Monday, May 16, 2022
5:35 a.m. I doubt if I can capture the essence of the special dream I had. I got up, about 90 minutes ago, and wrote down some notes, so I wouldn’t forget the elements, but it may have to become a poem (if that is even possible), if I am to capture any of the essence of it.
So – setting switches – can we get to the twice-deferred subject of emotion in the non-3D?
Perhaps not. Perhaps it was a mistake to suggest it.
Because –?
Because, how practical a question is it? If by definition it does not deal with your life in 3D, what can it do but, at best, satisfy a certain abstract intellectual curiosity?
Say that’s all it did. Is that not worth doing?
Better to do than to speculate, if doing is possible and speculation would take away from doing.
Seems to me you have often enough discussed things that don’t concern us directly, but you have used them to triangulate on things that did concern us directly.
That’s true.
So what’s different here? I get that you want to discuss my dream, but that would make the third excuse for not talking about the subject. Was it a mistake, somehow, to mention it, and you’d rather we forget it?
We can discuss it. The simplest way to approach the subject is by contrast to your experience as 3D beings. You are also non-3D beings, so we are discussing the conflict within you.
So how can it be irrelevant to our lives?
Perhaps we are mistaken in that.
[pause]
I thought that would be our entry-point, but things grind to a halt again. Am I insufficiently focused?
Let’s say, you have your idea of how this should go, and we have ours, and they aren’t in sync.
I don’t remember us having this problem before.
You are in another place.
Better? Worse?
Well – different, anyway. You are assuming a more directive role, and while that per se is good, it has a disruptive side-effect; it is sand in the gears, you might say, until we establish a new routine. You can’t drive and not-drive at the same time.
And you want me to do more of the driving.
We do, and you do. The process has been in motion for some time now, you not noticing because you are in the middle of it. You have been thinking, you need people to pose questions to us because you can feel that there are gaps and we are not moving to fill them. But that is because you aren’t filling them, either. You aren’t engaging the material logically, empirically. Thinking won’t interfere with perceiving. And at a certain point, you can only move yourself (let alone the material) to a new level by altering your approach.
I think the task is beyond my powers. I have a shelf of binders – three feet of shelf space, and this not everything, by far – single-spaced. A lot of material. How am I going to go through all of that, and how? Start from the beginning? Start from the end and work backwards, when the end is continually being added to?
It wouldn’t be any easier for anybody else.
Oh, I doubt that. I think it requires a third angle of vision, neither you nor me, to provide an overview.
Funny that Seth didn’t require that.
Yes, but apparently you aren’t Seth; you don’t dictate chapter and title, you seem more free-form.
Well, we are not Seth and you aren’t Jane Roberts, but Jane Roberts might have complained that Seth was not Cayce’s source, nor she Cayce. Cayce might have pointed out that he was not Swedenborg – if he had even heard of Swedenborg. And so with innumerable anonymous others, not to mention all the people with one or two books who worked under greater handicaps than you do.
Are you taking me to be complaining?
Let’s say, you have an inadequate sense of the resources available to you. You have mastered one aspect of this means of communication, but there are always greater levels of sophistication that may be attained.
Then, let’s turn this back to the question I had in mind. Talk to us about emotion in non-3D.
“Or,” we hear, “shut up.”
Made me laugh, but, yes.
Very well. Since you finally decided to take the reins rather than let them lie on the ground.
Emotion, feelings, moods – what you commonly experience of them is never unmixed 3D or unmixed non-3D. How could it be? But this leads to confusion.
In 3D terms, we have defined emotion as the boundary layer between what you know as “you” and what you know as “other.” The very same boundary separates the “you’ that you know and the “you” that you don’t – that is, the conscious v. unconscious minds. This is because the world you perceive as “other” is actually the part of you unknown to the construct you have formed and called “you.”
I think you’re saying, what we call ego is the part of ourself we know, and everything else, call it the unconscious or the id or the superego, may be defined as the part of ourself we don’t know, and this unknown self is experienced as “the world.”
Yes. Feelings, emotions, moods, are always a boundary line between the you that you know and the you that you don’t know. It may be the you that you refuse to know, or the you that you have not yet become, but in either case, you do not recognize it as part of you; it seems external, imposed on you.
But how can this be in non-3D? We do not live in time-slices; we are not severed from awareness of who we are and how far we extend. Where is the scope for “other”?
Very good question. And the answer is –?
