Friday, January 17, 2020
5:10 a.m. There is one task in 3D life, whatever that may be, and there is one’s path, and they are not the same thing, though they may run in parallel. A Jefferson, say – not to mention a Washington! – may have an important role to play on the stage of 3D Theater, and may play it well or badly. But at the same time, that soul will have its own private goals and obstacles that may have nothing to do with public life.
I am putting this in clumsy fashion, don’t know why; it’s clear enough. given that “external” doesn’t actually exist –. Or, let’s look at that. You’re about to give me a new take on it, I gather. But it was your saying in the first place.
As you say, a new take, a new more sophisticated way to see it.
In saying the “external” does not exist, we mean, of course, that nothing is disconnected. There is no “me/not-me” although all your sensory evidence says there is, and all your logic built from sensory evidence persuades you of what you already believe. However, to say there is no external means, nothing unconnected to you; it does not mean, “What appears external to you does not exist.”
What of things of no conceivable direct connection to us? The core of the Earth, the ice rings of Saturn, the surface of Jupiter?
No conceivable connection: exactly. No direct connection you can conceive of. But so what? That is like one entangled particle denying the existence (let alone the influence) of another entangled particle. This will be easier for you to think about if you think of it in terms of a movie, or a hologram. Every cel in a movie, every bit of a hologram, is an integral part of a whole that can be comprehended only on another scale.
Or force-fields, say?
Yes, in some ways a better analogy. Healers align their unseen energy with others’ unseen energy. They interact; they resonate. It would be foolish to deny the existence of energies merely because they cannot be seen, and even more foolish to deny interactions merely because the mechanism supporting the interaction is unknown or even unknowable. (We do not say it is unknowable, we say “even if” it were.)
So we are connected to Jupiter – how?
This requires, and repays, a bit of scaffolding. In this case, it may be seen as a progression, one that will change as you change.
I think you mean, “How things appear to relate” changes along the scale you are about to set out, according to how we change in relation to them.
Remember (and don’t be discouraged), it can be difficult to phrase new understandings, but the very struggle seats them in.
Okay. So –
- You had no telescopes. Jupiter was a “wanderer” in the skies, nothing more.
- With telescopes – only 400 years ago, after all – suddenly it is more than it was to you, and less. More in that it was easier to conceptualize as a material being. Less in that materiality appeared to diminish or banish the former astrological or mythological presence.
- With photography, now Jupiter becomes the planet with the mysterious Red Spot, the nature of which remains mysterious.
- With space probes, Jupiter is seen to have a ring! The Red Spot is seen to be a centuries-old storm.
- With radio-telegraphy, in the meantime, Jupiter is seen anew, as a massive emitter of radio waves, that is, of electromagnetic transmissions.
Now, this sketches only five changes, but perhaps it illustrates how as an example Jupiter as “external” object may interact differently with you (you meaning 3D intelligences) depending upon, not changes in Jupiter, but changes in how the 3D being perceives it!
Now maybe only ten people in a thousand ever spare Jupiter a thought. Maybe one in that thousand allows its influence to become a conscious influence. Does Jupiter care about its Nielson ratings? Yet its influence is perceived differently according to the receptivity of the person interacting.
Astrologically, Jupiter is in its place. It forms aspects with other planets; it expresses the qualities of the time, as does every celestial object, of course. Does this depend upon human cognition? Does it depend upon human receptivity? Obviously, it doesn’t. But variations in receptivity and cognition will help determine its effect as experienced.
Can we bring this down to earth a little, for the benefit of those who don’t believe in astrology?
We can, but we smile at your implication, for it demonstrates our point. Belief or disbelief has no effect on “external reality” but has everything to do with how you will experience the effects of that reality. You don’t need to believe in astrology to live your life affected by astrological influences, but if you learn and experience, your life deepens.
A mundane example would be politics. The political world continues as a life on its own, regardless of how much attention to it you pay. But its impact on you as an individual may move across a gradient:
- Wars and taxes, social reality. You will be affected to greater or less extent just by being alive.
- If you are a partisan, or an ideologue, or an activist for a cause, the reality of the political world will be much greater, much closer, for you.
- If you are an insider, or a candidate, obviously your mental world will be filled to a much greater extent by political events.
- Similarly, if you are an office-holder or one of the behind-the-scenes movers and shakers. The more you involve yourself, the more the “exterior” becomes “interior,” until a Napoleon can see the world only as something to be manipulated and subdued.
The logic of that last sentence isn’t clear to me.
A Napoleon loses the distinction between me and non-me in a negative way.
A positive way being the pursuit of wisdom.
Certainly. Statecraft, politics, ideology, “practical” affairs tend always to cut against the pursuit of wisdom, as ought to be obvious by the results they produce.
Yet quietism doesn’t do too well either.
Hmm, interesting. That’s a careful distinction that had escaped me.
Yes, the question is not how to relate to the unseen world and its interaction with the 3D reality; not, how to bend the external to the will of the internal, but something quite different: “How do I use the external world as signposts to keep me on track?”
And I take it, that’s a topic for another day. Are we beginning a new series of conversations?
Time will tell, won’t it?
Thanks as always.