Our dual nature, with digressions on process

Friday, September 24, 2021

4:20 a.m. Shall we proceed?

As you said, now we segue into the world of theology, and, even more, into the world of speculation about the nature of reality in its largest compass.

What else have we been doing all this time? I would have said we were in the world of – oh, got it; the magic word is “speculation.”

Exactly. Description of the unseen is one thing. Speculation is another.

So now you are going to have to speculate, rather than describe?

We smile. Not exactly. Perhaps you should use your visualized slide-switches.

Ah. All right. As usual, maximum focus, clarity, receptivity.

You were still half asleep, you see, not knowing it. That, plus the slight oxygen deficiency.

I had a thought, that just came back to me, that all those years of awakening at 3 a.m. or so wasn’t just because the world is quieter then, is it?

No. Your suspicion is right: You were functioning at that time of day in a sort of semi-anesthetized state, or let’s say, a naturally altered state in which the active thinking processing state was somewhat subdued and the receptive ability was therefore freed a little of its accustomed restraints.

And now it is no longer necessary.

You have developed the habit of receptivity combined with alertness, not an easy acquisition for one and all. But it is a different equation for each person. Some with a less active hamster don’t need to slow down the spinning cage. Others, with only a sluggish hamster, may need to be excited into action. Nor is this work for everyone, of course.

But that is only a digression on process. To return to the theme. Your divine nature has been the subject of intense speculation for a long, long time. Many a civilization has felt for the truth of it, but expressing a non-3D truth in sequential description that necessarily has to conform to what seem to be the logical requirements of 3D life involves distortion. And how are “the faithful” to be able to tell what is distorted and what is accurately described?

The inner voice, of course.

If only it were that easy! The inner voice has its limitations, and I guess that is going to be today’s theme.

You said, “I guess.” Unusual for you to say “I” instead of “we.” Is there any particular significance to that?

It would involve another digression.

A short one, maybe? Because it is an interesting question.

A short one. Well, we’ll see.

And back to “we” again.

You yourself alternate from referring to yourself as “I” and as “we.”

So I do, don’t know why. Always have. Mostly in talking to myself, I guess.

It is merely a matter of focus, at least on our end. On your end, more a matter of habit.

I don’t understand.

When one violently concentrates, one becomes “I,” not “we.” When one muses, one more easily sees oneself as “we.”

So that happens on your end?

You will remember, you are usually talking to one intelligence, but not -. No, the right way to say it is, many listen; one responds for all. The one responding may change, sometimes in mid-thought. It happens to 3D-oriented minds too, only usually less noticed. That one may be primarily acting as spokesman, or occasionally may be expressing a strong personally held belief or interest.

And, I suppose, it can blur. So that General George Marshall, say, in a conference with the Combined Chiefs of Staff, might be speaking as representative of the Army, or the American forces in general, or the allied forces, or he may be expressing his personally held views. Many hats, same head.

A reasonable analogy. So when you hear us suddenly say “I” you will note that it is a moment of particular intensity, for whatever reason.

Okay.

So, the limitations of the inner voice.

[Long pause]

You lost it?

Let’s say, we lost it. You moved, we moved. The side-trails obliterated the main trail.

Hard to see why you can’t go back to it.

Shall we add digression to digression?

Not this time, I guess. But how can you return to your regularly scheduled programming but not be able to return to a tempting digression momentarily deferred?

Choose. This further digression, or a return to the original point?

Go on with the main them, then. But the other two items remain of interest.

With regard to your dual nature – part animal, part god. Only, as usual, not that simple. You could say the human side of you is itself part animal kingdom, part celestial kingdom. The divine side of you is celestial kingdom unmixed with animal.

Now, you know this. You experience it every day. It is merely a matter of readjusting your mental categories to fit. For instance, consider: Why is there always something a little – we can’t find the right word; let’s say X until it becomes clear – why is there always something a little X about sex? Different individuals will experience it differently, and differently at different times: For some, the word will be “embarrassing,” or “shameful,” or “frightening,” or “outré,” or “excitingly off-limits,” or “intoxicatingly transcendent.” This hardly exhausts the list of descriptive possibilities, but it may give you the idea. There is something in your most natural animal functions that on the one hand are and seem natural, and on the other hand seem almost alien to what you really are.

Surely this is cultural, or perhaps cultural and personal.

That merely backs up the question to another, but equally germane, level: Why does society view sex that way? You have to eat, too, and sleep: Why is there no such penumbra around eating and sleeping? We tried to encourage you to link the subject of sex to your most 3D explorations. Isn’t it interesting that it could also lead to better understanding of non-3D exploration?

If it does. You haven’t demonstrated that.

We’re working on it. But the emphasis is not on sex per se: It is on why it should be surrounded with what you might call an other-worldly penumbra. And we would say it is because you are animal, but not only animal. It is natural to you, but it is also somewhat beyond the pale to another part of you. We don’t refer to “forbidden fruit.” We mean, it is like – oh, being in a diving suit far beneath the ocean, or using oxygen masks far above the earth’s surface. You understand?

I think I understand the analogies: In either case, it is a stretch for us. But I don’t understand how the analogies apply.

Concentrate on the concept of stretching beyond your accustomed boundaries. Sex is not a stretch for your animal self, obviously. It is for your divine self.

You surely aren’t saying sex is sinful per se.

No, nor are we saying it is sinful if you don’t follow this or that rule about it. We aren’t the police and we aren’t the clergy and we aren’t the Moral Majority. What we are saying is that being in the flesh is in itself something of a stretch for your non-physical nature, and we use sex as the most understandable sign of your divine self’s discomfort.

Usually I can follow your arguments without much difficulty, but in this case I can’t make sense of it – which I imagine means I haven’t got the key to it. Why would sex be any harder for our divine self to deal with than anything else in 3D?

Answer your own question.

The only thing that comes to mind is that it involves more than oneself.

Slowly, carefully, rephrase that. Stop first. Then write.

What I get doesn’t seem to be right to me. I get that sex involves an extension to another person.

And you think, “Well, what about love? A mother’s love for her newborn infant, for instance?”

Isn’t love an extension to others?

Yes it is. It is also a universal force like gravity. So what is the distinction?

The only distinction I can think of is that love doesn’t have to do with bodies necessarily, but always with essence, and sex does have to do with bodies and not necessarily with essence.

Surprised yourself?

It isn’t anything I had thought of. It came out as I wrote.

We will go into it.

Frustrating session, in some ways. We have been at this for more than 70 minutes, and have gotten maybe half an inch.

Half an inch of what you measure. Asides on process have value in themselves.

But what does it leave us with? How do we characterize this session?

“Our dual natures, and digressions on process,” if you wish.

Okay, we’ll go with that.

“We,” you see.

Yeah, I get it. Till next time, then, and our thanks as always.