Saturday, July 3, 2021
4:40 a.m. Last night I had a go at making an analogy for what I’m beginning to get about our internal household and its functioning, but I didn’t get very far. Still, perhaps the work I did clarified things a bit.
That is exactly the point of trying to work things out on your own: Wrestling with the material clarifies it; it makes it yours. Of course you are never really “on your own,” but in the commonly accepted meaning of the phrase, you more or less are.
Meaning, I take it, we are on our own in the sense of not being spoon-fed, and not on our own in the sense of our unbroken connection to our non-3D, and therefore to our non-3D connections.
Yes. So your conscious mulling facilitates the making of connections.
Got it. Only common sense, as usual, but from a different viewpoint. And these sessions – these conversations – could be seen as hour-long maintenance of such connection, allowing more to flow than would otherwise be able to do.
Yes. Some people meditate in such a way as to facilitate such communication, regardless whether they are concentrating on a specific topic.
I get that our holding a theme in our conscious awareness holds it in suspension, in a way, so that it may be processed. Well, that’s the old data-processing analogy, isn’t it, just – again – from a slightly different angle of approach.
So you see, our stressing that this [way of communicating] is a normal function, not to be approached on bended knee, is severely practical. Thoreau said he would worship the parings of his nails, if he could, and in that sense, all life is sacred, all life deserves reverence. But it would be idiotic to worship the parings of your nails if that is all you worshipped. It is the singling-out, the putting something on a pedestal, that falsifies.
Such as designating a place “the holy land,” as if other places were not equally holy.
That’s a more complicated subject than may at first appear; a topic for another time. There are differences between things: Our point here is that it is important not to make unwarranted distinctions, because, as you were told, too much deference is as alienating as contempt.
Now, as to the analogy you were working on. What does it amount to, but this? Every strand within you contributes its share to your total being, and the result will be different from any of the constituent parts – and your on-going series of choices will tend to establish a new balance of forces, which is what a new “individual” really is.
Can you help us see it more clearly? You know what I was playing with, even though it didn’t work out: Could bullet-points do it, maybe?
Difficult to see how. Visual technique – animation – could show it easily, but talking about it, even in bullet-points, is not so easy to convey.
But we did get a certain distance. Try?
Very well, we try. Maybe it will help.
- Individual A. Bertram, in your case. He is a mystic of many elements, and of these elements, one stands out: reverence, uncomplicated piety. He is also intellectual, with a facility for language, and he is a willing collaborator in what in your age would be called psychic investigation. He has many, many other traits, of course: Everyone does. But we will look at people’s obvious, predominant characteristics.
- Individual B. Joe Smallwood. A man in love with the natural world, very happy with natural existence. A taste for native life, but a continual tie to civilized life. A shuttler between worlds (and hence, though he doesn’t think of it this way, between world-views). A patriot, deeply concerned after a while with his country’s crisis and with the abolition of slavery. A sort of amateur scientist, collecting Indian names of things and compiling a dictionary, mostly for his own interest.
- Individual C. Joseph, the Egyptian priest. A priest like Bertram, but serving in a very different way that would later be forgotten in the world for a long time. A priesthood more of applied knowledge than of faith or, let’s say, of sustained reverence. Not that he was irreverent, but that he and his times were matter-of-fact in the way that comes only with great accustomed knowledge. He also had a strong love for the land, in both senses of the expression:: He loved the physical land, he loved his society. And like Bertram he was an administrator.
- Individual D David Poynter. Another investigator, though one proceeding from a basis of “scientific” skepticism. A wordsmith all his life, an employed agent of a society that wanted to know the hidden or forgotten side of life. A more urban figure than Smallwood or Bertram, for instance, even though coming from quite rural roots. Reacting against them, in fact. Sex was an important thread in his life in a way that it was not for the others named, because for him it was a background torment.
He was sexually ambiguous, I take it. I have had that sense of him.
And he was in a society that would not have allowed it to be expressed, certainly not at his level of society. [I take this to mean, deviant sex was protected at higher levels of society, not in his.]
- More on individual D, he was an outsider, always, even when he was inside. And, as a journalist, he had more impact on his society abstractly (that is, via print) than the others did.
- Individual E. John Cotten, the simple Quaker boy whose life seemed to be spread before him: Farming, marriage, children; an uncomplicated satisfying existence. Only, it was taken away when his wife died (partially due to his carelessness, or so he perceived it), and his inability to accept life’s turnings left him bitter, alone, resentful, until an unexpected friendship with an older man (who was officially one of those he was guarding as prisoner) helped him see that life must be accepted as it comes. Not a life of learning nor even of much travel.
- Individual F. Katrina, the Polish-Jewish girl whose mother died, whose father was impossibly distant, whose only brother was her world. She never even learned to read. Her short life was one of privation and then of systemic abuse and an early grave. But she lived in connection; with her brother, with the women who tried to shelter her, and mostly, though you have not seen this, with her invisible connection with her dead mother, who sustained her.
No, I hadn’t seen that. It’s huge, isn’t it?
We could go on.
- Individual G, Clio, the boy in Roman times who was trained to be a diviner in fire, who saw but was unable to warn
Et cetera, et cetera, but this is enough to get the point across. Unlike your attempt at making mathematical correspondences across lives (X had this amount of this, that amount of that), a more natural way to illustrate the idea is via biographies and correspondences.
I get that. And, irritatingly if also encouragingly, the end result of such exploration is always some common-sense fact, now seen differently.
It is a mistake to expect to see something new and spectacular. In practice, generally you see the same familiar things, only you see deeper into what they always were.
Now if you look at the examples we have sketched, you can’t make a mathematical model relating one to another, but you can feel yourself toward relationships. And the immediate point here is that each of them is quite different, one from the other, yet they have points of similarity. Not each with all, but one at a time. And any individual made of these strands (as well as of many others) will necessarily be something new, a new mixture of these elements. And the hardest thing to remember – and the real point of this, in a way – is that your life is a continual choosing among these possibilities, a preferential weighing of characteristics (by living them) that in turn “sets” who you are by the time you leave 3D.
They all must have had issues, and those issues would have presented different aspects as their lives went on.
Of course – and it continues, in you. and that can be our starting-place next time. Do not forget that you might take a day off.
I’m far more tempted to do more than one session a day, only I know I can’t, quite. Very well, till next time, thanks.