We are not driven; we’ll have to keep coming back to that. Not driven by an ever-moving present moment that exhibits certain qualities one moment, then different qualities the next moment. And we don’t live in a state of partial amnesia, which in effect is the human condition.
Your RAM doesn’t get filled.
More like, our processing power is adequate.
Still, there are the tides we have mentioned. The passions you feel in 3D emanate from the non-3D, as we have said, only of course they are experienced differently here.
You’re going to have to do better than that, if we are to understand you.
From 3D, you experience the vast impersonal forces flowing into your lives, channeled by “the times” in the sense that every time allows certain energies easier than other energies. (It is always a mixture, never a clear flow.) Those energies, channeled according to what the times allow, animate the moment, and flow through whatever they find. We have explained this. You, living your lives, decide bit by bit what to do with those energies. The result is a continuous processing and transformation of what we all the unfinished business of the world and of individuals in the world. You might say the 3D is the pipe organ, playing the music. But we in non-3D (disregarding our direct ties to 3D) observe the music and are moved by it. Then that music plays us. Do you understand?
Not really. I was with you up to then.
Our environment is one vast mind (call it) with all sorts of interconnections, more complex than any 3D brain could be. This mind that we are functions as brains do: It processes input according to what it is, and the processing changes it, and then there is more processing. That sounds cold and unappealing, we imagine, but it is the same as your 3D lives, only without the illusion of separation.
I can’t get a sense of it without reference to 3D. What of the non-3D world that doesn’t refer to 3D?
How exactly would you expect us to convey it, with no common reference points? And what makes you think we experience it, tied as we are to 3D?
Hadn’t thought of that.
If you can imagine the non-3D as it exists with reference to the 3D, that will be quite enough for practical purposes. The rest is just playing with ideas.
I’m not sure we got very far today.
Time will tell. As always, discussing process is as valuable as discussing specific topics, little though you may think so.
Today’s theme?
“Emotion in non-3D” is as good as anything.
Yes, maybe so. Very well, our thanks as always.
Frank, perhaps this idea will provide some external stimulation to further this discussion.
The impression I have gotten about emotion is that it is a type of energy (which to me seems like another word for a concept, something abstract) that generates a physical response. That physical response is the “feeling” that people have. For example, anger is the energy of friction or frustration, but what does friction mean? What does frustration mean? Everything in 3D is a manifestation of a non-physical concept. So in non-3D, these concepts are formed and created there and is experienced in 3D. The experiencing of concepts is what we would call physical reality.
So an emotion is simply the physical manifestation of a concept that does not have form. If the cause for anger could be in form, it may take some shape like a spike or sandpaper. This type of analogy has been made in poetry and other other writings to convey the sense of an emotion.
I believe in non-3D, concepts are more understood but not experienced in the way that form provides. That’s why in non-3D, you experience the concept differently. It is an awareness, but not a feeling. You know what it means to be frustrated, but since it cannot have form, you experience it as a physical outburst or the feeling of your heart pumping faster or whatever the body’s mechanism is to generate a physical sense of emotion. Love is another emotion that turns the concept of connection into the feeling of desire or attraction or longing.
Another reason why in 3D, you experience emotion instead of an understanding of the concept is due to the belief and acceptance of separation. The combination of the belief in separation/disconnectedness and the different energies of connectedness (love, hate, anger, sadness, etc. being degrees of the awareness of connection) create the different physical experiences of emotion.
Frank,
Perhaps consider another approach if you wish to continue this endeavor.
It feels to me like you are trying to feel (emotion) how the experience of non-3D is different from 3D. That is likely a non-productive approach. It presumes that TGU experiences the emotions in the way you do to be able to relate in those terms. Never mind that you are saying it in language, which makes you believe you are ‘thinking’ the problem.
Instead, perhaps consider exploring questions like: How do the differences in emotional expression between TGU and those of us in 3D impact the sharing of information and experiences between us? What expressable limitations do these differences create? And of all that, what is most important for us individually to know or explore? And what are not important and serve as endless loops or distractions or dead ends?
This doesn’t answer the direct question. But that is likely unanswerable anyway. What it explores instead is something important: what the impact of those differences are on one aspect— communication
From there other questions unfold relating to other {potential} impacts.
Dirk, I don’t think this is something i can do. I agree that it would be a productive approach, so – as a penalty for making the suggestion 🙂 – I suggest that you give it a try. This would be very much more closely aligned to your talents and proclivities than to mine, I think. If you do, I trust you will share the results with the class. I’ll be glad to post it here for you.