Connections between 3D and non-3D
Monday, July 2, 2007
8:40 a.m. All right, friends, I’m open to suggestion. Do you have more you’d like to say about the connection between minds on your side and on our side? I recognize of course that “your side” and “our side” is not only an analogy that may overstate differences, but in fact implies a difference that doesn’t even quite exist.
You will remember that some years ago you realized that the terms subconscious and conscious led by way of unspoken association to the idea that a wave
Again, you can’t think about the information and receive it at the same time, just as you can’t experience something new and analyze it at the same time. You may do it in rapid alternation, but not simultaneously. Bruce Moen uses the analogy of the bicycle balance maintained between perceiver and analyzer; it is the same process, in fact literally the same. You are perceiving – non-physically – or you are analyzing what you have perceived. At any given moment you cannot be doing both, any more than you can pitch and catch a ball at the same time. You may throw it back as soon as you catch it – rapid alternation of process – but you cannot do both at the same time.
Sometimes you wool-gather and lose the thread. Sometimes you argue, or criticize. Sometimes the information or the process makes you uncomfortable for some reason. Sometimes there is a physical interruption like a phone call. Any of these things – or other things – can cause you to lose the thread, but it doesn’t have to become an important interruption, any more than losing your balance on a bicycle that isn’t up to speed, and putting out your foot to support you against the ground.
That was very interesting, and I know that you know – obviously! – that I appreciate it and see it as potentially a good learning tool for others.
Did we ever mention to you that your strongest impulse is to know something well enough to teach it?
Can’t say you have. I thought at first you were going to say my strongest impulse was to teach, or maybe to communicate. Of course it is stronger to put it your way. The Internet is very important for people like me – and that in context tells me that it is an important tool for person-to-person teaching of anything whether considered a subject for classes or not. Good.
Now, to return –
David here, because we share so much “flavor” of our minds. It makes it easier to communicate provided it is some subject congenial to me and not more so to another. You’ll notice, I didn’t try telling you about Joseph’s Civil War experiences, or life among the Indians.
If we drop your analogy of “this side that side,” we still need to pick up another which will have its own defects. That can be a good thing when an analogy has become constricting or very misleading – but until then, why not continue to elaborate on what we’re building? It’s just a matter of periodic reminders of the limitations of analogy.
While you were writing – if I may put it that way – I realized that the reason I’m not planning my trip to England other than picking a few places is that you and others will be there to see that I “fortuitously” see what is important to me to see.
It happens all the time. It is helpful for you to hold a focus – like Iona that time. We can do the rest.
Great. A relief. Okay, so you were saying –
Here is your analogy, spelled out a bit. Outside physical time-space, minds exist in a more or less permanent form. What we are on the side was shaped by what we did while in the body with the original inheritance we began from. Inside physical time-space, new minds – new “souls” in restricted sense – are formed with each new body, and shaped during a lifetime.
At some point you’re going to need drawings to spell this out a bit, but not yet. Ask for an artist at that point.
That hasn’t ever occurred to me.
Not consciously. You are in touch with your inner writer and editor and – now – potter.
[I spent a couple of years learning to throw pots.] Interesting. Okay, and –
Day-to-day life in time-space involves complex mostly unconscious interactions with the other side. You [-all] are sometimes aware of dreams, though what they are and why they are perplexes you, mostly. Sometimes you hear voices, or feel impulses, or experience knowings, or follow hunches, and all these are all variants of connection. Sometimes you meet people and are instantly old friends, for no reason that is apparent. Sometimes you share flashes or extensive swatches of telepathic communication. You have a instinctive knowings, you work sleepwalking, as you sometimes put it –
All these very common internal events are examples of the way your this-side (to you) life connects with the other side that is also part of you.
So it is as much a vertical as a horizontal division – as you sometimes admit when you talk about Upstairs and Downstairs. And of course this side/that side Upstairs/Downstairs is only physical spatial analogy. Necessary, helpful, but only analogy, and like any analogy it brings its unexpected and sometimes unsuspected baggage.
So how do we portray the connection between you in the physical and you out of the physical? We have talked to us
Interesting. Lost it again. Why this time?
You were trying to figure out what I was going to say – trying to remember what I was referring to. But remembering is not the same as receiving.
I see it. And if I wrote faster maybe I’d have done the remembering quickly enough that I wouldn’t have noticed the alternation in mental gears?
Well, it depends on how fast you change those gears, for one thing! But it’s a pretty high-risk operation. Easier to alternate between reception and questioning or commenting than between reception and memory-searching or arguing or active worrying.
All right. So—
So – we could bring in an artist if you aren’t too nervous about it.
As you did that time for the TGU painting!
Yes. And you never realized that till this minute, did you? Think how much else in all of your lives depends on your accessing skills from “this” side.
Well, how about if you sketch it one bit at a time?
The purpose of this first sketch, which is actually a diagram, is to convey that on either side of the veil between physical and nonphysical, any given mind may be in connection with others on both sides. Simple and obvious, that is, once stated – but easily forgotten while you are thinking about these things in some other context. The diagram, BTW, is the simplest possible diagram to describe the situation. If you will go back and add numbers on your side, letters on mine –
You see that 1 for instance may connect with only A or B or C, or only 2 or 3 — that is one possibility: one to one.
Or, 1 may communicate with A and B, or A and C., or B and C, etc. (but three is the minimum needed to express the concept) and that is a second possibility – one on one side and one or more on the other.
Or, 1 may similarly relate to 2 and 3 (or others, or more) and that is a third possibility – one connecting to one or more on his same side.
Finally, 1 may connect to one or more of A, B, C and one or more of 2, 3, etc. This seemingly more complex situation is closest to normal, little though you normally realize it.
I should add that the final set includes within it subsets that I am not bothering to describe but they should be obvious enough. I mention this only to show you that I recognize that they are there.
Now – add to this the obvious fact that each of the letters and numbers is in the same situation of communicating with others on both sides, and you begin to get a sense of the complexity of existence and communication even at any one moment of time! Obviously it all changes moment to moment.
I can see how I can tweak that diagram to make it a bit more aesthetically pleasing – which will increase its pedagogical impact, I think.
Of course, and when you do so, you may tap into an artist in the woodpile — your grandfather, for example, to help you to do so.
Nice thought. Okay.
That is phase one of the explanation. Take a little rest now.