Friday, October 25, 2024
3:10 a.m. Jon – I assume it was you – last Friday you said a fascinating subject to investigate would be the interrelation between the merely 3D aspects and the non-3D aspects of being human. Can we address that?
You usually say your 3D or non-3D component, and that is one good way to describe separation within unity, or, let’s say, relative separation, relative polarity, within a structure.
The guys told me long ago that the main difference between us and them is the terrain we exist in.
That was suited to your ability to understand. With what came over time, honing your perceptions and clarifying your analogies, you came to see that no 3D being is a unity except when considered within 3D, and even then, only to superficial analysis.
Yes. Compound beings produced as the result of endless generations of physical gene-sharing cannot be all one thing. You are what your parents were, in a sense, only you are more like a compromise between mother’s heritage and father’s. and each of them was a compromise between a prior set of mated characteristic and so on back forever.
But of course that merely describes the physical heredity, which is the universe of possibilities you were given, your physical endowment.
As you should understand by now, “physical” includes mental, and any 3D life is a combination of 3D physical possibilities that define the arena the non-3D characteristics must match if there is to be a live birth.
I rake it you just said that the physical makeup we are given must match the characteristics allowed in by the “weather” – the astrological characteristics of the given birth day.
Sometimes fully mature embryos have to wait several days before they can be born into the world. Sometimes they must come in earlier than the normal nine months, as the changing situation allows.
What you should think of now – if only as a thought-experiment – is that just as you are a compromise between your mother’s and your father’s genetic possibilities, so you are a compromise between your physical and your non-physical heritages, each considered as a unit. In effect, you experience a tug of war between what you call body and spirit. It may express in many ways, but it is always there, a second form of duality.
And just as your physical heredity comes from so many bifurcated genetic strands, so your non-physical heredity comes from more than one strand.
This is why your lives are so complicated. (Well, this is one more reason why.)
I’m hearing, “The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak.”
You have all experienced that. It is the human condition to be self-divided, indecisive, at cross-purposes, just as it is to be single-minded, decisive, with unblurred focus.
And I see you are not defining emotions as part of us.
Emotions, as I have said before, and others before me, are the interface between the acknowledged, known “you” and the unacknowledged you that you experience as “other.” So in that sense they are not you, yet they are your inseparable companions.
I’m hearing a new way to look at ourselves. Our mind is part of us, our emotions are with us but not of us.
They can be difficult to control. When is your mind difficult to control?
I experience quite a lot of difficulty controlling my body. I have come to see it as quite distinct from “me.” But I don’t suppose I could fairly say that my body is with me but not of me.
You could if you chose to look at it that way. Listen, the big thing is how you (anyone, of course) experience your life. If your body doesn’t trouble you, you tend to identify it with you. If your emotions or your mind don’t trouble you, similarly you just assume they are “you” and not “other.” But when faced with illness or any condition you cannot wish away, you are very likely to see that you are not your body. It can be less obvious until noticed, but the same may be said of your mental processes. Only when they are somewhat out of your control for whatever reason may you realize, “That isn’t me, it is at least partly autonomous.” And emotions, as I say, aren’t really a part of you or anyone, but may be mistaken to be a part of you.
Now look at the resulting situation. You have:
- Avatar-level mind, that believes it more or less knows who and what it is.
- 3D body systems working cooperatively, usually working well with mind, leading to an unconscious assumption of identity.
- Emotions generated by the interplay between known and unknown, often seen as between “self” and “other.”
- A non-3D mental environment unhampered by continuous coordination between mind and body, and not susceptible to emotion (because there is nothing in non-3D conditions to generate the “self” v. “other” perceptions that generate the emotions).
Why should anybody expect these four elements to function smoothly and flawlessly? Or to say it more clearly: Why would anyone expect life to be all sweetness and light? That is a baby’s dream. You’ll need a lot more integration before you get them all working smoothly together, and there’s no use thinking it is somebody’s fault (even your own) that life is what it is and not what you imagine it ought to be.
Some damned fool of a philosopher defined man as “a bourgeois compromise.” I take that to be somebody complaining that the world isn’t what he wanted it to be, and neither are we.
That discontent is also part of the human condition and – as your guys are always saying – “and nothing wrong with it.” But there is discontent and discontent. The discontent that is aspiration and impatience is one thing. The discontent that thinks it is smarter than the universe, better than God, as you put it, is something else. The one is a spur, the other is discouragement.
Now, you might give some thought to the practical implications of seeing the human condition this way. It may lead you to see your dilemmas and problems and possibilities quite differently.
Enough for now.
Theme?
“Man as compromise,” maybe, or “Redefining again,” or even “Why humans are so divided.” Something on that order.
It’ll come to me, I’m sure. Our thanks for all this.