I asked Dirk for more questions and very quickly (within three hours) received a new list.
[Hmmm… Additional questions. I have been reading about the “triune brain” theory. I had not found that before. It matches my thought about the three progressive structures of brains – reptilian, mammalian, primate (higher mammal)… The scientists in the field have mostly rejected it based on actions from the “higher” brains on “lower” ones to control emotion etc… They seem to view things as only working hierarchically in one direction. Having been raised in control systems the lack of feedback and adaptive interaction would surprise me.
[As I read more about the objections it actually helped clarify my thoughts. And it blended nicely with what the guys have said. So, let’s leave that area for a moment and start a new approach.
[5) I have asked about mechanistic aspects of emotion and feeling. Let’s move to a different area. Within the various emotions and feelings we see people with very different sets of strengths or power or valence of emotion. I have asked about the mechanistic end of that. What about the spiritual aspects? I have thoughts about these, but I would like to hear what the guys have to say. Specifically ….
[5.1) In any specific lifetime how are the strengths (or whatever term is right) selected?
[5.2) What purpose do these choices serve?
[5.3) Are these selected by the person as a sort of agreement? Or is the process different?
[5.4) Does the choice greatly affect the life lived and the experiences gained?
[5.5) looked at slightly differently, how large a role does this play in how the life is experienced? (Between these two questions I am asking about a) magnitude and about b) direction or aspects or character – the direction that things play out.)
[5.6) Is a major reason for these to learn, such as to learn how to control or overcome them, or to deal with or overcome the consequences of a life lived that way? Or is it something else?
[5.7) Are there others factors involved?
[5.8) Is one of these agreements with others we will interact with during each life?
[5.9) How does the relative absence of certain emotions play out in this? Clearly we see sociopaths, psychopaths, narcissists, stoics, empaths, natural carers (a British term), sensitives of various types, and a myriad of others. Some seem highly negative in ways. Some highly positive. Some seemingly neutral.
[6.0) It seems apparent that certain sets of strengths of various emotions in varying combinations – valence, arousal, and intensity in psychological terms – lead to certain “strengths” and “advantages”, and other “weaknesses” and “disadvantages”. Is this a reasonable view? What can you tell us about this?]
Shall we address them?
You see again the power of having an interested third party provide detailed interrogatories. Another person is always going to come at things from a different angle. Perhaps only slightly different, perhaps radically different. What matters is not so much how different as how involved in the subject matter, and how reliable the bond of mutual rust.
I do see that. Rita and I had that.
If we foresee a difficulty with this set of questions, it is that you, Frank, may be tempted to address them too readily, too superficially. Opinion is not necessarily knowledge.
I will try to keep myself out of it. And yes, I realize that means, first of all, slow down, recalibrate, sink into it.
Always good procedures. Very well, let’s look at the question on the spiritual aspects of emotions and feelings. So, 5.0 and 5.1
It is important for this part of the discussion that you remember that we chose “3D and non-3D” over “physical and spiritual” specifically in order to consider non-3D aspects of life without bearing the burden of people’s luggage around the word “spiritual.” For one thing, the dichotomy between physical and spiritual is not what people think it, any more than physical = 3D and spiritual = non-3D. But beyond that, too many assumed attributes of the reality referred to as “spiritual” have to be taken or rejected on faith, and so are less available to calm examination. “Non-3D’ avoided that obstacle. But let us underline, here: Non-3D is not a code-word for “spiritual.”
Dirk’s use of “spiritual” doesn’t imply that either, if we understand him rightly, but doesn’t exactly mean “non-3D” either. More like “purposive.” At any rate, that is what we will address, and he may correct us if need be.
Specifically, the first question asks how we come up with the balance within a given individual. Why are some people very emotional and others not at all and every variation between the two.
For clarity, let us remind you that you can’t necessarily see another person’s emotional makeup as well as you may think. Yes, you can see things that perhaps s/he can’t, but there are things lived that you may have no clue to. How, and how much, and how easily, and how smoothly or jaggedly a person expresses its emotions is not a sure guide to the relative strengths of those emotions per se. Nor is one’s control over them necessarily the control they were born with. To some extent it is a product of past choices. You can see this in yourselves.
Now, to examine the innate relative balance and intensity of feelings, we must back up a bit, because this cannot be understood outside the context of the bundle as a whole.
“Bundle” meaning, I take it, the total package being inserted into a specific space-time-location.
Yes. In a sense, any 3D-soul is a product of compromises.
I am tempted to joke, “That explains so much!”
“Many a truth is said in jest.” There is truth in that jest, and as we pursue it – and more so, if you each will pursue it – it will lead you far. It is a not inconsiderable clue.
You need to consider this in two complementary ways, from the purposive end and from the available opportunity end. And this simple insight will branch off in so many directions!
You as you experience yourselves (3D souls) and you as you do not [consciously] experience yourselves (part of the “external” world, the shared subjectivity that together upholds the 3D reality) are never separate except in so far as your mentality is unable to hold the two in connection. That is, you have a need to think of yourselves as “me or it” but it is never that way really.
I think people may find it difficult to follow the thread here; so far it is implied rather than explicit.
- The shared subjectivity – the “external” seemingly objective world – has a terrific inertia. It doesn’t turn on a dime, and it can’t be magically altered to give whatever you want without at the same time perhaps giving you what you don’t want, or at any rate didn’t think about.
The fables about the sorcerer’s apprentice, for instance.
- The 3D-soul to be: It must be inserted somewhere, somewhen. Choice is wide but not unbounded. Maybe we have to put square pegs into round holes – slightly, somewhat, largely, perhaps unbearably.
Aha! And that’s when the emotions come in! Looking at them as the ionized layer, buffering the 3D soul and the environment it is place in –.
Whew! So one person may glow red-hot in certain circumstances and another in seemingly the same circumstances won’t even experience friction. And in other circumstances, each may react differently.
Yes, but this is only the beginning of the insight, not the whole thing. So, slowly, slowly.