TGU – Our situation (part 27)
Friday, July 9, 2021
3:05 a.m. Wednesday, you concluded this way:
[We are still setting our context for life after 3D, remember. Today’s thoughts should help. Next time, maybe we will glance at what actually happens when one 3D life impacts another. Not necessarily as dramatic as you and Joe Smallwood at Gettysburg; maybe more like the old man’s [spiritual] healing of John Cotten as it reflected to you. So much “time” intervened. So many “lives.” Your own character was already forged and half a century of it lived. What’s the mechanism here?
[And after you clear that up, we will have gone five or ten minutes and will have nothing left to say.
[We can play pinochle thereafter, except you don’t know the rules and we can’t handle the cards. Checkers, maybe – and in fact, maybe we’ll talk about checkers and Joe Smallwood.]
Care to continue? We lost continuity, diverting to the question of masculine or feminine presences.
Nothing lost. Sooner or later, everything connects.
Yes, you’ve told us that.
Our intent was to continue by looking at the mechanism – the “how” – of one life influencing another. At first, it may appear simple – an impulse travels down a strand like electricity traveling a neural pathway. But when you take it out of the realm of analogy and metaphor, complications arise.
I’m sorry. I guess I’m still too sleepy to do this successfully.
A nap won’t hurt anything. Return when you can.
And maybe you’ll take advantage of the opportunity, insert something?
We’ll see you when you return.
3:20 a.m. I scarcely got down when I heard myself saying, twice, urgently, “Aspirin.” I said to myself, Aspirin? But I got up and took an Ibuprofen, which one of my doctors recommended I take every day but I haven’t thought of for quite a while. Then I remembered the Netflix documentary on Buddha I saw last night, remembering how very different all those lives were from mine, how diverse the world. I get that it is the hidden connection among things that is your jumping-off point, here?
It certainly can be; doesn’t have to be. Let’s talk about Joe Smallwood and checkers.
Yes, I’ve been wondering about that.
Indians didn’t play checkers, you know. He had grown up with it, they hadn’t. He taught his [Indian] family and friends how to play, and that is a minor example of cultural diffusion. You see?
He didn’t have a serious capitalized Purpose in teaching his friends how to play checkers, he was just extending one part of his life to overlap another.
I don’t get the relevance yet.
In the war [later], he spent plenty of time playing checkers, like he played cards or whiled away the time in other ways.
We thought the jump would be an easy one.
Maybe I’m not as in tune as I think I am. Let me recalibrate, and I’ll reread that last graf, and we’ll see.
Well, it seems to be about the 3D helping influence the non-3D. Is that it? How we spend our time works in itself (regardless of specific content) to pass influences?
We are trying to de-mystify the subject, to show it as mundane, even if also powerful. What can be more mundane than teaching a people how to play a game? (And of course Joe learned Indian games too, by observation of children and by participation among other adults.) That is lateral, 3D transmission.
Ah, but it has its non-3D consequences?
Its non-3D analogy, say. Yes, you’re with us now. Just as Joe was at once white and Indian, culturally, so are your various strands – connected only in non-3D, you see, given that they live in different times – susceptible to cross-cultural transmission, in a way, merely by coexisting within a 3D consciousness.
I do begin to see it. Very clever approach, Joe and checkers. That really is a non-inflated, non-pretentious example. That’s really good. I guess I’m particularly struck because just a minute or so ago, I still didn’t see it coming.
So now, consider. Such trivial examples of cross-cultural experience must occur every single day, almost every moment, and not just between two “individuals” – two strands – but among all the strands that co-exist. And each of these in turn connects up- and down-stream. Can you see how 3D helps hold the universe together, that way? Joe plays checkers with his Indian friends. He and each of them is affected differently, each being a different combination of strands, but they are all affected. And of course this central act radiating in all directions is not in any way unique; everybody is radiating, all the time. It is a continual inter-relation.
“What do you do, over there?” “We relate.”
If you can find a more succinct but equally accurate description of life in non-3D or in 3D, we’ll be glad to hear it.
The process of transmission through shared experience takes place at many levels, of course. Among peoples, between people, within people, in 3D. Among and within strands, in non-3D. It’s all going on all the time, at any level you care to examine.
From the mundane, like checkers, to the miraculous, like a healing across time.
Correct, only the difference between the two is less than you may think. Your ordinary life is a miracle, or let’s say a succession of miracles. Miracles are ordinary life seen in a sort of sanctified context. That is one reason why we wanted to discuss the mechanism of influencing and being influenced.
Young John Cotten lost the future he had expected to have. It made him bitter, resentful, distrusting of life. Sullen, closed. You get the idea. Now, he lived that way for some years, until the old soldier gently reeducated him toward a more accepting, humbler view of life. Yet you, Frank, sharing John’s life as a strand, did not inherit [only] the end-result of his process. You did not skip to the happy ending of the movie. First you lived the difficult part. That is, you lived with those resentful attitudes; you distrusted life. You know all that. And yet you changed, even more than he changed (your combination of strands being different from his). You were affected by his entire life, not merely by his final state at death.
There was no year-by-year correspondence of states though. It isn’t like I at age 36 experienced what he experienced at age 36.
Ah, well, how could it be? You at age 36 would have to be experiencing what each of your strands were experiencing at age 36, if it were that simple.
Yes, I suppose so. And of course they didn’t all live to 36, yet some – Katrina, for example – came to my attention only after I was well past that age. She had been affecting my life without my being aware of her as a separate person, but she didn’t cease to influence me in that crying-inner-child way until I became aware of her and (in a sense) retrieved her, brought her to safety.
Now, remember, you are all transceivers: You receive but you also broadcast. What you decide for yourself has its effect on all those who are connected to you. For you to choose to face life with courage rather than shrinking from it will have its effect (large or small) upon Joe, and John, and Bertram, etc., even though you never think of that. And – given that everything in life is feedback – you are going to amplify your own decisions, so to speak.
You mean, I think, we’re going to have them echoed back to us.
A feedback loop.
Is it possible, do you think, that the universe in effect cares what you decide to be? How you decide to live? How you learn to treat others? Life more abundantly means becoming aware of the distant effects of your actions and attitudes. You are not just your brother’s keeper: To some extent, you are your brother.
When you leave 3D, you will continue to be part of it, via all those strands. Do you think there can be individual liberation from the wheel of existence?
Dana Redfield used to say, “Nobody crosses alone.” Maybe this is part of what she meant.
Maybe. At some point you may wish to ask her.
Meanwhile, our next starting-place?
Probably we should look more closely at the process of living one another’s lives.
That isn’t what you were going to say originally, only I went wool-gathering.
Perhaps at our intent. It can be a way of our changing the channel.
Perhaps. Your lives are constant change, continuous choice. But it isn’t about the end-result, in a way, because there is never an “end result” per se, only an “end result to date.” Nothing is fixed in position. So we should look closer at the process of change and change and change.
Okay. We’ll see how it goes. Till next time, then, and thanks as always.