TGU on confusion of levels of discussion

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?

Yes. So?

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?

Maybe.

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.

Everything connects.

And I’ll connect with you next time. Thanks for all this.

 

8 thoughts on “TGU on confusion of levels of discussion

  1. TGU has a way of keeping us anchored in our 3D reality/timeline that I find really helpful. I do agree that if we agree its a moral universe, how could it have us doing something pointless that didn’t ‘advance’ us somehow?

    Animals (such as migrating birds) have that same knowing, which we call instinct. They, on their 3D timeline, don’t question it, and we see that goodness at work through their actions.

    I think I often notice that goodness, and feel reminded of my own, because guidance has nudged me, reminding me to focus on the nurturing of my own current timeline by first acknowledging my own knowing.

    How can TGU “prove” anything to us if we’ve turned away from our own knowing? I think that knowing is what they connect to, to get through.

  2. Frank, this is going EXACTLY in the direction I was hoping for. I am so tempted to comment in detail and give my thoughts, but I don’t want to influence this wonderful clarification, so I’m literally forcing myself to hold back 🙂 I say this: So far hey are spot on, and many of the key words I was really hoping for were in fact mentioned.

    While also revealing some other intriguing news ideas, like yesterday: “reality-in-total worlds” (did you note the plural?)

    Wonderful work. Thank you!

  3. I’m reading this with studied interest. Hanns has posed questions that I have also (having read S&H, the Rita books, and the blog since 2014), and these are sparking all sorts of discussions with my TGU. Good stuff! A real page turner, so to speak.

  4. Hi Frank,

    I am following this thread with interest. It seems to me that we are focused here in an experience of duality, where there is this and that, good for us in any given moment and not good for us (or bad for us).

    This experience of “perceiving as separate” instead of “Oneness” is what is happening for us now. Part of what comes along with that is constantly choosing. Growth, progression, options, change, morality… all of it is made possible by the notion of this and not-this.

    When we expand into wider experiences of reality the delineations of this-and-that take on a different context. This-and-that-as-one gets introduced, along with All and One… When we try to put those experiences into coherent thought forms, they miss the mark because thought forms are just that, forms. We are back into dual-ness, saying it is this, not that.

    So for the everyday life it seems obvious to me that I will constantly be making judgment calls – “doing this is on-track for me, doing that is not,” “the changes I made are good,” “getting that non-3D input was really helpful,” and “I am progressing.”

    Something I still don’t fully understand the extent of is why the non-3D friends often tell me that the choices I make in my life are important in the larger context of non-3D. This implies something of this wider morality, larger progression (which means there is also some degree of this and that) that TGU referred to in this latest post.

    The best I can come up with is that the amount of separateness is a spectrum. We here in 3D are living a more extreme version of separateness, while those in what we call non-3D are also still in a degree of this/that (including versions of progression, expansion, ethics, morality…).

    My present conclusion: The discussion of different options chosen or not chosen only has relevance when one is in the “separateness” perspective. What comes along with that perspective is good/bad, growth, progression, morality, self-worth (worth/not-worth), whether our choices matter, and whether the input from “non-3D” matters and is beneficial or not…

    So do our choices matter? Yes, at least for now! 😊 (which is to say, “in the context I can presently perceive which is all I can speak for now”).

  5. This is interesting, especially given the existential wrestling match I experienced a week ago. Puh! ….another “coincidence”, I’m sure.

    I can toss in my two bits on this issue, please remember this is only representative of my opinion, I am no expert, I do not claim to know the “truth”, etc, etc. Here goes:

    My take on it is that the “complete crystal” is symbolic of the totality of “All That Is”, including all timelines – past, present, and future. Remember, TGU are not limited to our 3D view of time/reality, and in some way, they seem to see all times as one.

