Friday, March 25, 2022
7:15 a.m. Setting switches, hoping for a continuation of the theme we are pursuing, ultimately an exploration of why there is evil in the world.
You are not quite focused regardless. It will help if you repeat our summary, omitting the “instead of” part.
Yes, I think it may. Very well, you said (looking back), that it is closer to the truth to see our lives this way:
- Individual subjectivity and shared subjectivity and timing as the means of discerning.
- Continual self-creation through choice and intent in time and space.
- We as individual subjectivity interacting with the shared subjectivity of which we are still part.
- A system allowing the individual to experience unknown parts of itself, and allowing the whole to experience individual viewpoints.
You’re right, stating it in few words does aid clarity.
Very well. Now re-set your switches, particularly for receptivity, as the action of reading and summarizing has activated other qualities. You understand? That’s why the qualities are experienced variably: Different tasks require different orientations.
Okay. F, R, C, P, again, all yours.
So where do the vast impersonal forces come in? What are they, how are they, when and why are they in everyday life?
You have cited all the reporter’s questions except Who and Where, and added How.
Hold in mind the description of 3D life that we sketched, and remember that life beyond 3D affects you no less. It isn’t so much that different rules apply outside 3D, as that, outside 3D, the same rules apply in different circumstances.
Which – I take it – amounts to saying, life when not artificially slowed and separated is the same, but appears different.
We would take issue with the word “artificially,” though we take your meaning.
Why? I thought the 3D was a creation, in a way.
Well, seen one way, a creation, yes. But that’s much like saying ripples in a stream, or a whirlpool, or rapids, are a creation. They are just as likely to be a side-effect of the stream in its course, reacting to (and thus ___) its environment as it meets it.
So 3D wasn’t created for the sake of producing certain effects?
As we say, it could be seen as deliberate creation, but that isn’t the only way to imagine it. In any case, the important point here is that we first had to reorient your understanding of the 3D part of the life you lead, because that is the nearest and most obvious thing. Having done that, now we can extend certain generalizations so you can intuit analogies that cannot be derived from sensory evidence.
As we have said several times over these sessions, emotions and feelings in 3D are not peculiar to 3D, nor do they originate there. Or rather –
Yes, I thought that didn’t come out just right. You meant, I think, more like “the source of” emotions and feelings?
It’s neither, and both. To put it as we did would imply no difference; to put it as you suggest would imply too much difference.
In 3D, emotions may be described as the interface between what you are aware of in yourself and what you aren’t aware of. You will remember our analogy of the smaller sphere contained within the larger one.
I do.
Beyond 3D – or, let’s say, disregarding 3D – there is no boundary such as that which is created by separation by time and space. Instead, there is separation, if you want to call it that, by essence, by quality. Everything that exists in 3D also exists outside of 3D conditions, however differently it may manifest. But it will manifest.
And all contradictions are a part of the whole, therefore every plus has a minus.
Let’s approach this carefully. Remember to compensate for the effects of the apple. We are not discussing “good” and “bad” in non-3D. If we say positive and negative, it is closer to the meaning when such terms describe electrical properties. That is, two different kinds of forces, or tendencies (think of it as you will), both of which are necessary for the system to flow. What kind of electrical system could proceed with only anode and no cathode because you approved of anodes and not of cathodes? It is the perception of things as good and evil that causes difficulty in 3D, as the Biblical tradition probably meant to convey originally, only as perceptions darkened, meanings were unconsciously rearrange to “make sense of” passages that now were seemingly distorted.
But even understanding that intellectually, we can’t help seeing certain things as wrong. Torturing children? Destroying the environment? Institutionalizing greed, cruelty, etc.
That’s as we said. Having eaten the apple, you can’t un-eat it. You can compensate for that way of seeing things, but you can’t help seeing them that way.
It seems to me a colonial Sampler I saw somewhere said,
“In Adam’s fall
We sinned all.”
This is the first time that makes any sense to me. It certainly never made sense that a creator would curse the descendants of someone for something that happened before they were born. Not that it made any sense that a creator would curse what it had created, in the first place.
As we say, understandings change as perception and experience change, until the thing people think scriptures were saying is unrecognizably different from what the speakers (and the writers) of these scriptures intended. It is only as you regain that higher, more direct perspective that you see the scriptures with new eyes. One facet of the emerging world culture will be that all the world’s scriptures will be available, and will be examined from a viewpoint closer to the originals, hence will be seen to be describing the same reality. What was closed, was closed only because you could not rise to the necessary level of being; what opens, opens not as reward but as consequence of greater discernment.
So are we mistaken, to think cruelty wrong? Are the occasional monsters of cruelty we experience merely a natural phenomenon like lightning striking a tree and destroying it? So should we merely shrug and say, “It happens”?
We are saying that gratuitous cruelty, like anything else you could name, is not as simple as it appears. Ask any cop on the beat, who sees more examples of cruelty than you dream of, if cruelty is likely to disappear any time soon. Look to your own heart in moments of high passion, and ask if cruelty is a thing separate from you, something you could never be able to express regardless of circumstances inner and outer.
So the seven deadly sins are cathodes? Unpleasant but necessary?
The Transcendentalists were neither quite wrong nor quite right in defining evil as merely the absence of good. But it’s a long subject. Let’s say merely, qualities balance out, and an extreme imbalance here must be balanced in some way there, or perhaps then.
In non-3D as in 3D?
In non-3D, the illusion of separation is not the same. Slowing down of reactions is not the same. Different terrain, different effects.
We’re out of time again, but I feel like we sort of said something important, and sort of said “We’ll get to it.” As usual.
It is the “as usual” that ought to reassure you, because after all, over time we have gotten somewhere, have we not?
No argument here. Very well, till next time, and, as always, we thank you for all this.