it, but I feel I may be leading; or do you think I should comment? What would be more helpful to you/them/us ? My instinct says, you are interested in this question, too, and it is best to leave it to its natural course, and see where it will go. When you/they/all are done with the answer ( and I don’t think we are yet), I’ll chime in about what I was/am thinking about.]
As I sit here prepared to tackle it again, or further, I get that we have been omitting consideration of “As above, so below” in our thinking about “What difference would it make?” Something in the previous response (the Buddhists saying the world is endlessly created and recreated) leads me to think, each level of reality is shaping itself by its decisions, and in shaping itself is to some extent creating and limiting the possibilities of the next higher level. I don’t have any idea if this is more than a stray thought – maybe a strayed thought! But let’s pursue it. Your turn, guys.
You are reaching.
Don’t I know it!
But you are reaching in the right direction. No one level of understanding can comprehend everything.
Let’s concentrate on the sense of futility we experience when we think that every decision we make is automatically cancelled out by another version making the opposite decision. The question remains: What is the use of our lives then? If we are to shape who we wish to be, but our decisions apply only to any one version of our life, really what difference does it make?
Well, why do anything? Isn’t it because doing something is less disagreeable than not doing it?
So aren’t you, in acting, attempting to move from a less desirable to a more desirable state?
Sometimes we are merely moving.
But in such case the less desirable state would be that of doing nothing.
Say it’s so.
Why wouldn’t you then at least speculate, if not conclude definitely, that your life as a whole resembles your life at any one decision-point? Particularly why not, given that your lives could be seen as an endless chain of decision-points, never static, always in motion?
So that our lives as a whole could be discussed as moving from a less-desirable to a more-desirable state of being?
At least, an attempt to move from less to more desirable, yes. Not every decision supports the goal, you understand.
Where are you going with this?
If your lives as a whole and in detail may be described as attempts to reach some better state of affairs, doesn’t that imply a knowing? A sensing? Doesn’t it imply that something within you knows better from worse, more comfortable or productive or satisfying (or whatever) from less? And if that is so, doesn’t it imply a more absolute scale of values than you may have evidence for?
More than maybe. Pretty strongly, we would say. And if this is so, doesn’t it suggest that the universe – reality – is inherently moral?
While I have a vague sense of what you’re getting at, you’d better spell it out some, I’d say.
What is morality but a firm sense of right and wrong? An orienting compass? We speak here recognizing that the question is complicated by the various confusions attending discussions of right and wrong, not least the confusion caused by people attributing rightness and wrongness to what is really merely agreeableness or disagreeableness. But you and we have explored this more than once, only now bring it to the next level, and realize that morality in the sense we are using it refers less to any individual’s necessarily flawed and partial judgments, then to the unchanging reality that any individual imperfectly senses.
The blueprint rather than an impression of the structure that must underlie appearances.
Yes. Good analogy.
Can it make no difference to the structure of a given timestream, or, let’s say, to a given reality-as-a-whole, the choices made within it? If most people choose anarchy and destruction (in effect if not in their intent), or choose tyranny and stasis, or choose vacillation between the two, can that make no difference to the world it creates and modifies?
But the question is, in fact, how can any of these be considered to occur, given that all possible decisions are taken both heads and tails, cancelling out?
It is very difficult to get across, because your implicit definitions keep slipping, resulting in your questions attributing different qualities to the same thing, unnoticed.
That sounded a little garbled.
Try it from our end!
You’ve said that before.
We’ve been in this situation before.
Well, can you work your way out of it?
Maybe. What if we put it this way? Either concern yourself with one version of yourself (the one you are living, obviously) or with all versions, which is mostly a theoretical construct, from 3D. But don’t go sliding from one to the other.
But it is the interaction between the two that concerns us here!
Yes, but you can’t understand two things and their interaction by trying to watch them interact before you recognize the qualities each possesses.
Don’t we [recognize them]? I would have said we do by now.
Then try to define yourselves as probability-clouds. The idea is familiar; that doesn’t mean you understand it merely because you recognize it when someone speaks its name.
So to speak.
Yes, so to speak, but the point remains.
To go all the way back to the question as posed, what good is guidance to us if all paths are taken?
And there you are right back confusing the two levels as if they were one. What good guidance does you as an individual is obvious to you, or, if it isn’t by now, we give up. But that, you see, is individual, present-tense, focused, real. Consideration of the overall effect of guidance on all possible versions is not individual but general, not present-tense but sort of outside of time, not focused and real but abstract and theoretical. It isn’t that the question can’t be addressed, it is that it can only be addressed from one side or the other at one time. That isn’t to say you can’t look at it more ways than one (and of course we would encourage you to do so), but any examination has to pin down what it is looking at; it can’t keep moving from one definition to another – not even quite realizing it is doing so – and come to any more coherent understanding.
When we resume, we shall have to examine (a) what good is guidance to the individual, presumably not at any length, (b) how does affecting individuals affect the larger reality in which they exist, (c) how does it not all cancel out, given that all decisions are taken one way or another, and (d) most importantly, the difference between examining a photo as a still picture or as one frame of a motion picture.
Sounds like a bigger project than it looked like it was going to be.
And I’ll connect with you next time. Thanks for all this.