Tuesday, January 25, 2022
6:10 a.m. I paged back through the 3-ring binder that holds the transcripts of these conversations, trying to find the place where we hared off, and I think it was while we were discussing two views of human life, or, I should say, life that includes a stint at being human.
Set your switches and phrase your question.
Focus, receptivity, clarity, presence. I guess my question would be phrased so: Are we “one and done,” as it seems, or are we reincarnating as it also seems, and in either case, where is the provision for a non-3D-connected future? And I scarcely get that question phrased than I hear: “Which you?” Explain, please.
It is important that you realize that the question “which you?” implies other questions, not the least of which is, how it is that things can be both separate and not-separate? How can it be “all is one” and yet “as above, so below”? How can an essential unity include a real (not merely an apparent) duality, indeed a multiplicity? How can “all is one” refer to a condition in which the passage of time is irrelevant, yet also one in which just such passage is intrinsic?
It all makes my head spin, when I try to put it together. I should say, when I try to hold it together, I suppose. When I try to see it in so many ways at the same time.
One more reason why people have derived logically consistent but mutually contradictory schemes describing “how things really are.” The fewer contradictory elements one considers, the easier to come to confident conclusions.
Yes, I see that, of course. I’ve seen it for a long time. Was born saying, “But it’s not that simple!” I sometimes think.
So naturally you want us to give you a scheme in which it is that simple; that is, a scheme that will wrap up the subject with a bow.
I don’t think that’s what I’m doing. I’m resigned to the fact that there will always be things we don’t know, maybe can’t know. But I’m also confident we can always be learning more, if we stay open to it. I am asking for a more comprehensive way of understanding as much as we have gotten.
All right, that’s a fair statement. We recognize, too, that if we were to give you a gift-wrapped “answer to everything,” you would start to examine it for incompletion.
Probably. So what can you tell us, bearing in mind that there is no predicting who will read this or when?
As long as you consider yourselves as separate beings, you will see the world in one light. To the degree that you consider yourselves as separate beings connected invisibly, you will see things in a different light. If you proceed to see yourselves as amalgams of elements, things will look still otherwise, and if you see any given snapshot of yourself as only one way to see yourself – one fly in the amber of time – you will see things differently yet. The difference is not in the reality, of course, but in the state of mind of the observer.
I got distracted after that graf. Continue?
Ideally, one would look at every single explanation of the world, of reality, that had ever been put forth, and one would ask, “To what degree is this accurate? What essential has this point of view captured?” That attitude is the opposite of the common approach which assumes that any other opinion is wrong to the degree that it differs from one’s own view, and that as one’s view changes, other views continue to be wrong in differing from this new view.
Inclusivity, not exclusivity.
Yes. It is a variant of Carl Jung’s statement about condemnation isolating. You can’t come to the truth by ticking off the ways others are wrong, though at first blush you might think you could. The way to find the truth is a lifelong scavenger hunt, being open to evidence that any and all may have found something that is essential to know. You don’t have to accept the structures that people build, but it is worthwhile to find the kernel of truth they built it on. Usually it is a bit of truth considered in isolation, which is where they limit themselves, so be warned not to do that yourself.
Again we say: What you see will depend upon the eyes you bring to it. Who you are, what you are, helps determine what you bring to the equation, so don’t expect – certainly don’t demand – that others see the same thing or come to the same conclusions. You may take for granted your own sincerity, and only you know what resources you may have brought to the subject. All of this will incline you to think that what you have found is true. Well, it is and it isn’t. “True for you” isn’t necessarily true for others. It is not a zero-sum game.
Meaning, I take it, that if what I find could bind others, what they find could bind me.
An analogy from society would be, a society that allows great freedom of thought and expression is a chaos of differences, to one who is used to (or who prefers) a society that thinks it has found the truth, and therefore protects it by suppressing contradictory views.
“Error does not have the same rights as truth,” some pope said.
Exactly, and from the point of view that says any one viewpoint must be absolute, that is clearly right. Other societies will see it as clearly wrong, usually because they are clearly right! It is relatively rare that a society has enough self-confidence to let a thousand flowers bloom, as Mao duplicitously proclaimed, only to mow down such flowers as showed themselves.
I get, “Judge not, lest you be judged yourself.”
Yes, not in the sense of retribution for your judging, but in the sense of “Once get caught in that mindset, and you won’t enjoy it.”
Which leaves us, where?
Today it leaves us making these simple points.
- Your viewpoint as you begin to examine reality helps shape what you can see. Not absolutely, or there could be no moving from that initial point, but still, it is a strong influence.
- Treating such judgments as you do make as provisional will lead you to a very different place than you will arrive at if you think them absolute.
- Reality changes as you change. That is, what you can absorb changes as you change, and so what you see seems to change. You change, not it, but that’s how it seems.
- Viewing yourself in a changed reality means you will probably change your view of yourself in turn. The process has no end, not could it.
So now, here’s your homework. Consider how reality seems to be. Consider how and what you seem to be. Particularly consider implied or explicit contradictions between the two and within each of the two. Does this tell you anything?
Prior to actually doing it, all I can say is that I imagine it will make clearer what our mental limitations are.
Not your limitations functionally, but the limitations of your accepted ideas, yes. Now, we realize you would like us to tie together all those viewpoints we mentioned earlier. But you know what would happen if we did.
We would pick it apart, agreeing with this, disagreeing with that, according to our own experiences and predilections.
That’s exactly what you would do. It wouldn’t hurt our feelings, but it might put a halt to your exploration into what is true for you. Better that we point out the limits to your knowledge than that we inadvertently encourage you to think you know more than you do know or could know.
Yes, I see that. I’m glad for when you do explore things, though.
We are not ceasing to explore with you. We are, as we said, declining to tie it up with a bow.
Today’s theme?
“Knowing and not knowing,” maybe. Or even “WYSIWYG.”
Okay, thanks, as always. Till next time.