Friday August 19, 2016
4:30 a.m. “Groups of spirits coordinate to form a soul.” Can’t say I’ve gotten any enlightenment from this idea.
But you haven’t done any thinking about it, either.
Perhaps not. Hard to see what to do with it, though.
This. Think organizing principles. Think scalable repeatable patterns. Think knitting. All of life (all of reality) is pattern and interaction and
You may not be awake enough for this. If you want to continue, concentrate.
Now, what did you just do? You recruited your forces. You brought them to the center (your present attention being the center). Can you feel what we mean?
Maybe. There is some analogy between the act of connecting and the bringing into being a new soul.
There is, and it is not necessarily any more permanent.
I beg your pardon?
A life – a soul – a moment of concentration of the universal mind. Not so different. Mostly, it is a matter of scale. You must learn to scale your thinking, if you are to understand a universe without structure that is nevertheless not chaotic (in the ordinary sense of the term), not formless.
The universe has form, not structure. It flows in patterns, and those patterns are inherent in its structure. And yes, we are phrasing this in mutually contradictory ways for a reason. To get snarled in implications of the word “structure” or “flow” would hamper your coming to an understanding.
We want you to intuit what cannot be expressed in 3D terms. Just as we must use terms like “3D” even after we have explained that dimensions are only a way of thinking about things, so we must use analogies to suggest, more than describe.
If you can intuit a vast swirl, repeated fractally (that is, the same pattern endlessly repeated at larger and smaller scale), it will give you an entry. Not that the universe is a fractal, any more (or less) than it is a sphere, or a hologram. But you have little to work with but vivid analogies, because you can’t get where you want to go by logic.
You have gotten used to the idea that what looks like an individual is actually a community of strands. And you have accepted, recently, that perhaps each strand is itself the equivalent of a “past life.” That idea helped marry two ways of approach that until then had remained separate. It connected life-as-individual with life-as-all-one-thing.
If you carry this logic backwards, you wind up asking how it began. Before anybody had conducted a 3D life, how were 3D lives available to act as strands? What comprised Adam, so to speak? (And we aren’t necessarily confining the argument to the earth. Wherever 3D life originated, and whenever, the question remains. What were the first 3D people made of when there were no prior lives available to act as strands?)
I get, clearly enough, that you are going to say “spirit,” and that earlier you started to say, “but that silently assumes that spirit is indivisible.”
Not indivisible so much as interchangeable. You tend to silently assume that spirit is an undivided undifferentiated mass like water, or air, rather than with properties such as molecules or substance.
That got muddled, didn’t it?
A little. Less in concept that in specific wording. The important point is that spirit is not uniform and featureless, just because it is indivisible and unbounded.
This reminds me of TGU telling us, years ago, something like we are not specialized, but we’re not jello either.
We’ll have to meet them.
Yeah, very funny. So the important point here?
Several interconnected points, only the real importance is not any of them or all of them together, but the new glimpse they may offer you. Life is never static. Life is never divided absolutely, in any way. Life is always deeper, shorter, longer, more ephemeral and more unchanging than you can realize. Name an attribute, life – reality – has it, and it expresses, and it adds to the richness and complexity of the whole.
I get almost a sense of despair at the prospect of getting across what you want to get across.
“Despair” is a little too permanent (not to mention dramatic), but it is a daunting task, yes. So many things to do at once, and so few resources to do them with. If it were not for people’s ability to intuit, with the active assistance of their own non-3D component, it would be hopeless.
Hmm. So it’s everybody fill in the lines, or connect the dots, their own way?
When is it ever any different? The very thing you complain about in theology or science is that they set out to use rules to connect the dots only one way, and any one way always necessarily suppresses other valid ways. Society compromises so that you can act together (that is, can co-operate), but it is only a compromise, and like all good compromises, it satisfies nobody and necessarily disregards valid contradictory points of view.
Now go back to the idea of your concentrating, in order to produce for the moment an intensification of focus for a given purpose. How is that any different from the non-3D forming a soul in 3D? You could be looked at as a moment of concentration, or, equally, as the result of a moment of concentration. You could be thought of as a thought, or as a mood even (almost), of the larger mind. And if you think of yourself that way, you will see yourself as ephemeral, dynamic, as a bridge between other concepts or ideas or moods. And all of these things are somewhat accurate.
Well, I’ve subscribed to the idea of the universe as a great thought rather than as a machine or even an organism, but I’ve never extended that to us ourselves.
No, and it is in the connection of concepts that the value inheres. As above, so below. It really is the key to understanding, provided you don’t let it calcify into one way of seeing things. If the universe (3D reality) is a great thought, what are you, furniture? Objects? Lumps? The constituent parts of a thought are – thought.
Stop here, and think about these things. Daydream about them. Let your intuition lead you on. And then we may proceed, but perhaps not right away. While you wait, much valuable work may be done – but you have to do the work, if only by being open to suggestion.