Saturday, September 7, 2019
1:50 a.m. I guess yesterday’s wonderful conversation demonstrates what you said so many years ago to Rita and me, how we in 3D live our life in time-slices. So many years I felt one way, then after I gradually changed, I entirely forgot how I had been, so entirely that I was puzzled how people could be the way I myself had been!
As we said then, though, this is by design. The 3D world is designed to let you live in a pressure-chamber of now. This is what gives you the possibility of choice and change, far more so than the non-3D condition alone could provide.
I hear the words “hyperbaric chamber.”
A reasonable analogy. Such a chamber employs high pressure in an external atmosphere to force life-giving oxygen into tissues that need it.
I don’t know, though. Doesn’t 3D also force negative energies into us as well?
It may look that way, but that is mostly because 3D conditions produce the sensation of “external” forces, rather than forces that are part of you but are experienced as external.
Maybe it’s time to talk some more about that.
That may be less helpful than you might expect.
How is that different from, say, yesterday’s description not only of our own condition but our condition in historical context?
It is difficult to explain. One thing is helpful in context, another is not. Why? Because of their intrinsic nature? Because of where you are? Because of the interaction of the two? Not quite.
Always a little surprising. We expect you to be instantly ready. It’s like having to wait for a computer, rather than it processing faster than we can imagine.
That is because you envision the process as involving only the non-3D where, famously, “there is no time,” which as you know is a misconception anyway, rather than involving both non-3D and 3D, and subject therefore to limitations of both conditions.
I can envision that only as you having to wait for us, for some reason.
Yes, that’s how it will look, from 3D. As always, this involves translating non-3D realities into 3D analogies, and of course something is going to be lost in translation. A data-processing analogy would be the difference between internal computation and processes involving interfacing with something external. The one might be virtually instant; the other might involve delays waiting for input, say.
Hmm. So our 3D minds’ comprehension of something might be required before the process of conceptualization can continue?
You are making the assumption, here, that 3D input is always conscious.
This is a little more complicated than I was thinking, isn’t it?
It generally is. Wouldn’t you expect it to be, if you thought about it?
It’s certainly complex enough. I am in 3D and non-3D. You are presumably in non-3D only, though I suppose you too could be in both. Communication between my 3D and my non-3D components has its own rules, whatever they may be, and I can imagine – though I’ve never thought about it – that this internal 3D/non-3D communication might complicate communication with you as “external” in a reality in which “external” means something entirely different than we usually experience it here.
That’s correct. Your entire lives in 3D involve a continuing process of interaction between your 3D-oriented awareness and the rest of you. and, since “the rest of you” is not particularly bounded, that’s quite a lot of latitude.
Stretching my limits here, but I guess that what we experience as conscious / unconscious interface is a rough parallel, or for all I know, may be the same phenomenon in deferent words.
There is, let’s say, considerable overlap between the two. Psychology attempts to account for mental and spiritual realities that earlier ages accounted for in religious terms. Just as previous religions were outgrown – for what is a religion but a way of dealing with a certain conception of transcendent realties? – so is psychology being outgrown. You can tell, by observing its codification and dogmatism, even taking into account its internal rebels against such process.
So when we speak of vast impersonal forces we attempt to hold the balance by speaking also of vast personal forces, but this may do more harm (by misleading) than good (by balancing).
You are having to adjust what might otherwise be a simple explanation to account for (I mean, to take into consideration) our preconceptions and mistaken definitions.
Correct, and given that no two people’s are the same, and that no one person’s are the same at different times in one’s life – well, it’s complicated.
In half an hour, we haven’t gotten that far, I’d say. Set out the problem, maybe, but haven’t really attacked it.
Setting it out is itself something. Go back to sleep and we may be able to attack it more effectively later.
Okay. But I can see that even this much was worthwhile.
Good. So can we.
3:15 a.m. Shall we continue?
You needn’t recount your dream for others, but bear in mind, the assignment (if you care to look at it that way) and the running nose you started to get from not noticing you were getting cold while talking to us, and your (already forgotten!) interaction when, you having noticed the physical process, you got lost in a visualization and more or less forgot your body, then returned to realize you were on the point still of catching cold, then the suspended-time sense of it all, then the dream of your friend – can you see that from the non-3D it is all connected and even seamless, even though in 3D apparently not?
Like that sentence, you mean? But yes, I get the sense of it.
Well, that’s happening all your lives, only you aren’t aware of it except on occasion. Well, some are more aware than others, but you know. Mostly in 3D you experience snapshots; in non-3D you experience flow. Sometimes in 3D you get the sense of flow from gaps between the snapshots; sometimes from a fast sequence that blurs distinctions so that you see they weren’t really distinctions at all.
Why is your expression here so different? It is like you are manic.
Not manic, unpunctuated, so to speak. Experiencing flow rather than snapshot.
If you say so. Now can you do more to explain the item that was on the agenda [looking back], the interaction with us of vast forces?
First you must understand 3D life, to understand how it interacts with non-3D. But first you must understand that interaction, to understand 3D. To understand A you must understand B, but to understand B you must understand A. So we continue to progress in stepwise refinement. Recognizing that your everyday mental life is not what it appears is a step. So is recognizing that your unconscious 3D life is not what it seems – that is, neither unconscious nor undirected nor unfocused nor focused upon 3D or non-3D life.
Beyond this, there becomes room for new understandings. But you can see that if you try to proceed from wrong ideas of what your ordinary 3D mental life is, it’s hopeless. You have to be able to semi-disengage.
But this is enough for the moment, because anything we would add at this time would diminish the impact of what we just said about the nature of mental processing in your lives, mostly unsuspected usually. More another time.