Friday, November 4, 2022
6 a.m. Yesterday you said that politicians, for instance, take the reality of the world for granted, “for who would put all that effort into something that was clearly illusory?” and then, immediately, you added, “But that isn’t the end of the story, for artists work hard too, even if they see through the scrim.” I gather that this is our jumping-off place for today. Presence, receptivity, clarity. All yours, guys.
We also said, “Life is meant to be lived.” That is as universal a statement as can be made, but as usual, people will hear different things in it, because the statement will mix with what received it. Nobody ever hears neutrally; that isn’t what soul-creation, or call it soul-shaping, is about. Naturally your individual subjectivity is going to flavor, or color, what you hear us saying. It flavors every other input you process, why should this be different? And that’s our point above, as well.
I think you’re saying, all the ways people approach life, or live life, or even just think about life, stem from who and what they are, quite as much as from what the deed or word or thought is, and that it’s natural and therefore is fine.
Yes, and even that statement will be received differently by different people. It isn’t a matter of some people being perverse or ignorant. If you will remember our analogy of 3D life as a processing machine, transforming what the vast impersonal forces of life present into some form of output affected by the 3D individual’s choices, you may be able to grasp (emotionally) that such differences in perception and reasoning and concluding are not only natural but are desirable.
That’s a different way to see it. I guess we – or anyway, I, to claim ownership of my own tendencies – assumed that there is truth and there is error, and sincere effort allows us to distinguish between them. If there is not, where in the world are we?
The thing that may be hard to grasp is that there is indeed a truth and an error – you are not condemned to live in a wilderness of mirrors – for you. Each person has a pole-star, and so long as you follow that pole-star, you will find your way. But your pole-star is not the same as any other person’s.
Hard to see how that can be, in practice. We all live among the same shared subjectivity, though we experience different parts of it.
Isn’t that what we just said?
Hmm. In effect, we each live in a different world.
And, in effect, any similarity between the world you experience and the world anyone else experiences may be merely –
Not the way to go about it. Bullets, perhaps, let’s see.
- You are each individual in effect, even though you are composed of communities via Strands.
- Being individual, you are to greater or lesser degree different from everybody else. You are each a unique unrepeatable combination of Strands, adding up to something none other can equal.
- Everyone alive at a given time partakes in the same shared subjectivity, “the world” in all its physical and psychic components. But no two people take exactly the same things from the pile.
- Each of you processes as you live. That’s what you do. Life comes at you moment by moment, and you choose, and choose, and choose, sometimes actively, more often by default (i.e. in conformance with past choices).
- You could think of your lives as continually shifting alliances, as the tides of life bring you together with this one and drift you apart from that one. No two people necessarily share the same pattern of relationship, but relationship is necessarily a shifting reality.
- Thus, you each see the world as a different reality. To some, it is what it appears, to others, it is this or that abstraction. Each of you think “This is how it really is, regardless of people’s theories,” but of course, “how it really is” is the one thing no one knows, because life is so much bigger than any fragment of life.
- But given that you see life differently, it is not avoidable that you react to life differently, and so any way of reacting to life is valid. How could it not be? Despair, nihilism, cynicism, predation, whatever, may be repugnant to your personal values, but how could they exist if life found them not valid?
- So where is the possibility of cooperation, affection, love, in a world of mutual incomprehension? You know the answer.
I do. It is in our non-3D connection that we connect, even if we attribute the connection to 3D factors like personal chemistry, or “like minds,” or shared opinions or tastes.
As we said: You know. Communication of ideas, of values, of emotion, is extremely difficult – really, literally, impossible – in strictly 3D terms. There is no medium of transmission. It is only via non-3D that you even comprehend each other, let alone influence each other.
That’s very emotionally persuasive, though I need to think about it.
In 3D terms, you are all autistic, more or less unable to sense or experience others except as background noise, or, let’s say, as part of an undifferentiated shared subjectivity. Just as you could not live in 3D if you were not connected to (supported by) the non-3D, so you could not perceive nor interact with your fellows.
That’s hard to grasp, at first, but then I think of mothers and their telepathic link to their newborns. The newborn has to learn to live in 3D, and while it is doing so, it is guided by its non-3D component.
Why not just say, you are all in continual connection with the non-3D, recognize it or not? And then remember connection laterally, and you’ll have it.
“Laterally” meaning, I take it, our Strands – which provide connection sort of about 3D life, even though themselves not 3D.
It requires slow thought. We can only provide the initial spark here. But consider: Any life is non-3D and 3D both. You live in 3D, and you live as part of non-3D. that is, input is both sensory and intuitive. So is output. It doesn’t matter if you recognize this or not, it remains an unvarying fact of life.
The penny hasn’t dropped yet.
Every aspect of life that you can consider is necessarily both 3D and non-3D. (The two intertwine, remember; they are separate mostly in analysis rather than in any real sense.) Strands relate to you via non-3D – via intuitive pathways – but they are composed of individuals who had (have) a 3D existence. Your thoughts, your emotions, your most private feelings or fantasies or longings or imaginings, it all stems from 3D experiences and non-3D experiences.
In this situation, you can hardly expect unanimity of opinion about anything, and neither can you expect total inability to communicate. The realty – as you all know from experience – is somewhere in the middle.
But recognize that there is not really a clear distinction between conclusions drawn from logic or emotion, nor a clear distinction between 3D and non-3D input, nor a clear distinction, even, between “self” and “other.” It’s too complicated for you to understand intellectually except by separation by logical distinctions, but in reality, as opposed to logic, life is all one thing, always coming at you, as you are coming at it, and always more than you can comprehend. Be comforted: This is not a design flaw. It is better to live a life that is mystery than it would be to live a life that was only known. That’s why it is so.
Looking back, we’re a long way from what I thought you were going to address.
No, we just went at it in a way you did not expect and perhaps cannot yet see.
I’ll take your word for it. So, today’s theme?
“Different worlds, different lives.” It is subject to being misinterpreted at first, but no matter.
Okay. Our thanks as always.