Saturday, December 14, 2024
5:10 a.m. Shall we continue?
You started to steer the conversation, then struck out your question and left it to us. Why?
More interested in where you wanted to go than what had occurred to me. I can never tell how much of my motivation is “me” and how much an intuition from the universe and how much perhaps the product of some robot.
Not that it matters.
Well, you say that, and I can get a sense of it – that since we are all one thing, what difference does it make what causes what to surface. Still, it seems to make a difference.
It does, of course. A philosophy is at a different level from a prejudice, say, or a knee-jerk reaction, or a reasoned position based on other premises. But at the same time, in a sense it doesn’t matter (which is the same as saying “All is well”) because the world isn’t drifting.
This reminds me of a thought I had yesterday (and lost until now) that I did want us to discuss.
Yes, and if you go looking for the source of an idea – sources, rather – you will waste a certain amount of time and energy, because what difference does it make? If Leonardo da Vinci could find inspiration in a pool of water or a mottled wall, why should anybody worry that the diamond they just found may have come from a dunghill?
My thought may have come from Paul Brunton, prepared by earlier exposure to Carl Jung. Hardly dunghills. But I get your point.
And you are hesitating at the brink because it is a sort of impractical-sounding question.
Very well, I cease to hesitate. I thought, people have said that if the physical world really exists as a sort of epiphenomenon, that means it depends upon not being forgotten by whatever is dreaming it. Thus, if God were to forget us, we would cease to exist, is how the theologians would put it. But there is another way to phrase the understanding that doesn’t involve postulating a separate God. But although I can intuit it, I cannot put words around it. I’m hoping you can, because I think it is the kind of understanding that could be quite a doorway.
Bullets, then, and we’ll see if we can fence it in:
- Your 3D existence is a subset of your non-3D existence, necessarily since the 3D in general is a subset of the non-3D.
- But your 3D existence – your life on the avatar level – depends upon the existence of many things: time, space, genetics, and the non-3D seeds you call other lives, or threads.
- All is one, all time is part of the eternal now, there are no divisions in any direction except provisional, temporary, illusory barriers that nonetheless appear real and even formidable.
- Thought, too, is all one, and at the same time is locally divisible.
- No civilization, any more than any individual, can do justice to every aspect of reality. The more one accents one end of a given polarity, the more one neglects the compensating “opposite” end of the polarity.
- Thus, every thought, every structure of any kind, is necessarily incomplete and – you might say – unfair.
- What is the succession of days but the trying out of this or that emphasis? And given that we are talking about not one set of polarities but many, you can see the amazing complexity of the resulting creations. The Renaissance in Europe, the Taoist or Muslim or Christian or Jainist understandings of reality, the materialist hypothesis, magicians, devil-worshippers, ecstatics – you see the point.
I do. Infinite diversity, and different times call forth different manifestations, like an art gallery continually changing its displays.
Now, you as individual at the avatar level usually function as if separate. Even if you experience telepathic contact with others, usually you experience it as you (the individual) experiencing other (humans, or ex-humans or never-been-human). You don’t usually experience the sense of oneness that puts you as avatar in your proper place as both center and nowhere.
Sometimes we do.
If no one ever did, how could we describe it? We said usually.
Yes, I got that. It still seemed worth noting in case it didn’t occur to people.
All right. Since you function as if separate (and of course this is by design, it is not a malfunction or imperfection), you do not usually sense your theoretical fragility of existence.
That could use a little clarifying.
“If God forgot us, we would cease to exist.” Only, for God substitute the group-mind that is everything.
Is there a difference?
Difference in associations people will make to different words. The word God will raise resistances in some, as you well know. The idea of a universal group-mind will raise resistances in others, particularly if expanded to include what is seen as non-living “matter,” as it must if it is to include everything. And any conception that proceeds from postulates and assumptions and associations different from one’s own will necessarily appear biased, perhaps ludicrously so. It is hard to hold one’s own view and at the same time look from another window.
It seems to be the nature of religions – including scientism – to rigorously exclude opposing views. What is heresy, after all, or superstition, but unacceptable modes of thought?
Yes, well, you are going to have to find ways to do what has till now been impossible. Your new civilization will be broad-minded or it will fail. But of course even broad-mindedness is one position, that excludes certain extremes. As we say, you can’t have any positive expression that includes everything. At best you may get a negative expression like Taoism that says to each successive attempt to define the world, “No, it isn’t that either.” You can see that such a recurring negative may be quite valuable against fanatism but may also lack a certain something that people need.
I can’t tell, looking back on this, if we have succeeded in saying anything that will be intelligible to people who don’t already get it. But then, that’s what you often say, isn’t it? We are connected, and sparks jump.
Could you trace the origin of the ideas that occur to you? By looking carefully you can sometimes see how they connect with other things, how they latch onto the moving train that is your momentary consciousness, but that says nothing important about the mechanism or nature of organization of ideas. Nor – we repeat – is it necessary or even helpful to trace such relationships. They may interest you, and if so, fine. But they are not important per se. You have spent your entire life reacting to ideas without knowing why they came when they did, or how. You will spend the remainder of your life the same way. If isn’t in any way a problem.
But I still can’t tell if anything I wanted to convey comes through. You will say, it isn’t my business who picks up what, but I’d say what is my business is, did I make as clear a statement as I could?
Perhaps you will receive “external” feedback.
Perhaps. Well, I can feel my mind wandering a little, so I guess this is it for the moment. Thanks as always.