Monday, April 5, 2021
4 a.m.
[From Martha D. MacBurnie, 4-4-2021 in response to “TGU — and me — on the virus and warfare analogy”:
[Frank, can you ask the Guys why there’s not a more gentle way to transform society? Warfare, disease, famines, floods, revolutions – so violent! Wouldn’t you think there would be a better way to accomplish similar levels of change? Or some way to have people address causes before they get to the boiling point of catastrophe? The history of humans on this planet seems so unnecessarily destructive, unnecessarily hierarchical, and stupid. Will we fare any better when we’re more in touch with our more-than-3-D parts? It mostly seems to me that whoever is running this show is sociopathic, homicidal, or inept. Or maybe I’m just unclear on the concept. Maybe cliffhangers and disasters are really what people and the more-than-3-Ds like best?]
Martha asks a sincere question, so I ask you for comment, though the answer seems obvious to me. I she has this question, presumably others do too.
Of course. What we have asked of you – of any who read this, we mean, of course – is a fairly radical readjustment in point of view. Until – unless – you make that change, not much that we have to say will make much sense to you.
Yes. She seems still to think it is about society, though you have said often enough that 3D life is about individuals.
This time we’re going to ask that you recalibrate – focus your attention and your energies – not so that you may write clearly but so that you may hear nuance. And we ask this of anyone reading this. There isn’t much point in skimming this, saying “I know all that,” and failing to stop and consider it with your emotional center, rather than merely with your intellectual (rationalizing) center.
“To see takes time,” Georgia O’Keefe said.
Yes, whether that means seeing what a flower looks like or seeing what an emotional connection feels like, or a set of situational connections.
Okay. [Recalibrating.]
Perhaps the way to emphasize interconnection of argument is to use bullet points, as we would in showing interconnection of fact:
- It isn’t about transforming society as end; it is about transforming society as means.
- Violence is not inherently bad or good. Slow-motion change is not inherently less painful than short, sharp changes.
- In any case, it isn’t about people addressing causes, not in the way this implies. It is not a matter of social engineering.
- History will appear to be a certain way – violent, destructive, stupid, etc. – mostly in response to the filters one applies. A different filter emphasizing non-violence, creation, intelligence, will find plenty of evidence as well.
- “Whoever is running this show” implies an intelligence and will [that are] separate from humanity as a whole. This is and is not an accurate statement, as we shall explore.
- It is not a matter of what people and non-3D parts of people “like best”; it is a matter of what results from a given set of actions (including thought).
- And most important of all, perhaps, the question of how you will fare, and why, when you are living a 3D life in active connection with your non-3D component.
Now, that’s quite a few negative statements. Let us rephrase it all into the positive view that corresponds to this negative space.
“Negative space” in the sense of the space around the object, that defines it even if it itself goes unnoticed.
Yes. We do not mean positive and negative here in the sense of good and bad. As you say, the negative serves to outline what we do not mean, so now it is up to us to state what we do mean.
And I get that the reason you asked us to focus carefully is that he temptation will be strong to resist changing our point of view, in considering all this.
Yes. And if you will not look at matters from a different point of view, you will in effect merely dig in your heels and say, “No, this goes against my principles,” as if you were more moral, more compassionate, more sensitive, than we.
Well, you did say, long ago, that we might find you emotionally chilly by comparison.
Yes, but that doesn’t mean that a hot spot is the only valid measure of what is normal or desirable.
Far be it from me to defend you. Proceed.
We’re smiling too, but you know, in a way it might be said that the only way to defend anyone from any charge is to try on their point of view.
“To understand everything would be to forgive everything.”
Yes, and we suggest that you remember this, in considering society and 3D humanity. If you will begin by really understanding yourselves and being willing however tentatively to forgive yourselves, you can make real progress, because you will gain the ability to really move off your present point of view.
In other words, we will be actively choosing what we want to be, rather than merely drifting with what we already believe and see.
That’s right. Now, the positive-space equivalent of the negative-space bullets:
- We have said repeatedly that “society,” as an abstraction, is not as real as any individual. That doesn’t mean “society” doesn’t exist; it does mean, it isn’t what it appears to be. Like statistics, like scientific laws, it expresses sets of relationships. It itself does not exist without what it is expressing, which is – individuals.
- Therefore, what society looks like as a whole is vastly less important than the opportunities and situations it presents for the individuals it comprises. A society that is chaotic and seemingly a jumbled mess (when seen as if it were a thing) may in its details provide a quite endless series of possibilities each of which is coherent in itself.
That needs expanding, I think. I get that you mean that just as Bob Monroe described the sum total of earth’s mental production as a raucous jumble of noise – M-Band energy, I think he called it – but within that noise were all these meaningful interactions —
We wouldn’t say your paraphrase is much of an improvement.
No. Let me try again. If you had 500 symphony orchestras playing at the same time, each playing a different piece of music, the result would be unendurable. But listening to any one of them might be beautiful.
Yes, better. And focusing on harmony rather than discord will show that there is plenty to focus on.
To continue:
- The question of social engineering needs to be addressed. Is it anybody’s business to rearrange the world, or rather to judge the world that declines to be rearranged, to suit any one person’s opinions of it? Or any one group’s, large or small? You aren’t here to improve upon the world, but to live in it.
As Thoreau said, long ago.
Many people have said it, and been criticized for it as being unfeeling. Now, three important points, if we can express them:
- “Whoever is running the show.” Yes, there is a sense in which your 3D reality is scripted, but it is easily misunderstood. If you cannot understand the external world as an expression of your shared subjectivity – that is, of all of you (present and past, in 3D terms, but of course all present and alive in non-3D terms) – then you cannot see that whatever is, is because of what you are. We may have to expand upon this another time, if it is not understood.
- Cliffhangers and disasters occur. You can’t say “This is what people want” unless you also say of routine life that “This is what people want,” as well. And, given that both statements are equally true, where is the dysfunction?
Even a very dramatic movie has a basis in normal life. Even normal life has scope for drama.
You can’t have one side of duct tape without having the other side as well. One side is smooth, the other sticky. Which is preferable? Which is even meaningful in the absence of the other?
- And finally, for the moment, the most important question, and we can’t quite see why it isn’t obvious. When 3D players are living with full non-3D awareness (“as well,” not “instead of”!), all motivations will be different. The errors and offenses that take place because of one’s relative isolation will no longer occur. You won’t be the same people, you will be more. Can society fail to change in response? Or, to put it another way, can you name an equally effective way to transform society than to transform those it expresses?
Seems to me you packed a lot of information into our time. Thanks as always.