Monday, October 4, 2021
5:10 a.m. “Remember if you can: The world is here to serve you, as you are here to serve the world.” We ended on that note, but although I got the sense of it at the moment – while directly connected – I see now that it could use some exposition. Guys?
The simplest layer is obvious: There are no coincidences. But yes, it could stand further consideration.
The world is here to serve you:
- The external subjectivity provides stubborn, relatively independent, uncooperative (let’s say) alternative viewpoints.
- It provides definite irreducible facts, to be dealt with.
- It provides the timing in which various possibilities emerge.
- It is, in short, everything “external” to the point of view that is your consciousness.
- At the most abstract level, it sets the scene and maintains the playhouse. That is, “the world” is always full of things happening, any one or any combination of which may be of use to you.
You are here to serve the world:
- You are each part of someone else’s shared subjectivity. That is, you are part of their environment. They may experience you as a stubborn fact, and may experience you either first-hand or at many removes. That is, things that influence someone may be the result of a result of a result of something concerning you. They may never have heard of you and yet be affected by something that changed because you lived.
- Such changes – direct and indirect – may be deemed good or bad, pleasant or unpleasant, important or unimportant, but as usual we would advise you that judgment of the lives of others, or of your own, is likely to be erroneous. So, caution. Still, our point here is that you will be experienced as other people’s “other,” as they are experienced by you as your “other.”
- You make your own change in the local experience of the world, so bear it in mind.
I remember Thomas Merton saying that the qualities of the monks were important to each other’s lives. He said people had lost their vocation because a fellow monk was grouchy, so to speak.
Yes, that’s what we meant. Your own private world is never as private as you may think. Your qualities affect your fellows, for the better or for the worse or – usually – some of each.
- You as a non-3D being in what you and others perceive as a 3D world will similarly affect the shared subjectivity itself, over and above any 3D interactions you may have. “Thoughts are things,” Edgar Cayce heard, and came to believe. This is another sense in which your very being affects the word.
As usual, common sense, but turned in an unusual direction.
There is a reason why “common sense” is often dependable: It is held in common; that is, it is somewhat freed from individual eccentricity by the process of mutual abrasion that is the coexistence of many viewpoints, many different experiences of the world. Common sense is at its weakest when dealing with unusual depths of meaning; at its strongest when dealing with rules of thumb for general guidance.
Hmm, and you are generally doing both: giving us an unusual viewpoint, but then providing rules of thumb as to how to integrate that viewpoint in everyday thought and feeling.
That’s a very good description of what we do. As we say, we wish to be helpful. In your case that is the approach indicated. For someone else, the flavoring would be different. Perhaps it would be a different menu, probably different chefs.
Well, while we’re on the subject –
Yes, we knew you would wish to discuss points of view.
Then you know the background. Well, you would, of course. It is a problem: People read into your words things that I know you didn’t mean, because we were linked essence to essence; yet you have said many times that words are sparks, not signposts, and therefore it would seem to stand to reason that whatever people get from the material, they get for a reason, and so it must be valid. The conclusion I come to is that it doesn’t matter if what people hear is what you meant, because their own guidance will not lead them astray. But – is that right? It seems like there’s something subtly wrong somewhere in that take on things.
Here is an example of you being there for the world and the world for you. It is reciprocal action, is it not? You speak, another hears, they reply, you hear, and on and on. How necessary is it that the interchange be accurate according to any one standard? What is important is intent. If the intent is sincere, errors will not matter, and in fact may be more apparent than real. Only if the intent is not sincere do problems arise.
I wish you would enlarge on all this. You have made several statements that are not at all self-explanatory. That is, they lead to multiple, conflicting, interpretations.
Well, they will. Multiple recipients guarantees multiple interpretations. But, all right:
- Any one standard. To choose one standard is to choose one set of official interpreters. This has advantages and disadvantages. It is the basic psychological divide between Catholic and Protestant, in effect: authority v. individual conscience. Seen another way, collectively determined truth v. individually derived error. Which way you see it shows where you are personally; it does not provide the way to see things, except for you.
- This point may be obscure, because as usual words make distinctions clearer than they should be in some directions, hazier than they should be, in others. And adjusting the words will not solve the problem but will merely rearrange where the clarity and distortion are distributed. But in general, proper intent will bring you home safely.
Following one’s guidance, you mean. But what about Psychic’s Disease?
Life does not come with guarantees. Every moment is an opportunity and a caution for your best awareness of (a) the situation and (b) your own motives. It is always well to be a bit skeptical of one’s certainties. Today’s certainty may be tomorrow’s recognized error. However, remember that things do not happen at random, however it may appear. So, it isn’t as if you need to be on tense alert at every moment, lest you go wrong. A sort of habit of quiet skepticism of your own infallibility will do.
- Insincere intent. This is the trap to be avoided. Fortunately, it is pretty obvious – only, you must be willing to see it. If in place of knowing the truth as best you can, you place ego or convenience or any form of deliberate self-deflection from knowledge, what good can you expect to follow?
Hemingway, substituting palatable untruths for memories that were too painful.
That’s an example, yes. Or someone putting ideology or politics or any allegiance ahead of knowing the truth. It comes in many forms, and it is always harmful. But this is a pitfall easily avoided or, if necessary, put behind you, by a combination of willed consciousness and sustained intent to know the truth as best you can.
In all this, the indicated result is not uniformity of opinion (which can never happen) but, let’s put it, uniformity of intent. Let each one continually strive for consciousness and all will (continue to) be well.
And that’s enough. Call today’s, perhaps, “You and the world.”
Thanks as always. Next time?
To be announced.
Hmm. That won’t make things any easier! But, I guess we’ll see.