Tuesday, September 14, 2021
5:30 a.m. To proceed – ? Comments on Dirk’s comment on yesterday’s?
[Frank,
[Very good. This is the ‘tapestry’ I have attempted to describe.
[Caught as we are, we are unable to move easily outside of ourselves in our various relationships to ‘see’ the tapestry as a whole or even significant parts of it.
[We can do so – if we are able to realize as true and hold all of what you described, and then move entirely outside of or beyond all of that to a more opportune perspective.
[Now – take all of what they shared. Consider that “time” as it unfolds in that description is in a sense ‘static’. All of the points in time, all of the news for all of the individuals lead to the succeeding moments. So where is the opportunity for change? – for free will?
[This is where time-2 comes in. Take all of what said and shared. Now move outside that. Change something, anything, and all of the nows later in time-1, the time represented in the original – change. But that ‘external influence comes with a reaction. And that too changes things.
[So now as time-2 unfolds, not just our present moment, but all moments flowing in time-1 change, and in reaction , all moments prior to the changed present moment also change. All of everything is changed to some degree. All of the things we know about science remain entirely intact. Within the current realization in time-2 everything works exactly as it should.
[And since within time-1, we cannot directly experience time-2, everything balances. The contradictions vanish. It is in accessing outside of time-1 in the all that is that we can change everything. The past becomes a fluid and flexible as the present or the future. Except that, being grounded as we are in our time-1 present moment, if we are unable to release that, we are stuck as if to fly paper.]
[TGU:] We are not certain that Dirk sees thing just as we do (nor is there any need, that he or anyone do so), but certainly the grasp of it is there. You may remember that we once told you, a long time ago now, that rather than things changing in the way your sensory experience tells you they do, the reality is closer to replication than to replacement.
You didn’t phrase it that way, but, yes, I remember. You said instead of each moment of time disappearing, it was duplicated, in a way, but duplicated changed. Thus instead of there being one of me in non-3D there were an uncounted number of me, each slightly different according to changes. I’m not sure this is how you explained it then; it is as I recall.
You never asked, “Where is the template? Which is the central thread along which all these changed versions are being strung.”
Didn’t occur to me that it was a question.
Well, it should be looked at. You can see that Dirk provides such a central axis, in effect, by fastening on to the relative nature of each moment.
It feels like you are talking more to him than to me. I don’t really understand what you are saying.
In a way, we could be said to be doing just that. [Talking to him.] And in fact, let’s discuss that: It will serve to illustrate a facet of the situation.
Funny feeling: I can feel the slight pause as you gather your arguments, or your illustrations, or let’s say your lesson-plan materials. This tells me, this is a major theme you hope to pursue, and an opportunistic one that you hasn’t seen coming.
Much of what we do is in response to an unforeseen opportunity. What is different here, that you are noticing, is that the opportunity connects not to an interesting sidebar but to a major illustration. (And thus, by the way, you observe your progress in observation. You have come a long way, mostly by perseverance and receptivity.)
Speak of which, explicitly rather than implicitly, I set my slide-switches to maximum receptivity, focus, and clarity.
Let’s see if bullet-points will take us where we want to go.
- Frank is a 3D focus. Although of course he extends into non-3D because you all must, in effect he is a 3D intelligence that extends beyond 3D, rather than a non-3D intelligence that extends into 3D. In fact, of course, he is both: It is a matter of viewpoint. But in effect, he is a localized intelligence centered in one time/place, though of course that time/place keeps moving.
- Dirk, same thing. Each of you, same thing. You are all connected in non-3D but your distinctive characteristics, your personal addition to the sum, your practical value, one might say, is that you are a localized, focused, limited intelligence, despite the fact that each of these adjectives is relative, and varies from moment to moment.
- We in non-3D, on the other hand, are not localized in our own terms, but are localized in effect, as we deal with any or all of you. Whether you think of us as guardian angels assigned to one (or more, of course) for life, or as a sort of consulting group available for any who are on our wavelength, you cannot deal with our entirety; you can deal only with a subset, in the same way and for the same reason that you may study as much as you want, but you cannot learn everything.
- Communication is always a two-way street, of course. Attempts at communication may involve one speaking and the other not hearing, but successful communication is always a focused mind on either end.
- Well, what focus? Yours? Ours?
Your question stopped me, and threw me out of gear, so to speak. Sorry. Again?
It didn’t so much throw you out of gear as momentarily throw you out of receptivity, you see. The idea startled you and you paused to consider it, then realized that you had ceased listening.
The old perception v. interpretation problem. You can’t do both at the same time.
Yes, except it isn’t a problem.
Okay, a feature, not a bug.
Funny. Yes.
- Again, whose focus? The thought that stopped you was that it is your end of the line, quite as much as ours, that determines what and how we communicate.
- Therefore – and we should think it would be obvious, were it not for the persistent temptation on your end to blur differences on this end – every communication link is different on each end. From your point of view, it may look like “the guys” talk to you or talk to Dirk or talk to any one or more of you and it is the same group. This is true and not true.
Oh, I get that. Probably each of us elicits a slightly different set of interlocutors, maybe a different habitual spokesman.
And of course even on this end, a different spokesman is going to have a different “voice,” and a different vocabulary, specialization, set of responses, etc.
We don’t usually think of you all having different responses, but I suppose you are as individual as we are.
Your group-mind experiments ought to be showing you that the difference between 3D and non-3D is more notional than substantive.
- Now, given that different 3D individuals elicit different sets of non-3D individuals, and given that different individuals on either end speak different subsets of thought, perhaps you can see that this is one more way in which 3D individual minds help stitch the world together.
You paused, but I can’t say that I quite get your drift, beyond the obvious point that every conversation between people has its own flavor.
You could say that in talking to you (and being overheard by others), we are in one mode, speaking in one voice, and that when we attempt to speak both to you and, through you, to another (Dirk, in this case), we are moved to a mode that perhaps previously did not exist. That is, in effect, two overlapping parts of our mind cooperate in new ways. And this is the same process you observe in 3D.
This sounds important. I still don’t have it.
It is a simple point, and some will find it obvious. Just as cooperation and joint work in 3D welds new relationships – pathways you call friendship or fellow-feeling or brotherhood or sisterhood – it can work the same way in non-3D. So your associations in 3D have their echoes beyond the 3D illusion.
A specific example, even if a fictional one, would help.
You have seen how you, consisting of various threads, allow Bertram and Joe Smallwood, for instance, to coexist. They are not necessarily predestined friends, you might say. What they have in common may be more the coexisting within you than any other single thing. So there’s an example of a 3D life creating pathways by what it holds together. But you create pathways by what you are as you live, and what you are is shaped as much by your relationships as by anything else.
Aha, feedback loops. Some people we immediately take to by what they are and we are. Others we learn over time to appreciate. And others we work together and that is a link in itself.
Correct, and of course this is hardly an exhaustive list of ways in which 3D lives create pathways in non-3D.
So take my close link with my brother Paul, for instance. Clearly we came into this life with prior links, but a harmonious cooperative and mutually supportive experience in this lifetime presumably strengthens the bond even more.
Any and every relationship may or may not have its antecedents. Resonance – even close resonance – need not be forged by prior common experience, though it may be. And by the same token, any and every relationship in your life is going to leave its traces, so to speak. It will change you; it will change the other; it will link the non-3D in ways perhaps new; it will leave a smoothed path, let’s say, for further development by others of similar composition.
More than an hour now. A title?
Maybe “3D/non-3D links.”
And next time, more of the same, I take it. Very well, our thanks, and see you next time.