Saturday, August 7, 2021
3:10 a.m. “Time enforces sequence, and sequence serves a purpose.” That’s a quote from Wednesday’s session. Care to elaborate?
If – as has been said – “Time is what stops everything from happening at once,” that’s the same as saying that time slows things down; it separates by function. It isn’t a function in itself, it merely clarifies.
You are being particularly cryptic this morning.
No we’re not, we’re merely starting at the conclusion. Let’s look at the situation.
I know that Immanuel Kant concluded that time and space are constructs of the mind, rather than being the “objectively there” things they appear to be. But I don’t know how he came to this conclusion, nor if it is widely accepted.
You know our methods, Watson. We aren’t in the persuasion business, but the inspiration business. So we do not attempt to follow Paul Brunton or Immanuel Kant or any of the careful thinkers who were in the persuasion business. Instead, we point. We will acknowledge their existence, mention their contribution, and leave it to the reader’s initiative whether to pursue them or not. Some will find it important to follow (and check) the logic of others’ conclusions. Others will prefer to take it on faith that such pursuits were made. As you said, Kant came to those conclusions. It would not serve our purposes, nor would it flow with your natural bent, to trace or retrace the steps of others. A mention is enough, and we continue our own exposition.
For our purposes, the important point is this. You cannot understand an entire system by assuming that it is bound by conditions that apply only to one part of it, or, let’s say, one aspect of it. Time and space seem self-evidently “there” while you are in 3D, because 3D depends upon them as organizing principles. But they are organizing principles, not universally existing conditions. The 3D world is inherently sequential, separated, slowed-down. The organizing principles that create that mixture of characteristics do not obtain outside of it.
It’s a funny sensation, as always. A part of my mind assents, and in fact finds your statements self-evident; another part says, “Huh?” That is, part of me sees the world just as you are suggesting it is, and part is still enmeshed in “ordinary life” experience and wonders how these descriptions can possible describe something real.
It is the Transcendentalists’ distinction between the real and the actual, is it not? The difference between Plato and Aristotle? Between idealism and realism? Even – we suggest, though only metaphorically – between right-brain and left-brain.
Or, I suppose, between non-3D’s knowing and 3D’s experiencing.
So, resign yourself to the necessity of living with the dual (or split) perception. Consider that it mirrors your situation, living simultaneously within 3D and outside of it.
I can see that. All right, so –
- Within 3D, time allows you to experience each moment as if in isolation, and it allows you to experience each place as if it existed in isolation. Indeed, it allows you to experience your life as if in isolation.
- Space does exactly the same thing, seen a different way. This should suggest to you that “time” and “space” are themselves the same thing, seen different ways, however difficult or impossible you may find it to imagine how this can be so.
- But if 3D is the experiencing of an undivided whole (which it is) as if it were a series of divided or divisible parts (as it does), what would it be like to experience the undivided whole? Clearly – we hope clearly! – it could not be through the very categories of time and space that create the illusion of separation.
- So when you are no longer bound by time and space, you will see things whole. That is not the same as saying you will see everything, will know everything, etc. Those are 3D concepts (inverted) carried into a realm where they do not apply.
- Note, saying “when you are no longer…” assumes a time-delay that is real within 3D (or else you could be bodily elsewhen, and you cannot); but it is not real outside of 3D (else you could not mentally travel in time and space, any more than you can do so physically).
- This is an important thing to remember, because it means you already know anything you can ever learn. That’s why sparks carry you places that logic can’t. You are already anywhere and anywhen you can ever be. The whole “when it’s time” idea is strictly a 3D restriction, no more, no less.
- And now we come to the center of it. What factor produces the living-present moment in which (uniquely) time is experienced, one moment at a time (or, equally, you could say, is experienced as one life-long moment, presented sequentially)?
Can we restate that bullet? It got a little convoluted.
- Within 3D, you experience time in a way that could be described either as a series of moments one at a time, or as one long moment that perceives life sequentially. It is the same experience, conceptualized differently, and sometimes you see it one way, and other times other ways.
Clearer, thanks.
- It is spirit that in effect organizes your perceptions that way. Soul experiences; spirit presents the conditions of experiencing.
I have followed you without difficulty, but now I find I cannot make your words real. I understand what you are saying as a concept, but I don’t yet have a way of feeling it.
Glance back to the opening of this conversation. Up to here, we have been explaining what we said about time and sequence.
Yes, I see that, and, as I say, I got it. But it is the question of spirit organizing our perceptions that loses me.
Merely because we are again at a beginning. That is, the final two or three bullet-points are the beginning of a new topic. The previous ones expressed what we began with.
So today’s theme could be called –?
Oh, “3D conditions and their purpose,” perhaps, though that is far from inspired. Whatever you prefer.
How about “Time, space and 3D”?
Nothing wrong with that. Or “Time, space, and 3D experience,” perhaps.
Yes, I like that better. And next time we continue with spirit and the present-moment, I take it.
Unless the moment brings us elsewhere, yes.
Our thanks as always.