    It is important to keep in mind, your point of perspective. Imagine infinite “You’s” on infinitely different timelines, each making constantly different choices according to their own existential preferences, which comes about as a result of the sum total of their previous choices and resulting experiences. Now narrow your perspective down to one individual timeline – your very own. Just you, here and now in 3D, THIS life, which is based on each unique choice you have previously made in your life. What will you choose to have for dinner tomorrow? Let’s suppose for the sake of an example, that your TGU have reasons to want you to remember a favorite cabbage dish that your mom made for you when you were young, and that if you make it tomorrow, things may line up for it to trigger some memory or emotion within you that your TGU knows will be of some benefit to Today You and/or Others, perhaps giving you an insight. So, your TGU might tweak events somehow, such as planting a thought or craving for cabbage, or comfort food, or perhaps having the cabbage at the grocery store you shop at, be particularly lovely examples of cabbagehood, AND be on sale to boot! (You should start to be suspicious here….smelling a set-up, lol!). You buy the cabbage, go home, cook the beloved childhood cabbage dish and eat it, triggering a memory of how you loved it as a child, puts you in mind of your mom – how she knew you loved it, and made it especially for you because she loved you…and this may cause you to realize how acts of love are empowering, the impacts of which seem to be timeless! This inspires you to do an act of love for someone else, who then goes on to do the same for someone else, and so on….the tendrils of EVERYTHING we do are infinite, and I suspect we will never realize the totality of our individual impacts on the world around us.
    “All That Is”, the “complete crystal”, is like the view from standing waaaaay back and seeing things as a totality….a macro level of a macro level of a macro level……your life could be one itty bitty thread in that inconceivable vastness, playing out it’s individually chosen variants, all of which add up to all the “You’s” sum total having taken all variant paths. Due to free will, your personally chosen path is FLUID, not fixed, and therefore is eminently tweakable. If you chose to skip the cabbage dish tomorrow night because it causes you to be a bit gassy, some other individual variant you on his own timeline, will choose to make the cabbage dish, and experience the results tendriling out. Meanwhile, your own timeline has jumped to the “Timeline In Which Hanns Chose Not To Make Cabbage”, and proceeds accordingly. (Re-read Frank’s posting from March 5, 2019….”THERE IS CHOICE, AND CHOICE, AND CHOICE, AND AS YOU CHOOSE WE CONTINUALLY PRESENT NEW CHOICES THAT GROW OUT OF THE PREVIOUS CHOICES.”

    This seems to require one to think in infinitely broad terms one second, then instantly turn the focusing adjustment knob to the infinitely tiny the next second. As was said, you can’t do both at the same time. I suspect our brains are not programmed with that capacity in 3D. Dunno.

    In one way, you’ve already lived your life, made all your choices…but in another way, you have not yet done so. Depends on which “time-lens” you are looking thru. Which perspective do you want to take? I whole-heartedly agree with ST’s comment from “TGU on timelines” posting (March 23, 2019): “step back from your specific questions and logic”, set your intention to your own TGU that you are exercising your right to Free Will, and CHOOSING to have this understanding, ask for it to be given to you. Keep your intention firm, and my experience has consistently shown me, that it always comes. [ Be careful what you ask for, sometimes you have nooooo idea early on how life-changing these insights can be, and they rarely seem to make life LESS challenging ; ) ]. The results of such intentioning seem to be directly proportional to the amount of thought, energy, and time you put in to the intention.

    So – what’s the point of it all? Why bother to play the game, if it’s all done anyway? When I asked myself this very question 7 days ago, the best answer I could come up with is this: “All levels are programmed to follow a goal, higher and higher…why? Existence. All-encompassing existence. We are energy. Energy can’t just sit eternally….it is fluid – it moves – it is never truly completely at rest. If we all want “nothingness”, then we have to enter/create an entirely different construct organized by entirely different properties. All is perceptual construct, my existence a level of which, in turn, supports higher and higher levels of perceptual existences, because I exist as a tiny particle within an ever-enlarging sphere of being. All are connected. All exist because of, and for, all others. Think of your own physical body. We exist here in 3D thanks to trillions of cells working constantly to support our bodies, most often despite the great challenges we choose to subject them to. Those trillions of cells, in turn, are supported in existence by smaller and smaller levels. As above, so below.

    I suspect the question at the heart of it (why do we exist….why are we here), can only be answered individually. I suspect no TGU can answer for us, as it too is probably a choice.

    : )

    Hugs to all. GREAT discussion.

  6. “The words are meant to lead you to the experience.” The Tai Chi master I study with said that in class today, and I felt/heard that ‘gong’ guidance rings when they want my attention.

    The questions and discussion here are wonderful, some of the most helpful/useful I’ve seen. Reminds me that TGU says we’re here to ‘choose and choose and choose’; perhaps that could (should?) include ‘question and question and question.’

    The words have never really answered my questions … but they HAVE been instrumental in ‘leading’ me to the internal connection that does. The struggle/trick was to stick with the ‘non-answering’ words until they finally did lead me to the experience. I agree with Lisa C: our questions “can only be answered individually.”
    Jim

    1. “The words have never really answered my questions … but they HAVE been instrumental in ‘leading’ me to the internal connection that does.” Exactly. If that “gong” guidance follows, I know I’m on track.

      I’m enjoying this pot-stirring discussion, too. Thanks to all.

  7. fwiw, I noticed this clarification by TGU today …

    “Consideration of the overall effect of guidance on all possible versions is not individual but general … ”

    which seems highlight what I commented yesterday (or maybe Saturday) to Hann how TGU might be seeing this (when he asked for feedback from others here).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *