Wednesday, June 9, 2021
2:30 a.m. So, questions on what we have gotten recently. The first that comes to mind was: Who chooses? If Frank is an assemblage of strands, who chose which strands to associate together?
The answer that comes immediately – or ought to come, anyway – is that it cannot be the individual itself.
Yes, I get that. A car doesn’t assemble itself. An embryo does not form itself. Whether we are looking at inorganic or organic processes, any element of design must come from another level of being. That isn’t said well, but I do have the underlying idea. We don’t design ourselves.
However, if we are to thoroughly explore the process, we will need to go into some detail which may not at first appear relevant.
Nothing unusual about that. Don’t we always? But I’m not complaining, certainly. Your methods bring results, far more and far better and clearer than I would have dreamed, even back when I had you all on a pedestal for the wrong reasons. Explore away.
- Any creation consists of (1) the elements being used as feedstock (so to speak) and (2) a vision, a plan, an intended result, and (3) rules of procedure.
- So where does each part of the creation come from? Clearly, this can’t be a self-referential process.
- Regardless of origin stories, the existing elements available are of several types. Primarily they may be divided into (1) previously 3D-experienced beings and (2) previously-never-in-3D beings.
- Blueprint, or idealized result. Plato’s Ideals, in a manner of speaking. Some blueprint that envisages in great detail a range of possibilities.
- The laws of nature, essentially. The way things work.
Surely it is clear that these must pre-exist whatever is being created. That is, anything new must come into existence from raw materials, toward an intended creation, according to laws governing the process. God didn’t wing it, creating us. Or, Nature didn’t wing it. Or, whatever force one can permit oneself to postulate, in order to avoid being frozen up by one’s prejudices.
Yes, it is a terrible problem in our time. People do freeze up: I’ve seen it – in fact, in the old days I used to experience it myself – whenever they feel they are in the presence of someone whose ideas about origins were too different. If someone believes strongly in God, or in Science, or in Evolution, or whatever, and a proposed scheme seems to hint at a belief in whatever bogeyman the believer has, there is an instant freezing-up of the ability to consider. Instead, there is an unshakeable clinging to whatever belief is familiar, and any possibility of learning is gone for the moment. This is true of religious believers who suspect that an exploration is tending toward a non-theistic answer, and the process is the same regardless of whether the sacred cow (so to speak) is God, or Science, or Evolution. And the most striking thing is that the believer can see the idolatry and frozenness of every other point of view, but not of its own.
Why should that surprise you? Once they question their own beliefs, they cease to be isolators, and regain their freedom. Until then, they don’t.
Obvious, once you say it.
But rather than concentrate on other people’s problems in continuing to be open to new exploration, let us be sure that we ourselves are not similarly encumbered. The fact is, any way you wish to (or are compelled to) think about it is somewhat right, but always incomplete. God as a personal intelligence within an overarching presence. Nature as the overarching presence functioning in and of itself, regardless of how it came into being. Evolution as a sort of operative preference that is subject to being anthromorphized (theo-morph-ized?). they all emphasize a different aspect of reality, which, we remind you, we have said contains all contradictions without contradicting itself. If you can hold in mind that your way of seeing things is not necessarily wrong but is necessarily incomplete, you may preserve the flexibility you will need if you are to fairly consider new ideas. A bonus will be that you will see that excluding alternative ways of seeing it will only cripple you.
“Judge not, that ye be not judged”?
More like, consider not, so that you won’t find yourself in the position of being a defender of a point of view, which would hamper your ability to lay down that point of view in order to try on other ways of seeing things.
Okay. I think we tend to beat this to death. I do, anyway, because I see the mental paralysis phenomenon so clearly and so often.
This may indicate that what you do see is real, but – remember – that you have work to do around the issue, or it wouldn’t be important to you. The shared subjectivity puts it in front of your face; then it is up to you, what you do with it.
However, to say this isn’t to say the problem isn’t a real obstacle in the path. It is. But like all obstacles, it is an opportunity for self-transcendence to the degree that you can deal with it.
The fact is, your question was, “In the making of a new 3D-being, who decides which elements are to be associated?” The question implies other questions, such as, how, and according to what rules. We repeat, we will have to consider Elements, Design, and Procedure, and none of these can possibly come from the desired result itself. Cookies do not mix their own ingredients, nor do they spoon themselves onto cookie sheets nor bake themselves nor remove themselves from the oven. Still less do they participate in the processes that brought the ingredients into existence and assembled them for use. Nor do they create cookie sheets nor invent nor assemble ovens.
A trivial example, yes, but, you see? Or to take an organic example, a male and a female act together to create a baby, but they do not do more than produce the genetic materials and the opportunity. They don’t even know how to produce the materials: That is a physical process beyond their conscious knowledge or control, in the same way that so many other processes proceed on their own, necessarily. And certainly the parents don’t know how to turn a fertilized egg into a baby. They may know how to give the process what it needs, and even how to maximize its chances, but of the process itself, they know nothing except perhaps abstractly, intellectually. Life knows how to produce babies from fertilized eggs (and knows, prior to that, how to produce the eggs and the sperm); the 3D intelligence that is produced by the process certainly does not direct it.
However, to say that is not to say that the new person is produced by chance. Indeed, by insisting on blueprints and rules of procedure we are saying just the opposite. It is not chance. But neither is it the individual’s choice.
It doesn’t seem to me we have gotten very far.
What? To show in simple words that you don’t produce yourselves, and that neither are you produced by chance? That isn’t a negligible piece of work.
I don’t know that someone of a different mind would agree that we have proven anything.
This isn’t about proof. Never has been. Never could be. It is about striking sparks so that people can follow their own inner guidance.
Yes, I know that. I don’t always think to apply it.
You got nervous. Proprietorial, even. It is as much on our behalf as on your own, and we appreciate that, but it isn’t necessary. Isn’t even appropriate.
Next time we should look at what does produce you, now that we have sketched that it cannot be you yourselves, nor some kind of accidental explosion in the laboratory.
Okay, till next time, then. Thanks as always.