How definitions affect the process of communication

Saturday, July 25, 2015

For this one, I guess I’ll use “O:” for other, though I suppose TGU would be just about as good.

7:15 a.m. I was getting ready to go upstairs and open up the computer, but I got that someone wants to talk to me, which mostly means wants me to listen, I think, and not get distracted by externals. So, open for business. Rita, is it you? [Blank pause] No. Very well, let’s start again. I’m open to anybody who wants to talk, subject to the usual proviso about good intent.

[Long ago, I set ground rules for communication, specifically being open to anyone of my own level of development or higher, and excluding anyone not of benign intent.]

Okay, since nothing is forthcoming, maybe this is the time to talk about the blankness I and others sometimes get after asking a question or when waiting for a communication. When we experience such a blank response, (a) what if anything can we do to overcome it and (b) how can we tell if the interrupt is on our end or your end or between the two and (c) how can there even be an interrupt between one part of us (the mind in 3D) and another (the mind in non-3D)? I think I overcame a great part of the customary obstacles merely by not worrying about identifying the source, and again by not worrying (as far as I can!) about whether incoming information is to be taken at face value or not. So what more remains to be addressed as obstacles?

O: A lot of questions, and a recognition of how far you have come – consciously, anyway – in 30 years.

F: I suppose so.

O: Also, recognition of traits and attitudes that enable communication, which is more valuable for others as hints they and their non-3D selves can use to draw closer.

F: Surely their non-3D self doesn’t need such hints.

O: You occasionally fall back into thinking that anyone and anything in non-3D is perfect, omniscient, and wise, merely by virtue of being outside of your constricting environment. But we would remind you of something you realized long ago, which has direct application, though you might not think it at first blush. Certain psycho-active drugs may act to inhibit inhibitors in the brain so as to, in effect, expand one’s 3D awareness of one’s larger mental self. (That’s one way to put it.) The drug does not change what they see; it changes how much they are allowed to perceive. In effect, it changes their awareness, but it does not in fact change what is there to be seen.

F: I’ve always said, after my mescaline trip, observing its effect on the other two and on me, that it magnified what was there to be seen. If you have chaos, it magnified chaos. If you were a mystic, you got mystical insights.

O: Not a bad way to see it. Closer would be, it may steer you toward unsuspected aspects of yourself that you happen to be attuned to at the moment. Hence, not as simple as looking at it as chemical truth serum. More like a chemical Rorschach test.

Now, the analogy is this. When your 3D mind releases from its 3D tether – when you drop the body – it does not thereby change what it has made itself in a lifetime practice of living the units into a new unit.

F: Integrating the strands by functioning together over time.

O: Yes. What it is – considered as a 3D-conditions-shaped unit – it continues to be. Only, that isn’t the end of it. It also (not instead, but also) reintegrates into the larger being from which it was shaped, and thus changes to incorporate those more encompassing insights.

F: I think you just said, the mind changes or it doesn’t change, depending upon the context we’re thinking of it.

O: Not so much depending on the context of the hypothetical viewer, but yes. Its new condition is both, and neither, condition. But experienced either way, the mind does not magically become something other than itself, which is what it would amount to if a mind freed from the 3D were to become instantly, automatically, omniscient and wise.

F: You mean, some people’s non-3D component is wiser or more aware or more experienced, etc., than others.

O: You were told long ago that minds in 3D are subject to passions, beliefs, even fanaticisms that are shaped and exaggerated by 3D conditions, but are not created from nothing. There is nothing in 3D that is not pre-existed in non-3D, only it is 3D that brings matters to a boil.

F: I hadn’t thought of it in terms of awarenesses as well as of beliefs.

O: That is why we are telling you.

F: Another lesson, eh?

O: You asked specifically why the process of communication is sometimes interrupted, and it seemed a good opportunity to point out that you are not all dealing with the same conditions all the time. Despite the fact that people think that “on the other side, there is no time,” in fact things change, and the 3D was crafted to help them change more, and faster, and in more  intricate ways. If everything in non-3D were the unchanging bliss that it is sometimes pictured to be, why would we need the 3D? if non-3D had no conflicts of values (arising from differences in makeup), where would they come from, in 3D which is created from the non-3D?

So, this is just another level of complexity to add to your emerging picture. The only way to understand the elements of a complex picture is to present first its simplest elements. You can begin with an image of the whole constructed of only the most elementary features – as we did – or you can describe the interrelation of a somewhat known unit (3D life) with the somewhat experienced elements of another somewhat known unit (non-3D life) – which we also did. Either way, and both ways at once, you are going to have to move on to a more nuanced, more seemingly contradictory view, as you absorb the base elements.

F: So you’re cautioning us not to think this throws out the baby with the bathwater.

O: We’re asking you not to do it! Contradictions in newly absorbed concepts will be discouraging to some; don’t let such discouragement get out of hand. Instead, reflect that any subject contains complexities that are not immediately apparent to a first glance.

F: Okay, a question. From your language, I get the impression it isn’t anyone I’ve ever talked to.

O: Which means you are better at hearing nuance – and that you are tempted to forget what you learned about the value of not attributing source.

F: I guess. Your use of language certainly is different. Maybe I should have let it come as it came.

O: No great harm done; you were careful to preserve the meaning. It is no more than one hesitating in choosing words to express a thing.

F: Which I have been known to do. So, looking back, what of my original  question?

O: We have been answering the latter parts of it, how can there be a problem. The former parts, what can you do to overcome it, we have just demonstrated. Be open, let the material flow even while you are unaware of it, do not insist upon thinking you know who or what you have on the other end of the line. The more definitions you insert into the process, the more you constrict it to fit those requirements. So – remove the constrictions and perhaps the flow improves. Makes sense, does it not?

F: It does. But I doubt it is the whole story.

O: We doubt anyone ever gets to the end of knowing, which is what “the whole story” means in context.

F: Smiling. All right, thanks. I’ll send this around. Till next time. Thank you, Mr. Mystery Guest. I feel like John Daly on What’s My Line, except you never did sign in.

O: On the other hand, you didn’t have to sit through any commercials.

F: True enough. Okay.

One thought on “How definitions affect the process of communication

  1. Didn’t quite have the flavor of Nathaniel, though it feels like this is from that vector. (That’s an odd word. It felt correct.) Hmmm. Very good stuff today. Bears rereading.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.