Tuesday, October 5, 2021
8:30 a.m. Very well, my friends, you said today’s topic was TBA – which makes me smile, remembering myself as a boy, consulting the TV schedules and wondering what the TBA program was all about. And, typically, it never occurred to me to ask anybody.
You’d have been laughed at, maybe.
Is that what was going on?
You didn’t know it consciously, you absorbed it from experience.
You know, I did. That’s very interesting. And that reluctance to ask – or rather, that never even thinking to ask – had lifetime effects in so many manifestations, didn’t it.
Now. Set your switches and we’ll look at something.
Thanks for the reminder. Okay.
Earlier in your life, had you come to this realization, you might well have said, “And that crippled me in so many ways,” or at least, “And that had effects that lasted a long time.” It is a natural reaction, though not the only reaction possible. This time, though, your response was more nuanced, and we can carry it farther. Because, of course, “Nothing is good or bad, but thinking makes it so.”
I can even see that a habit of incuriosity, if we can call it that, might have led to enhanced receptivity.
Well –.
Yeah, I know. “But let’s go slower.” Go ahead, and maybe we’ll learn something.
There are systems that you might call cascades. One thing leads to another. Familiar thought, of course, but it is the same thought, approached from the other end of the tube, to say, “One thing cannot manifest unless preceded by another.”
Sure. That’s obvious. As you say, the same thing.
But as we said, from a different angle. Following the – well, let’s try it in bullets.
- Forward 3D sequence leads you to say, “X happened, and then Y.” Retrospective vision leads you to say, “Y happened, because X had happened.” Equally valid viewpoints.
- From outside 3D, a different logic applies. Whereas the flow of present-moment time leads those in 3D to think in terms of sequence, the access to all moments of time in non-3D leads to perceiving in terms of gestalt. One could say the 3D sees flow and non-3D sees the whole picture. One is sequence of detail, the other is gestalt.
- Therefore, non-3D has a different idea of your life than the merely-3D part of you does. Your conscience, your higher self, your instinctive self, etc., knows what “will lead” to what, as well as what “has led” to what. It sees whole, you see.
Except that what it sees is somehow only tentative until we choose.
We smile. Certainty it has to look that was in 3D. We have dealt with predestination v. free will many times, you and we, only it is in “another part of your mind” at the moment. Leave that thought, for the moment. From non-3D, your life pattern is evident, including every branch and eddy. The existence of choice does not invalidate the seeing of the gestalt, but it is hard to envision, thinking in 3D terms.
All right, well, I’m taking your word for it, as you know.
- Remember, your non-3D component, being part of you (or, if you prefer, you being part of it), obviously has your best interests in mind – as, again, we have said several time, reminding you. But a friend acting in your best interests, giving you advice that leads away from what you want to do, may be perceived as an annoyance, as well as a friend.
Sure. Just the fact that you know he is offering the unwanted advice from the best motives is annoying, because it means you can’t just dismiss it unheard.
Well, isn’t that how people often experience conscience? And we do not here mean in terms of “sin,” however people perceive that concept. We mean when the small still voice is advocating prudence when you feel like being rash; is advocating temperance, or justice, or fortitude, when you are being overwhelmed by contrary emotions. You want to follow your hot blood; your small still voice is saying, “You might want to think about it.” Naturally, you’re going to be annoyed. Who likes having his proposed course of action argued against?
- This seeing the gestalt and trying to give you the benefit of the wider perspective works two ways, not just one. That is, yes, it often manifests as “You shouldn’t do that; it won’t work out so well.” But it also often manifests as “We know this doesn’t look good, but later on you’ll be glad for it.”
Sure, I see that.
Well, you see, that’s why you all do things sometimes even while wondering why you’re doing them. Sometimes you act “unconsciously” and it really means, sometimes you are working from guidance without consciously knowing it. You can’t count on it all the time, or it would destroy your habit of exerting your mind and your will – you would be living Psychic’s Disease – but sometimes it is appropriate and helpful.
As we write that, I got that it is a matter of consciousness and receptivity. Conscious receptivity is not the same as unconscious receptivity, and the effects are different.
