TGU on choices good and bad

Tuesday, May 4, 2021

5:55 a.m.  I don’t have any topic in mind, particularly. Do you?

You may take the day off, if you wish.

Yes, but if I don’t?

We could talk about what you say is your “so-called career.”

Let’s do that.

What you mean is, your inability to find a secure niche and then use it to find a great audience.

I do think of it that way, sometimes, yes. A steady relationship with one agent, or one publisher. It would make all the difference. Once Bob Friedman got interested in the Rita books, I had my one publisher, but unfortunately that wasn’t until after we had disposed of Hampton Roads. Rainbow Ridge never had HRPC’s resources. And my attempts to find an agent never came to anything. Sandra, Bill, Barbara – for one reason or another, it didn’t work out. I guess I think it had more to do with my inability to persist in the face of rejection than it did with anything else.

What, not inexplicable external circumstances? Life’s inherent unfairness? Someone’s fault?

Very funny. As you know, there was a time when I thought in such terms.

As a general rule – not merely for one issue, nor merely for you as one individual – we would say that any mental pattern that you have outgrown is likely to persist in the unconscious part of your being, waiting to re-emerge once stress reaches a sufficient level.

No hope for truly outgrowing something, then?

Not exactly that; let’s use your circuit-breaker analogy, twisting it to fit present needs.

I say we all have some inherent weakest spot that will be the first to go, just as circuit-breakers (or fuses) are predesigned weakest spots, to assure that overstress will not cause failures somewhere unpredictably but will fail there, safely and in one prearranged location.

And we will use that analogy to say, similarly, your own past weakest points are likely to remain your weakest points even if you have overcome them in ordinary life. We are not quite saying they function as circuit-breakers; neither are we quite saying they were not designed that way.

So what do you say, exactly?

Look at it this way. A certain mixture of elements was set to coexist in one physical body, one physical lifetime. That mixture obviously had its stronger and weaker points. From an analytical viewpoint you could say, “its desirable and undesirable aspects.” To some degree,

Wool-gathering. You were saying?

Your lifelong self-creation by decisions, or perhaps we could say your life of editing the materials you were born with, is going to change the result. That’s one main purpose of 3D life, after all. But you could equally say your life is not going to change what it finds. Rather, it chooses among elements, preferring to express some and repress or suppress or merely neglect others. It isn’t so much that you change, as that you present differently.

I’m getting that this is a more important distinction than we have known.

You will remember that we said you are all composed of so many millions of strands, and which ones you choose to pick up (and which to lay down) determine what your life is. Well, this is but another aspect of that truth. You don’t change what you are. You change what you express.

That makes a lifetime of choosing seem pretty futile.

No reason it should. A movie director has an army of potential actors, screen writers, plot devices, characters, etc. to work with. In any one movie he necessarily uses only a tiny percentage of the total resources available. At the end of the process, they all still exist. Was it futile to make the movie?

I guess I hadn’t thought about it, but our concept of change implies selection and culling, and maybe you can’t throw anything away in this universe.

A little slower, but that’s the idea.

Our labeling things good or bad is right in here, of course. Once you have decided that a thing is bad, there is no harm in discarding it, in making it cease to exist. Except, we can’t really do that, I guess.

You can choose, and indeed your life forces you to do that, continuously. But you cannot cause a thing to cease to exist, no. Your lifetime of choosing is a lifetime of choosing what you will express, not what you will comprise.

Thus the predestination aspect of the predestination/freewill coexistence in life.

You have been reminded that you can’t add a cubit to your stature, or change the color of your skin or of your eyes, etc. The leopard really cannot change his spots – and what advantage would there be if s/he could?

“Nothing is good or bad, but thinking makes it so.”

Like all expressed wisdom, it would be easy to mock or to contradict, because life seems to invalidate the generalization – but it is a case of “seems to,” not of “does” invalidate.

So then let’s revert to what you said would be our topic. In this light, it seems you are saying that my own bad habits are preventing my succeeding.

No, no, no. None of that. Not “bad habits.” Not “not succeeding.” We see we have not made our point, even to you.

  • Bad habits, good habits. Bad for what? Good for what? Change the desired goal and a habit’s goodness or badness appears in a different light.
  • Not succeeding. Same thing. One goal’s success may be another goal’s failure.
  • One’s life is one of choosing not merely what to express (i.e. radiate to one’s fellows) but also – primarily – what to cherish (i.e. what to choose because one is enamored of the quality for its own sake, not for any other reason).
  • “You never have the data,” hence you never know how well you are doing, and in fact you often don’t even know what races you have been entered in.
  • There are no accidents in life. Nothing happens without cause, regardless whether it is welcomed by those receiving it.

I see your point. I wonder, though, do you see ours?

If we were capable of laughing, that one statement would get you a massive horse laugh! We could hardly be unaware of people’s complaints of life. “Easy for them to say,” or “They don’t know what 3D life is life,” etc. You think perhaps we haven’t registered the sentiments? However, we would hope that you at least would know better.

Well, I do, really. Perhaps we look for some expression of understanding that our lives look different, and are harder to ride, than may appear from non-3D.

That’s what is so funny. You are saying – though you haven’t quite realized it – that you in a constricted-awareness situation understand better than we do. Our awareness extends throughout the non-3D, which means an awareness of interconnection – and (not “or”; and) through you in 3D. It is specifically your experience in life that we are keyed into. It is a life that we are living with you, moment by moment. Where is there room for us to not understand?

That’s embarrassing. Obvious, once you say it.

Just because our judgments don’t always march with yours doesn’t mean that when they don’t, it is because we are inexperienced.

I got it.

If so, this session hasn’t been a waste of your time.

That sounds like sarcasm.

Let’s think of it as gentle irony. It doesn’t waste our time, either.

Well, thanks very much for this. You can still jolt me every so often. Till next time.


One thought on “TGU on choices good and bad

  1. “If we were capable of laughing . . . ” What a paragraph! Right down to, “Just because our judgments don’t always march with yours doesn’t mean that when they don’t, it is because we are inexperienced.” Wonderfully said, and I’ve never seen anything like it said before. Said like a manifesto.
    Grateful for you, Frank, for what you express.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.