Beginning on the animal kingdom

Monday, September 30, 2019

3:10 a.m.

“The world is so full of a number of things,

That I’m sure we should all be as happy as kings.”

That’s what Robert Louis Stevenson said, anyway, and I wake up with that in mind. What the context was that brought me there, I can’t recall.

Perhaps we can continue our discussion begun last week.

You need to transcribe and send Thursday’s short session before we can continue here.

All right, I’ll do that. A brief explanation of circumstances: Thursday morning’s entry was cut short when I came to the end of that journal book without this next one being available. Friday and Saturday morning I was disinclined, having company, and Saturday night I cut my left pinkie finger painfully when I broke a water glass, dropping it in the sink, and haven’t been comfortable writing. I could have made the effort yesterday, but didn’t.

Transcribe first, or abandon the effort for the moment, for you do not want to have several untranscribed sessions stack up. It will get progressively harder to catch up, and you might give it up.

All right. I’ll do that now, I guess.

Thursday, September 26, 2019

2:50 a.m. All right, you’ve described the mineral kingdom as providing physical continuity, preventing the 3D from fluctuating wildly according to changes in mental construction in non-3D. That’s my paraphrase, anyway. You have said the vegetable kingdom provides an emotional stability of place, similar to the physical stability provided by the mineral kingdom.

The animal kingdom provides a different kind of continuity, less easily defined. Animals live the life of plants, only mobile,

I seem to remember Carl Jung somewhere saying animals are God’s priests, plants God’s thoughts. I never quite got the sense of it.

Our sub-surface theme here is that all reality is alive, and all life is consciousness, but all consciousness is not identical, but varies by kingdom in its expression. The animal kingdom shades off into the vegetable kingdom at one end, and into the human kingdom, thus into the celestial kingdom, at the other end. It is all conscious, but the consciousness expresses differently.

Animals are like plants in being invariant in their expression. A cat does not change as it grows, though it may learn, and may be quite intelligent. A deer will have an entirely different expression of intelligence, but still animal. Why? You could say animals hold the world of sensations and interrelations in the way vegetation holds an emotional note, or minerals hold a physical background.

We’re not expressing this very well.

Remember that we are looking at the world not as solid object but as field. When you think of 3D reality as being broadcast, you will see that maintaining continuity is more of an issue than may at first appear. You may look at the animal kingdom as musicians playing the notes that animate the 3D.

Not in outer space, nor on dead planets without atmosphere or vegetation.

But, after all, animals provide a function only where animals exist. We are centering this explanation (of 3D) on 3D as you experience it on earth where you live.

Of course. Go ahead.

If the mineral kingdom is the music hall and the vegetative kingdom is the acoustic properties of the hall, the animal kingdom is the music that fills the air. Animals enjoy the 3D. They live it. They are not sicklied over by the pale cast of thought; they take the world as it comes, and they express their nature freely and surely. They cannot not.

I got that different animals contribute different notes somehow, though it can’t be primarily for the human audience’s sake, presumably, let alone solely.

A rhinoceros contributes a very different note from a hummingbird, and either from a lynx or an orca. Yes, they are all different.

And many are going extinct.

Yes they are, and while you may regret that, recognize that the song is changing as the acoustics change. Dinosaurs have no place in the changed world you live in. Larger fauna may have no place in the world as it reforms itself.

Reforms due to human intervention.

Not entirely – and, for that matter, what makes humans (who are animals too, after all) wish, consciously and unconsciously, to change the world one way rather than another? The world could be managed to be quite hospitable for large carnivores, say, or even herbivores, but it would be a very different world from yours as it exists and as it is transforming.

I kind of hate to see tigers and lions and all disappear. It seems like it will be so much less rich a world.

Yes, but when we resume we will need to talk of this, remembering that the 3D is a process and a state of being, not an ultimate goal.

All right.