Friday, June 11, 2021
2:30 a.m. My friends, you said we should resume with the question of how the mechanism you sketched manifested in our specific time. Both as example and for its own sake, you said.
Bearing in mind, we always try to keep our explanations practical, grounded. Not much point in high-flying explanations with one flank in the air.
You have said “the situation” constellates us as individuals, somehow.
Yes. Materials, Desired result, Rules of procedure, remember. So what does this mean in practical terms, beyond the fact that your reality is always directed by a higher level of reality? It means, the times themselves produce their 3D manifestation. And this ceases to be metaphor or poetry and becomes straight explanation when you remember that the “external” world “around you” is actually a shared subjectivity, a mental totality, not a bunch of rocks in space.
Reality can’t really be understood as long as we take the material 3D appearance to be reality, can it?
Let’s say, it never has been understood in those terms. An understanding may emerge; alternative understandings, in fact. But any such understanding is necessarily unsatisfactory because the implied dualisms distort the picture beyond recognition. In effect, such attempts at reconciliation stretch too thin. Where is the causal connection between a mountain and a thought, or between a war and an earthquake and a social structure? How can alternative versions of reality exist, duplicating millions of tons of Pike’s Peak repeatedly, ad infinitum? How does an individual choice supposedly recreate the Mississippi River’s endless tons of water rolling to the sea? How can the two-slit experiment produce results so opposed to common sense? It can all be worked around, by whatever model, but by far the simplest model is to be preferred, because most likely to be true. Or, not quite that.
Most likely to be closest to the unexpressed and perhaps inexpressible truth behind appearances.
Yes. So, our position here is that we will not fool around with trying to explain reality in any of the common accepted models if they take physical reality to be something of a different nature than mind-stuff. It is only by seeing 3D physical reality as neither separate nor material that you can see underlying relationships. What seems separate is in fact all one thing. What seems material is in fact
You’re getting tangled up, or I’m tangling it. I get your gist easily enough: Matter looks different, is perceived differently, but is still part of the undivided world of 3D plus non-3D that is mental, undivided, fluid. When we realize that it is the combined awareness of everyone (and everything, I suppose) in the world, that manifests as material and external, then we see there is no duality to be explained, only a difference of appearance caused partly by a difference of perception (sensory v. intuitive) and partly by a difference of scale (individual v. universal).
That isn’t bad. You couldn’t have done that without Paul Brunton’s careful explorations, quite as much as Rita’s and Nathaniel’s and ours. Concentrate on a problem long enough, and you do make your way to clarity.
Now, bear in mind, new understandings often result from what at first appears to be the association in your mind of irrelevancies, or distractions, or even contradictions. In one sense, it is Wilbur Wright, twisting a cardboard box absent-mindedly as he talks of something unrelated to the problem his conscious mind is continually running on. In another sense, it is any individual associating one long-running obsession with another. Newton and theology, say. Bringing in unconnected frames of reference sets a problem in an unaccustomed light, sometimes a very illuminating light!
Thus me and history along with the question of why.
Yes. Your particular mixture of ideas, laws, generalizations, specific problems, definite and abstract examples, half-seen relationships – in you it flows through consideration of history and biography. In someone else it might be the hard sciences, or the world of commerce, or anything. It is the cross-fertilization that allows for inspiration to strike, or let’s say it holds the liquid in a state of suspension so that the proper catalyst can transform it. Only, the two subjects must be equally important. It won’t work, as a process, if you try to force-feel one into the other.
So have we lost sight of explaining our specific time and situation?
Every moment of time as experienced in 3D contains the psychic totality of the moment. Every moment is the world’s unfinished business, you might say. The unfinished business of billions of humans in flesh at a given moment is going to be different from the unfinished business of a year before or a month after.
- The 3D world is commonly experienced as an external, objectively “there” totality in which the subjective “I” swims (or, perhaps, is caught), but which goes its own way for its own reasons or for no reason at all.
- The 3D world of the “I” is commonly experienced as internal, ever-changing, and only loosely connected to the external.
- As we have explained, the one is experienced primarily through the senses, the other primarily through the intuitions, hence they seem connected but distinct.
- Everyone alive at this moment is alive because called (or, we suppose you could say, because they volunteered). You don’t get “here and now” by accident. You belong “here and now.” What does this imply?
It implies that something has need of us, or maybe that certain conditions came into existence that pulled us here as a side-effect.
Either way of seeing it could be defended. But in either case, you can see that just as no functioning machine or organism has extra parts, or parts inserted at random or for no specific purpose (or out of no need, one could put it), so reality is general. Only, the disproportion between all-that-is and any one self may seem to be so great as to make it impossible for a given time-space to “need” anyone, let alone everyone. Still, it is so.
I can feel you searching for a metaphor. It would involve vast power and forces in movement, but I can’t help you.
It will surface, perhaps.
- So, World War I breaks the crust of European society, and once broken, nothing can reconstitute it. Instead of looking at events, and at social forces, and at the politics or economics or social interactions involved, try to imagine the non-3D ramifications of millions of young men massacred, of entire societies starved systematically, of years of incitements to hatred. Revolutions swept the continent. More killing, more starvation, more hatred, more misery. Do you suppose that this has no non-3D consequences? Die and then presto, all over and done with?
- Now you have all these souls, some cut off in their prime, some slowly starved, some fed on a diet of hatred, some condemned to live out their lives in the shells of what existence had been. Does none of that affect the non-3D? Does none of that become part of the shared subjectivity? The shared subjectivity, remember, is what we are calling the physical world, to remind you that the physical world you see around you is not what it appears to be, but is the embodiment of everything that is unconsciously within you – and is the sum over everyone’s being.
- Now – this will seem to be whimsical but we assure you, it is not – What of the millions of horses, mules, cattle, dogs, birds, animals of all descriptions, killed directly or indirectly by that war and its ensuing dislocations? Do those deaths have no effect, merely because the animals have no voice you can hear?
- For that matter, you have all the damage done over hundreds of miles of trenches in the West. You are not accustomed to thinking of the psychic effects of hurling dirt into the air by means of TNT, because neither the dirt nor the explosive are sentient in any way meaningful to you – but just as it often rained in the aftermath of battle, so other subtle relationships exist between disturbances of one kind and disturbances seemingly of a different order of things. What is called the pathetic fallacy expresses an aspect of reality that escapes materialist analysis, just as the placebo effect escapes chemical analysis.
We’re way over an hour, but it feels like you haven’t really gotten very far.
It is a big, an unfamiliar, a complicated explanation. It may take a while. We can pause here, even though in mid-stride, so to speak. It will give people things to chew on, and perhaps when we return, we will have the metaphor we need.
Till next time, then, and thanks for all this. At some point we’ll want to know how you spend your time when you aren’t talking to us about how things are.
That’s what all this is leading to, in a way.