Friday, November 19, 2021
5:15 a.m. I thought we should begin with your statement from yesterday: “If there were no shared subjectivity, you would not be aware that you are alive.” The meaning seems clear to me, so perhaps it won’t take much commentary.
Or perhaps it will, as you well know. This sentence is a distillation of many a connecting explanation. Set your switches.
Yes. Proceed.
We have in the past said, “The 3D was created …” to enable this and that. This was speaking misleadingly, though that was not our intent. It isn’t so much that the 3D was created (other than in the way all reality was created) as that it arose from its own necessity.
Surely that sentence isn’t right.
No, not quite. Focus a bit more closely. It arose from the necessities of the situation. That is, conditions create their own succeeding conditions, according to what they can and cannot cope with originally. If a situation is competent to deal with the byproducts of its operation, no change is called for. If it is not – if its operation calls forth results (which are themselves the onset of additional changes, of course) – the system will mutate to deal with the new situation. It will grow, you could say. It will evolve.
That sounds more mechanical than I think you mean it to be. After all, we are talking about a reality that is, at its core, mind-stuff, not some independent bits that have to be made to fit together.
That is correct, but bear in mind that we also intend to avoid a suggestion of special creation, or miracles from the god in the machine. So our phrasing is, if clumsy, an attempt to avoid the extreme of mindless mechanism and the opposite extreme of arbitrary divine intervention.
Now, the question arises: Why was the 3D set of conditions required? What need does it fill, and how does it do so?
I thought we were fairly clear on that. Compression of time and space focuses us and facilitates choice and creation. Also the successive creation of souls from repeated crossings of lineages via sexual reproduction created the ability to select and also to continually reknit.
That is true as far as it goes – and, notice, long familiarity with the concepts has made you able to express them concisely and clearly, in a way that would have been entirely impossible when we began this tuition 20 years ago and more. However, there is a deeper level of need and response that you have not named, though we would say you are taking it for granted. And that is the theme for which you provided (our own) text.
My understanding of it has gone this far: The 3D is the deliberate separation of what we know from what we don’t know about ourselves, and is the use of the shared subjectivity to not only maintain the theater and the play but also to dramatize for each of us that which we are but don’t know we are.
Again, admirably concise. Now we will spell it out a little, even at the price of tedium for some, perhaps, so that it may be made as clear as may be, for any for whom your statement was too terse.
Suppose yourself existing in non-3D conditions, you never having been in 3D. To do this, we need to imagine, as well, that you are all of one piece, like angels and other non-3D beings, because you would not be the product of a mixture of lineages. You would be one thing, and all that thing. You would not embody (so to speak) contradictions. But how would you know yourself? How would you find a mirror to show you what you were, who you were, how you were? You would be like an infant child, unable to separate ideas about itself from ideas about anything and everything. Did you ever see a little child, or an animal like a house cat, first behold itself in a mirror? With repetition, it gets that the reflection is not another being – but it is only that experience of seeing the reflection that shows it what it looks like from the outside.
Now, in such condition [being in non-3D without a mirror], where is the potential for growth? What would be the mechanism?
I imagine that even in that condition, the creature you are postulating is part of its larger being. It is not an orphan, nor the product of spontaneous generation. It would have inputs of some kind from somewhere.
Yes indeed, but where is the mechanism for growth? Say the creature – X – is part of a Sam, and the Sam infuses it with specific knowledge, or with tendencies leading toward growth in certain directions. Still, where is the mechanism that will lead it to discover the potential it is?
I notice you avoiding the phrasing “the potential it embodies,” presumably to avoid distraction.
But respond to the question, which is not merely rhetorical. Granted that the creature X could receive input from its larger being and anything the larger being may connect to, how would the process of change work?
Wouldn’t thinking about one’s condition be a change in itself?
You are on the right track. How is X to think about itself? That is, what is to bring it to do so?
All right, I see your point. It isn’t exactly that it would be floating in space, directionless and purposeless, because we have to hold in mind that X is after all a product of a larger being which itself is presumably not a purposeless isolated being either. But as a continuous if irritating mechanism for change and growth, probably nothing is the equal of 3D. The division (in effect, if not in reality) between “self” and “other” sets up the productive interaction. The externally determined conditions set up the pacing, the timing, and the inexorability of the situation.
So there you are.
- You in 3D exist, in our analogy, as a smaller sphere of self-awareness contained within a larger sphere of potential not yet incorporated into one’s awareness.
- The parts of you of which you are not aware, along with the parts of all others of which they are not aware, in effect make up a great reservoir of potential experience.
- What we are calling the shared subjectivity includes all mind, be it mineral up to celestial. It is far – immensely far – beyond any personal subjectivity; hence is experienced as objective. Yet it is as personal as the personal subjectivity you experience from within.
- In 3D, the times roll around, and the shared subjectivity thus presents each individual consciousness opportunities in the form of events or of tendencies or of “coincidences.” Thus, 3D is separation and timing, if it is anything.
- Each individual subjective mind meets each moment’s challenges and opportunities in its own way, but regardless how it thinks about what is happening, what is happening is that each mind is being presented opportunities to deal with this or that issue arising from the personal not recognizing itself as the impersonal.
I think that is a clear statement, and yet I get the sense that it is only clear if you come to it a certain way, and otherwise is not.
That is always true. The answer to that problem is, if it is not clear to you, meditate on it, mull it, let it play in the back of your mind, and see if it does not clarify.
Enough to be going on with.
Our thanks, as always. Today’s theme?
Try “reality as mirror.”
Okay. Till next time, then.