Monday, June 6, 2016, D-Day
4 a.m. Proceed.
Remember always, nothing exists in isolation. Not in the 3D world, not in the non-3D world. Everything connects. So as you examine the workings of a sub-system (which is what analysis must always amount to), you necessarily ignore connections and interactions essential to its functioning. There is no way out of this dilemma; all that can be done is to compensate for it. That is, change your frame of reference while trying to keep other frames of reference in mind.
Nobody can keep it all in mind, at any level.
The world is always larger than our ideas of it, or our comprehension or apprehension of it.
You have to wonder if anybody can understand it at all, if the totality understands itself. If God does, you might say.
I will leave you to entertain yourselves with that speculation. It doesn’t provide a ledge for any real work to be done. It may be worthwhile to consider the question in the abstract, but it can do nothing to help you move practically, which is the hope here. It gets you nowhere to understanding the growing need to know, to move. Worse, it may tempt you to confuse idle speculation with real work. There is nothing wrong with idle speculation per se, but it is not work and must not be confused with work.
To continue our concentration on one aspect of reality, what I am calling the Greater Soul. We must consider it in isolation while remembering that there is no isolation. It is this difficulty, by the way, that causes so much trouble in religious and philosophical statements. When reality cannot be simply expressed, it cannot be expressed in a way that does not involve severe distortion. But we cannot stay to discuss that, only to note it, as we have noted it before, and many times.
You will remember, one root of this discussion is the question of old souls and young souls, of the urge to perfection, and the perceived obstacles to the perfection process. It involves the question of karma and rebirth and soul development and all the systems and speculations that involve a sense of evolution from one level of being to another. I tell you flatly, no system that has ever been applied to these questions is nor ever can be complete and correct. What’s more, in effect, reality changes, and so schemes that used to be relatively correct are no longer as correct as they were, because they describe a situation that no longer exists.
Note well, what I just said does not mean, “people’s understanding of reality evolves, and so it is as if reality itself changes,” although this is true as well. No, it means what it says: Reality changes. A little thought will show you that any system that acquires additional layers of complication will change its nature. Coming to a greater understanding of a system changes it.
Let me repeat that. Coming to a greater understanding of a given system in itself changes that system.
How can it not? Increased self-consciousness changes the character of the pieces on the board, so to speak. A game in which the pieces have more self-awareness and more awareness of the system as a system, changes nature accordingly.
You say that as if it were self-evident, and as if it were self-evidently applicable to our situation. But I’m not sure how many people will be willing to follow you, there.
You mean, you don’t know if what I say is true or is even sensible. Fair enough, but follow provisionally. Why do you suppose the 3D world exists, but to add layers of complexity to reality by allowing for the creation of complex beings?
Yes, Rita talked about that.
Now apply it in the new context of the evolution of the universe, the world, reality, whatever word you choose to use to represent totality. Not only 3D but All-D. The destruction and re-creation of totality as described in Eastern scripture and dogma must be repetitious and even futile (or at least must count as “art for art’s sake”) if nothing really changes, if reality remains what it always was.
But – to keep the argument simple for the moment – if the 3D world was created, did it not necessarily start out simpler than it became with the cumulative addition of so many previously non-existing compound beings, interacting and interacting and serving as the building blocks of yet more complex compound beings?
I can accept that without necessarily postulating that the rules themselves change.
Fair enough, but, given enough complexity, conscious feedback assures that the rules will change, because the application of unchanged rules to a changed set of players will result in different results. More than that, increasing the self-awareness of the compound beings changes the self-awareness of their non-3D components as well, which until now you have not thought to factor in.
Your essence, your deepest core, is not content with being what you are. Why is that? Why wouldn’t humans be contented like animals or plants or minerals?
This is a question in itself. And now I go one farther. What does it mean that the very animals attain greater self-consciousness and begin to alter themselves as humans have always altered themselves? Is this not a fundamental change – not in human perception of reality, but in the reality itself?
In other words, the world you live in is not the world you were born into, let alone the world as it existed in the time of Shakespeare or Charlemagne or Atlantis or any time you care to consider. It isn’t that culture changes and therefore things appear to you to be different (though this happens too) but that things are different, and you are called to live them.
Reality is not an endless loop continually replaying the same old show. It is a progression, not a replay. Thinking that there is nothing new under the sun – though true enough in a limited sense of human motivation and action – leads to a feeling of futility and even exasperation. But that sense of futility is not warranted. It is a new day not only in your perceptions but in the larger reality you are perceiving.
Emerson had a sense of this, didn’t he? That was the source of his optimism.
Don’t go off comparing what others have gotten, or you’ll wind up doing the scholastic thing, categorizing and comparing rather than using. Categorizing and comparing are well and good if done with the intent to do something with the greater understanding, but futile or nearly so if done for the sake of contemplating a new arrangement without living the new reality.
So this is enough for the moment, because the implications are immense. If you can follow, you are being given something entirely new in the world, a new sense of possibilities (including the possibility of getting lost in new ways).
That’s a pretty ambitious statement. It sounds inflated, to me. What can be entirely new in the world?
As I said, if you can follow along –
Well, we’ll see, I guess. Thanks for all this, and we’ll continue at another time.