Monday, September 30, 2019
Recognize that we are – as so often – describing to you what you well know, but from a different point of view. It is the viewing as much as the viewed or viewer that is important here.
Interesting to see you put the process as a third term, equal in importance to subject or object.
To viewer or viewed. Not quite the same thing. The viewer isn’t the subject.
We are sketching the familiar world in an unfamiliar way. The 3D world is broadcast; is projected, from the larger world of which it is part. It is not some boulder sitting in a field of nothingness. The 3D is a subset of the All-D, and so cannot be properly understood in isolation. In practice you will mostly see it in isolation; still, the differences between your usual perceptions and ideas and those we try to impart are based exactly in that difference: We describe the 3D as part of its context; you mostly and usually see it as if it existed in isolation.
- If 3D were in existence for its own sake, you might look at this as potentially very destructive, indeed disastrous.
- If 3D existed in isolation –not part of the All-D – similarly it would be an out-of-control situation that would likely end in disaster, or at best in meaningless change.
- If 3D existed only in time then what happened or did not happen would be, in a sense, irremediable, or, let’s say, of only historical existence.
But none of these conditions is true. The 3D exists as part of everything; It exists to fill a function. It is as immortal as reality, because time is not what it appears to be when seen in a strictly 3D perspective.
Humans change, and they change the world around them. This will be obvious when you remember that the “external” world is not separate from you, but in a way expresses you. Inner and outer aspects being of the same reality, how could a species that changes not experience itself as inhabiting an ever-changing world?
You were going to explain this sentence: “The animal kingdom provides continuity of awareness of one’s other beings and an awareness of continual interaction.”
Animals are essentially tribal, familial, interactive. At one extreme is the insect kingdom with a hive-mind of nearly no individual separate awareness. At the other end is mankind, with an awareness of individuality that often drowns out awareness of the matrix in which humans live. But individually aware or not, all animals are in essence part of their species’ awareness, in a way plants are not. However, this may be difficult to express.
We are learning, these days, how much more aware of each other plants can be.
Yes, but it is an order of intelligence quite different from human awareness. The closest analogy would be to the hive-mind of the animal scale that ranges from hive to individual awareness.
It is as if hive-mind animals take up where plants leave off.
In a sense, yes. There is a sort of continuity. And of course the human mind extends from the animal to the celestial, whether or not consciously.
Shamans talking to plants are talking to the overall hive-mind that is a specific kind of plant?
Each species may be said to have its own representative, so that, say, a human taking a psycho-active substance may come into contact with the plant’s particular intelligence. It would not be a separate intelligence, but more like if the entire human race, or any subset of it, had one individual representative.
So you see, animals are always aware not only of others of their species but of others of all species within their individual existence. A herd or a pod acts in effect as an extension of the individual, but that is the relation in a nutshell. If you think of the animal kingdom as producing continuity of awareness of the larger picture, that will be a good start. Humans are aware of things that cats aren’t, but both function to maintain a world of interconnection among species that is beyond the capability of the plant kingdom.