Tuesday, February 21, 2023
5:45 a.m. On Sunday I asked if simpler people had simpler non-3D components. (You had said, “Simpler people experience life as more simple,” and more advanced souls experience its nuances and complexities more.) We deferred consideration when you said a lot of unnoticed definitions were part of the question, hence of the answer. Are we ready to address the question?
Even in restating the question, you see that it was full of questionable statements. Simpler, more advanced, what does that actually refer to?
Well, I did have my doubts about “more advanced.” But “simpler” seemed clear enough. Simpler as opposed to more complex.
There isn’t anything to object to, provided that you remember that these are relative statements referring to how things appear from the 3D perspective that sees boundaries where there are really only gradations. Thus, we discuss souls as if they were separate, temporarily ignoring the fact that they (like everything) are part of all-one-thing. It is a distortion necessary if we are to examine differences, but remember that it is, per se, a distortion. Nothing in the world is really separate. Do you have separate entities within a dream, or do you have various aspects perceived separately?
Yes, that’s clear – and before you say it, I realize that it is clear at the moment, and that I’ll forget it in practice, repeatedly.
Now, within that context, let’s look at what is essentially a simple thing. It all hinges on the fact that a thing looks different if seen from a 3D perspective or from a non-3D perspective, because it will be seen in the context of the nature of the terrain it is seen from. Looking at it from 3D, one will unconsciously see it as sequential, separate, relatively unchanging. From non-3D: evanescent, connected, relatively fluid. Same reality; different filters. And, as in all things, a limitation is overcome by making it conscious. Once you are aware that your terrain’s limitations are skewing your perceptions, you can adjust for it. Then the important variable becomes “How long can I remember the usually invisible filters my mind applies to things?”
We will describe the situation as it appears from 3D, and you can adjust it to see if also from a non-3D perspective, or we can do the opposite.
How about it I phrase how it looks, and how I suspect it really is, and you correct the picture?
Certainly.
I imagine you will say that what looks like division between simple and complex, or perhaps between “young souls” and “old souls” is actually a division between specific combinations as they appear to us; that is, as they are experienced by us, given that despite our best efforts they appear as different individuals.
That isn’t a bad summary, except, it isn’t just that you each appear as different individuals. You actually are different individuals, when considered within 3D limitations. The color yellow is part of an un divided spectrum, yes, but it also is the color yellow as you experience it. An untrained eye will register fewer variations within it than an artist’s eye will, but the simplest person will see it as yellow, and the most sophisticated eye will still see it as yellow – that is, as a distinct part of the spectrum – despite the larger context it can put it in.
So, some souls are simple mixtures, some are complex. Some are relatively straightforward, some are extremely heterogenous, and of course everyone else is somewhere between the extremes.
But we need to remind you what we mean by soul. We are using the word to mean, elements of one or more larger beings, cohabiting a human body for a human lifetime, and either cohering and obtaining permanence or not. As we have said, the elements of course cannot be destroyed. What could destroy them? But there is the possibility of creating what are in effect new units, if the new mixture coheres.
It seems clear that simpler mixtures will be unable to see things that more complex mixtures will be able to see.
It may seem clear, but that is a clear statement of a muddled understanding.
I love you too. (Smiling.)
What is to prevent a “simple” soul from being extremely penetrating? It isn’t as if it needed to learn the ropes, and so was fumbling around, as opposed to the old pro. Simple needn’t mean inexperienced. A “young soul” needn’t mean, “more or less at sea.”
I see how the idea sneaks in. So then, a clearer picture, from your point of view?
Let’s say, a clearer picture from our point of view of your point of view. Young souls, baby souls, advanced souls, old souls. That categorization makes it seem like your school systems, grading people by their age. It may serve as a rough guide, as a crude classification system, but we remind you that you are (we are) within a dream, not within “rocks in space.” How can any part of a dream be younger or older than any other part? One part may be more complex, more profound, more meaningful, more revelatory than other parts, but nobody is a Johnny-come-lately.
What appear to be young or old souls are actually simple or complex souls, and that’s a different thing entirely.
Like the difference between a specialist and a generalist, say.
In a way. Or between a countryman and a citizen. The countryman may be simpler, and deeper. The citizen may be more sophisticated, and less connected to the world of emotions.
For the sake of the studio audience, I may as well say that you are using “countryman” and “citizen” in their original meaning – denizens of the rural or urban environments – rather than the modern usage which would see them as essentially synonymous.
We should think that would be obvious in context, but no harm in stating it explicitly.
So if I get your meaning, you are saying, merely, simple souls are tuned to simple perceptions. That’s what they perceive, because that’s what resonates.
Yes as long as you remember that simple doesn’t necessarily mean elementary. In a sense, Newton’s discovery of the law of gravity was a simple perception set to mathematical music. Einstein’s E=mc2 is a simple perception, but hardly unsophisticated: You might look at it as a mathematical description of a simple, if revolutionary, way of seeing beneath the surface of things.
The underlying engine of this discussion, I am getting, is that we should lose the unconscious idea that simpler comes first and complex later, or that souls advance in wisdom only through progressive incarnations.
Yes. There is nothing sequential about it, except from your necessarily sequential 3D perspective.
And that’s enough for the moment.
Our thanks as always.