Thursday, March 28, 2019
1:55 a.m. Hanns-Oskar Porr reminds me that I have forgotten to take up this point that TGU left hanging:
“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.”
We have already addressed most of it, but let’s clean it up, if you would.
We can do that.
(a) If by now the value of guidance to the individual is not obvious in practice, think of it theoretically. Guidance is radar, extending the range of the senses. It is a reliable friend offering advice whose intent may be trusted, even if it is not infallible any more than the rest of life is infallible. It is reassurance for the 3D-bound individual that in practice as in theory, s/he is not alone. Thus, guidance supplements, extends, reinforces the 3D individual’s judgment; it does not supplant it.
(b) Affecting individuals affects the matrix they exist within. Surely this is obvious – tautological – once you remember that “individual” is a word which, though necessary, is strictly speaking a misnomer. You are all part of one another. We are all part of one another. The 3D environment masks the reality, but by now you surely must have come to see it is so. This being true, how could affecting one part not affect the other parts? Arguably, this is the only way anything is ever affected, [that is,] via other people.
(c) We have explored sufficiently (we hope) how additive decisions do not amount to cancelling everything out. Aristotle’s simplistic logic overlooked two intermediate conditions between A = Non-A and A <> Non-A. It may be both A and Non-A. It may be neither A nor Non-A. It is in those non-binary conditions that actual organic growth takes place. Life is larger than logic primarily because logic is a stepped-down abstract definition that cannot take into account the intangibles that were lost as seeming precision was gained.
(d), as we said, is the most important thing to be discussed. We will do so when you have had another interval of sleep.
6:10 a.m. Interesting process. As I went back to bed, I found that instantly I could not remember the fourth point, and I was tempted to go back and look to see what (d) was, that we would discuss when we resumed. I could not remember it at all. On the one hand, I knew that it was better that my conscious mind not know, and on the other hand, it was almost aggravating that I should lose it so immediately.
Then, several hours of dreams that had nothing to do with the question, as if to keep my from stewing over it. But now, as soon as I glance at it, I not only remember what we are to discuss, but also I know why it is relevant, which is more than I did before. As I say, interesting process. Okay, guys, you’re on.
The question is one of the difference it makes in what seem to you to be objective facts, how you examine them. That is, what assumptions you bring to the table. If you think you are examining a photo when in fact you are examining a still from a movie, on one level you are absolutely right, for a photo is a photo. But on another level, the level of accurate interpretation of the object in context, you are not right. Same photo, same observer, same reality, but the interpretation is the variable. That is, not what you look at, but what you see. And this difference is one that many people will not, and many enough can not, appreciate.
So if we examine an account of what people call the afterlife, or of an NDE, or of any state of being, really, it will look one way if you take it to be depicting a static situation and another way entirely if you see it as an instant in a continuing process.
And I suppose, another way yet, if we alternate how we look at it.
Haven’t we been encouraging that habit, all these years? Yes it will, and by doing that you will see things that no one seeing it only one way will or could.
So, I take it we want to keep this in mind in context of guidance, since that’s where it arose.
Yes. If you live your life choosing, and if during that lifetime you have continual access to a non-3D source willing and able (not to say anxious!) to advise you as you go, that is a very different picture from that which would see you as on your own except perhaps for miraculous inexplicable moments of additional clarity. The still photo would portray something between the inexplicable and a miraculous transformation, perhaps. The motion-picture context would assume not that this one instant was unique in that way, but that more could be expected. Or, if that overstates it, let us say the movie version would assume that the visitation, call it, was part of a process, not something without antecedents or consequences.
Carry the analogy forward. There is an immense difference in treating an entire life as if it were a self-contained unit or treating it as one still in a movie.
That’s a very powerful image.
It continues. There is an equally great difference between considering a moment of time as self-contained or as part of an unbroken stream. And “moment of time,” recognize, may mean an instant or a very long time indeed, like, say, the time span of Egypt’s New Kingdom.
That is, 480 years.
Yes, but it is only an example. We aren’t intending to tie this into your recent travels, but to use an example of great length of time as equal (in this sense) to one of great brevity.
If you take the span of the New Kingdom – or of America since Columbus, say, roughly the same amount of time – you can examine it as if you were examining one moment of time, which you would be doing. Or you can examine that span as the wrapper for innumerable moments of time, which you would be doing, equally. It isn’t the data that change, it is the context you examine them in.
In the same way, anyone’s life, or a day in that life, or any one decision during that day, and so forth.
Well, here is the point: Any conclusions you might draw, in examining whatever field of time you were examining, would be tied to – if not determined by – the context you looked at the data in.
The grammar got a little tenuous, but I think we got the job done.
We did. Not for everyone, of course, but I’d say we did about as well as we could. Let’s see what response we meet.
And if anyone misunderstood your meaning, you can explain further.
That has worked well enough with you, all these years. No reason to abandon a winning strategy.
Glad you think we’re winning! (And I know you know, but for the sake of the studio audience – I’m smiling.) see you next time, and as always, thanks for this.