Monday, October 7, 2019
2:45 a.m. All right, open for business. You were differentiating between the human role as special and, on the other hand, the spirits who become human. At least, that is what I gathered.
That’s right, and you see you already have at least one dissenter from the idea that humans in 3D are special, regardless of the evidence we offered. You are going to find that, because, as we said, it is an emotionally charged subject. The fact remains, among compound beings, only the human experience, or the human condition, serves the key role of conditioner of the environment. To say this is not to say humans are admirable (or otherwise), or are distinctive in any way other than, as we say, bridging the animal and celestial kingdoms.
We are not inclined to argue about it; the facts presented will convince or they will not. But we are open to answering specific objections or responding to specific questions.
Well, since you mention questions, I have been sitting on a question received a week ago, waiting for a break in the flow of information.
[New comment on your post “continuing on the animal kingdom”
[Frank, if you get a chance, given that the focus so far on “3D” is on the things of physical matter, could you ask TGU about the nature of what we call “energy”. Specifically, what is the relationship of atomic/nuclear energy and physical reality and non-3D? Why does radiation affect 3D matter and does it affect non-3D and how? I’ve read some channeled material saying that any atomic reaction or such release of energy affects all dimensions, which makes sense, but in what ways?]
This is actually three questions, one of them general and two specific.
Yes, and I know you specifically answered that third question some years ago, but I have no idea where to find it, so I hope you do.
[I noticed, transcribing this, a question the guys missed or chose not to address, namely: “Why does radiation affect 3D matter.” So I asked as I transcribed, and got this: “The question as posed is capable of scientific explanation, and so is not the kind of thing we tend to address. The short answer is that 3D matter is energy in the same way that atomic radiation is energy (see our distinction drawn in the session), so there is no reason why one would not affect the other.”]
Let’s proceed sequentially.
- The nature of energy. We repeat that it is important to remember that energy is physical, that it is matter in unbound form. It is not non-3D merely because it is shapeless. For that matter, it is not so much shapeless as fluid. But the point is, E=mc2, and don’t forget it.
However, that is not the whole story, for the word “energy” as commonly used includes things that might better be differentiated.
I get the vague sense of where you are going with this. It is going to take some spelling out.
It is indeed. The “energy” that is the portal-ness of a portal between dimensions, or the sacred-ness of sacred spots, or the manifesting potential that is seen as ghosts or other apparitions, is not the same as the electricity that flows through wires, or the heat of a fire, or the potential or kinetic energy that is inherent in a physical situation.
I feel the distinction and I agree, the two kinds of thing are not the same, and are merely slapped together by our sloppy language.
You might distinguish between them by calling them “physical energy” and “spiritual energy,” or “non-physical energy,” but this division will bring its own problems, of course.
Maybe 3D energy and non-3D energy
That might avoid some of the confusion, but of course it is not literally accurate. It is all 3D, it is all non-3D. At any rate, it is necessary to realize that the common use of the world “energy” confounds two different things by one common name.
2) The relation between atomic energy and the non-3D. This is a question that implies 3) that atomic explosions have a non-3D effect.
What you are vaguely remembering is a discussion we had in response to a question of whether atomic explosions created holes in the boundaries of the 3D world (so to speak) which then allowed non-beneficial energies (evil spirits) to flood into your 3D world. We explained that this was a problem of definition, that language was distorting your understanding of the nature of things.
I remember your saying it was a non-problem, but I don’t remember your reasoning. In any case, that isn’t quite what is being asked here. Is it?
It isn’t explicitly stated, but that is the underlying question: Do atomic explosions somehow create effects beyond the 3D world.
How you view the situation depends upon where you begin, as always. In one sense, anything that happens in 3D of course affects non-3D, given that 3D is a part of All-D, as is non-3D. This is less obvious than it ought to be, and we can’t quite see why.
Well, I think I can. To us, the 3D is observable and tangible, and the non-3D is not, so we have to take the non-3D on faith, either faith in what is called spiritual reality, or faith in mathematics. Either way, the non-3D may be deduced but not directly experienced, so of course it is going to be seen differently.
You can hardly say, though, that its effects on you in 3D cannot be experienced.
No, but the existence of the non-3D as the source of those experiences has to be deduced.
All right, we can see that. It is a curtain opaque to you, transparent to us. It does affect the understanding.
Now, that is one way to see it, that 3D automatically affects non-3D because they are part of the same larger whole. But the other way to see it is, atomic explosions in 3D affect the non-3D only indirectly, in the way an explosion of dynamite would, or a popgun. That is, there is no disruptive effect “elsewhere” other than the inherent disruption of the 3D.
That got garbled. You meant, I think, there is no disruption of boundaries between 3D and other realms inherent in the destabilization of one form of energy (matter) by bombardment of atomic materials, turning that atomic material from matter into energy.
Yes. You might as well think to disrupt dimensional boundaries (call them) by piling explosives up to heaven and setting them off. The 3D is the 3D; the non-3D by definition is a different aspect of the totality of reality that we are calling the All-D. You aren’t going to change that no matter how much of a mess you make in the 3D, or, for that matter, how much of a mess you make of the 3D. Suppose they are setting off atomic bombs on Alpha Centauri. Would you expect that to short-circuit reality?
Well, that isn’t too persuasive one way or the other. I don’t know that we would expect to experience effects from that distance one way or the other.
No, but that isn’t what we meant. We were reminding you that when we, or you, say “the 3D” it does not refer to planet Earth alone, but all the physical world.
The foolishness or wickedness of the use of scientific method to produce the technology capable of poisoning the entire planet does not need accentuating by claiming for it deleterious results even greater than it is producing. And here we might branch off to another major subject that it suggests, and that is the misuse of science to create chimeras. [Chimeras are organisms produced by mixing materials between species, to produce something that is genetically part human, part animal.]
Yes, it is terrifying. They proceed as if “whatever we can do, we have a right to do, and perhaps even a duty (to something) to do.” And the damned fools are getting us into something we’re going to have to battle, and battle among ourselves about, forever. I’m glad I’m not young (as I keep saying), so I don’t have to see it.
If you want to worry about breaching dimensions between 3D and non-3D, we suggest that you bear in mind that the human dimension is the key. An explosion or any physical manifestation is just that, a physical manifestation. But any alteration of what it is to be human involves ramifications you can scarcely suspect, ramifications that will be invisible until they manifest, by which time it will be too late.
Now, we do not pretend that these challenges are the end of the world, though they will be the end of the social world you have known; life is challenge, and if it is not one thing, it will be another. But still, societally, you are being blind-sided.
Yes. For years, Stephan Schwartz has been posting articles on the subject of what he calls “homo superioris,” that is, technologically modified humans. But that doesn’t mean anyone influential is listening. In our day, technological possibility has the bit in its teeth and is running full-tilt, out of control. If it isn’t done in the US, it will be done in Europe, or Cina, or God knows where. And if anybody is controlling it system-wide (as opposed to specific applications), it isn’t obvious who that would be.
In any case, atomic explosions may be foolish – are foolish, and dangerous, and damaging in many ways – but they would not damage the greater scheme of things even if they were to destroy the Earth.
Cold comfort for us, however.
Better to focus on real threats than on bugaboos.
Okay, well, thanks as always, and till next time.