Monday, June 28, 2021
3 a.m. Your takeoff on Jane Coleman’s question really seems to me to have shed great light on the subject of “What are we doing here, Why are things as they are, What are we accomplishing?” And yet it is only what you told Rita and me from the first, 20 years ago. The 3D was created so that certain things could be done that could not be done in non-3D conditions. Or am I extrapolating too broadly?
Remember always to have a little skepticism, let’s say, about the exactness of any description conveyed in words. Any little misunderstanding may be conveyed unintentionally, carried by an unnoticed turn of phrase. (“The 3D was created so that…” for instance.) However, in the broadest sense, yes, you got the gist of the situation, and yes, you are now understanding, more thoroughly, things you were told at that time and subsequently. This is the process of learning in general, of course, continuous and discontinuous refining of one’s understanding.
So let’s continue the exploration. Remember, though, as we do it, that this is all in service to our larger goal of describing life after 3D as it appears not from the point of view of any one strand, even a newly fledged one, but of the larger life itself.
I just got about three half-ideas, without any idea which ones to follow, and I now know enough from experience to slow way down and focus. So, moving the slide-switches for maximum focus, maximum receptivity. And I’ll take a moment to recalibrate.
Your long apprenticeship has given you greater insight into your own invisible part of the process, you see.
I do. So –.
Let’s begin with strife and cooperation. Your various constituent elements contend. They also cooperate. Concentrating your analysis upon only one of the two processes will give you a distorted understanding. It will lead you to regard the one as the rule and the other as the exception, or the one as desirable and the other as regrettable. You get the idea.
Like Marxists concentrating on class warfare and downgrading in their minds any contradictory or complementary manifestations, or Social Darwinists doing the same thing from the opposite point of view.
Reasonable examples, yes. Any view taken to the point of fanaticism may be seen as exaggerating its certainty in order to invalidate the evidence that indicates that the point of view is limited rather than universal.
So, within you are elements – strands – that are uncomfortable in each other’s presence. Yet for the duration of your 3D life they are stuck living with each other. So how does it manifest? Look at your lives. [I see, transcribing this, that it is not clear that they were addressing themselves to all who read this, rather than to me alone. Hence the plurals.] You could make this list out of your personal experiences, and the main variants among the various lists you would make would be the proportions of the elements among themselves. And even these proportions are likely to change within the lifespan, so to describe your life at any given time is not necessarily to describe it at other times.
In other words, we aren’t just like hamsters running on a wheel. We do change, for better or worse or both, as we go along.
Indeed you do. And in your years you experience some or all of these manifestations:
- Joe Smallwood and David Pryor would seem to have little or nothing in common, but working smoothly together they created your base platform. Then Bertram and the others you have become acquainted with added rather than contended with each other, offering new possibilities.
- Isolation or Here you will find the explanation to many puzzles in your life. You have certain affinities or longings that don’t fit with your accepted view of yourself. These may range from differences in taste down to very dark conflicts. A simple example: You were at the same time the little boy who was at home in flannel shirts and dungarees, yet was equally comfortable in French cuffs and jacket and tie. You thought this was merely because you were the son of a farmer, going to a Catholic school, but that [the set of circumstances] was the shared subjectivity lending assistance to your realizing parts of yourself. In actual fact, it was John Cotten, for instance, and others including the still-unnamed pioneer woman, co-existing with the former French aristocrat whose tastes and values and expectations were more or less marginalized.
- Prominent strands may be fundamentally opposed to one another, each thinking it ought to be the predominant influence, and therefore each viewing the other as usurper or at least as unwarrantedly presumptuous. You saw this clearly in Hemingway, more clearly than he did himself (for as usual it is harder to see oneself in a distant perspective than to see others). In your own case, you had a strand that expected to direct external affairs – it thought to be a politician, a man of influence – and another that saw the outside world as a source of confusion and of distraction. Had you made different choices, the man of action would have come more prominently into play, and the contemplatives and artists would have had less room to manifest.
We could probably continue the list, but these three attitudes or conditions (call them what you will) contain within themselves the range of possibilities.
Now bear in mind, because you don’t experience the parts of yourselves that don’t have scope to manifest, you project onto the shared subjectivity – that is, onto other individuals, and onto “the times,” “the world,” “fate,” “the malevolent gods” (whatever) – your experienced conflicts, and feelings of incompleteness, and self-loathing, and internal confusion.
Your lives don’t make sense to you sometimes. That is always a sign that something within you is manifesting something unknown to you, or unconsidered by you, or rejected by you.
As in Jane’s original question?
Cite it, and look at it, and see if it doesn’t look different now.
[Jane Coleman’s question: “The guys have indicated that the soul’s work is to be the ringmaster for the threads, and oftentimes these threads are not harmonious. We know that sound at a disharmonious frequency can shatter a glass. And if an airplane’s engines are not synchronized with each other, one can hear and feel the vibration in the airframe. Can the dissonance between the threads cause poor health (physically, mentally, and/or emotionally)?”]
Yes, I see. The initial phrase [“the soul’s work is to be the ringmaster for the threads”] is as important as the rest.
Completeness, integrity, is all. But what does that mean in practice?
I take it to mean that the more open we can be to even the unaccepted parts of ourselves, the better our chances of creating a harmonious whole.
Well, that’s one way of looking at it, a task-oriented way. But what of your moment-by-moment reality?
I started to write, “I don’t know,” but I get it. That’s the point about health etc. Our mental and emotional and physical health may be taken as barometer of our self-synchronization, can’t they?
We’re smiling, because you are so goal-oriented at the moment. Part of a race-car driver’s experience is winning or not winning the race, but more of it is in the actual act of racing. Part of your life is about what you will wind up creating by your choices, but more of it is in the continual choices themselves.
I got something at the periphery of that thought.
Yes, it is that each living 3D moment is the moment when each part of you hopes to shine. This has nothing to do with external manifestation (which is effect) and everything to do with internal realization.
Still haven’t quite said it. I can feel it, but where are the words or concepts that might get it across?
Sparks don’t get dictated; trust that they will convey.
But still –
Oh, we agree. It would be nice to find a better, more productive spark. Perhaps it is as simple as reminding people that the shared subjectivity and the personal subjectivity (call it) co-exist. They don’t exist as one being important and the other as afterthought or frill. So any dilemma for one is a dilemma for the other.
Still searching for it. It has something to do with our unknown or under-recognized strands having their rights too.
Yes, well-done. That can be our starting-place next time.
Okay. Till then.