Thursday, December 3, 2020
7:05 a.m. Perhaps it is time to get to work again. I see that Louise Calio had emailed me a while ago, asking if Jane Peranteau’s question had ever been addressed. Jane had asked if we in 3D affected the vast impersonal forces in any way beyond how we expressed them in our lives. “In other words, you could say they hone us. Do we hone them? Or is it just about honing us?”
It’s an excellent question, and I might as well start by saying, “Beats me. If we do, I don’t know how. If we don’t, I don’t know why not.” So what say you, friends?
Welcome back. And don’t go feeling guilty or even puzzled by the hiatus. Not everything that expresses in 3D life results from 3D decisions or lack of decision, from 3D action or inaction. And this is part of our response to the question you are finally able to ask us to address.
You will remember, All is one; As above, so below; and Each of you in 3D is a unique window serving as conduit of Spirit which exists ell above 3D influence or manipulation. Holding in mind these givens, look again at the question. What’s the answer?
I don’t know. Is it “Which you?”
That’s part of it, yes. Can you express it a little more fully?
I guess in this context the question is almost meaningless, in that it slides between definitions. Or, doesn’t slide between them, as much as assume one and forget the other.
The question as posed sort of asks if we in our 3D lives affect the vast impersonal forces. If we were separate from the rest of us – the non-3D, and the larger beings from whom we are created as quasi-separate beings, and all the rest of us via the network of interrelations in 3D and non-3D – the answer would probably be, “No, of course we don’t.” But we are not separate. Our 3D decisions help shape our larger being, because they shape us (who are a part of that larger being) via third-tier consequences. I don’t know if that changes the answer to a yes, but clearly it affects the question.
Yes it does. Here’s an analogy to consider. If a life-experience of some kind changes someone, does it change that persona’s children by how it changes the person? Dos it change its friends, associates, enemies, neighbors, parents even?
I don’t see that the question can be answered yes or no. It’s a maybe.
Of course it is. Being changed, someone may or may not change those around it. If so, then yes. If no, then no. If sometimes, or potentially, or slightly or greatly, then that. But you can’t say “yes” or “no” per se.
But it seems to me that in saying maybe, we are implicitly saying “Yes” to at least one sense of Jane’s question. That is, potentially we can affect the vast impersonal forces.
No, that isn’t a valid understanding. We have yet to make it clear. Not even indirectly will you affect those forces. But you may affect how they are experienced – that is, how they manifest. But this is not what you are thinking.
I’m not really thinking anything very clearly. But I was thinking we had gotten somewhere for a moment.
We did, only you went a step too far, too soon. Recalibrate.
I see it’s a form of pressing for clarity which, itself, reduces clarity.
There is a right way and a wrong way to do anything. A technique that is appropriate sometimes is not, other times.
Let’s return to “you can’t say yes or no per se,” drawing a different set of conclusions. Rather than thinking this demonstrates something directly, let’s look at the nature of things. Does your life change the world? Does it change reality? Does it weigh in the scales in any meaningful way?
Surely you can see that the answer is, “It depends upon the scale you examine the subject in.” Day to day among your family and friends. Long-term among them. Day to day in your world at large, and long-term among them. This is four states right there, at only the most superficial examination of the situation. It doesn’t even begin to address your inner world and its consequences. It doesn’t consider you as part of a network of lives any of which may be affected.
All right, I see that.
Well, it’s the old “focusing the microscope (or telescope)” analogy. What you see depends on what your focal length allows you to see. There isn’t any one answer to all situations, only a “one answer” to a specific way of looking at things.
You’re saying (I think) that our question is ether too broad or too narrow to answer.
We’re saying this is the answer: that it depends on your meaning, which as usual depends on a lot of unconscious or semi-conscious assumptions.
Looking at this, I get that it answers part of Jane’s question. It says, it depends on which “you” we’re thinking of. But doesn’t that still support the conclusion I jumped to earlier, that potentially we can affect the forces?
We see the slippage here. Our qualification was not that you could or couldn’t sometimes affect the world around you even at a higher level: It was that you cannot affect the motivating forces themselves. It’s strictly a matter of disproportion. An atom of seawater, no matter what it does or what happens to it, cannot expect to affect the tides.
Ah! Got it. We don’t affect Spirit, any more than the atom affects the tides. The drop of seawater is part of the sea; it is affected by the tides and cannot not be, but its resistance or compliance (assuming it were capable of such) cannot affect the tide nor the moon that draws it..
Exactly. And if this is not clear, or spurs additional questions, you know where to find us.
Well, I do in theory. What has been going on this past month since November sixth?
That would be telling, as they say. Settle for resumption of access.
Cryptic. Okay, well at any rate thanks for this session.