A two-month-old baby is in a state of unconscious receptivity, and it serves him or her very well. It wouldn’t serve so well as an accompaniment to the teen years, let alone various other stages of life. Consciousness is generally preferable, unless it has become petrified by certain beliefs or fears.
- Now, what do we in non-3D do when considering a development that has mixed results for you? And, bear in mind, that is most Few things produce only desirable or only undesirable results. Do we choose? That’s what you are in 3D to do, as we may have mentioned.
But you probably have preferences.
Actually, less often than you would imagine. If we had a firm picture in our minds of what your life should be or not be, it would be easy to judge (or, let’s say, easier; it would still present difficulties). But usually there are so many major alternatives, and who is to say which is the best, from any standard? That is, best for you in 3D, best for us as a whole, best for those you interact with in your life, best for those you interact with via your strands –. What makes us in non-3D better judges than you in the 3D-focused moment? Mostly, we take what comes.
That’s the same as saying you live in a state of receptivity, too.
Should it be desirable for you and not us? If you remember, in this context, that “you” and “we” are part of each other, doesn’t it make sense that a quality appropriate to one part would be appropriate to other parts?
A new thought for me. I need to lull it over.
- (We stick to bullets so that you can reread only the bullets to get the sense of the argument.) So let us take as example the fact that as a boy you rightly or wrongly concluded that asking straightforward questions about whatever you didn’t know would bring you ridicule or at least amusement at your expense. Was this a beneficial or a harmful development?
I get your point. It was both.
What comes unmixed, in the 3D world? Of course it was both. So now, at the end of your long life, as you look back at it, you are closer to a non-3D view of it in one respect. You still can’t see the alternative patterns that, from your point of view, “might have been,” but you can see, a bit, the pattern that did manifest. And what is it that you see?
Well, let’s see. I may need to resort to bullet-points myself. Nudging the slide-switch back to maximum clarity.
- I figured things out, rightly or wrongly
- I relied heavily on what I felt. No, that isn’t true, that is what I thought I should have thought. I leave it in just to remind myself of this wrong approach.
- I jumped to conclusions, not having the data and not thinking to acquire it.
- I let much of the world around me pass by without trying to figure out the whys and wherefores.
- I suppose history – and reading in general, really –. They were something tangible, something easily understood, that made sense. The fact that I didn’t really understand wasn’t important, it was something I could use that mental faculty on.
- I am tempted to say, history, biography, fiction all allowed me to get inside the facades, where in ordinary life people’s motives and mainsprings were a puzzle.
- I accepted what was taken for granted by people, without trying to exert my judgment on it. This is hard to express. Let’s put it this way: When I asked myself “why,” the answers I came up with were not necessarily supported by data or even sound reasoning. And I never really developed the habit of systematic inquiry.
- I did develop strong opinions, and of course some of them were supported by data. But the important criterion was not the data but the feeling that accompanied the opinion. That is sort of the know-it-all position, and I see now that is how I must have struck people.
- Another connection: I was always chary of asking advice, for who could I trust? And at the same time, I tended to over-trust, if that is a word, in that when I gave my loyalty to a person, I unthinkingly gave my loyalty to that person’s opinions and actions, even if a part of me had its reservations.
- And, come to think of it, this set of habits positioned me to be a perfect candidate for this way of being. I could ask The Other Side, which was presumably all-knowing and all-benevolent, and would not smile at naïve questions. An exaggeration, but not by much.
I feel, at the moment, like I could go on and on, deriving consequences from that initial childhood weariness of being laughed at for asking simple questions. (For instance, I see now that that was more over-sensitivity on my part than anyone’s malicious pleasure.) But we’ve been going at this for about 70 minutes, and I know which of us is going to have to do the transcribing. So, enough, perhaps. This was quite interesting. Title?
Maybe “Sequential v. gestalt,” or “Exploring how guidance sees our lives.”
Neither one seems just right. I’ll think of something. Next time? More TBA?
Perhaps by then you will have caught part of that program on YouTube.
Very funny. Okay, till next time, and thanks as always.