Sunday, November 14, 2021
7:45 a.m. Gentlemen, I’d be interested in how you see emotion in non-3D as opposed to 3D. Or whatever you wish to discuss, of course.
It is a common failing of philosophers, to try to get a handle on human traits only from a position of normality.
Yes, I hear it even as I’m writing. I neglected to set my slide-switches, so that came out sloppy and probably misleading. Okay, maximum focus, clarity, receptivity, presence. And indeed I feel more “present” this morning than in a while, present enough to remember to be thankful for it. So let’s try it again.
Philosophers and others who try to obtain a “fix” on the human condition typically oversimplify, and so they obtain a distorted result. Of course any model oversimplifies, necessarily, but how you oversimplify determines in which ways you will glean a valid insight and in which ways your reckoning will be skewed. If you think of humans as primarily rational with deviations from rationality as abnormalities or anyway as exceptions, you will come up with one set of conclusions. Very different sets of conclusions will follow from alternative suppositions: that humans are primarily emotional beings; that human individuals aren’t individual at all; that humans affect each other in unnumerable non-sensory ways, not merely in sensory ways. We could go on, but this should make the point. And most misleading of all may be the assumptions about non-3D/3D connections: that non-3D does not exist, or that it is inhabited by demons and angels, or that it exists but does not interact with 3D until after the 3D person is dead. You get the idea.
Sure. Just as “God is created in the image of man,” so our ideas of reality are based in our assumptions as to what is real, and then our experiences of what is real are overlain on that.
That is a bit too broad, but mostly yes. Thus you can see that without “external” intervention, your ideas must always remain in a closed loop, however little you realize it.
Do I sense a change in your teaching strategy? You seem to be throwing out teasers and then deliberately leaving them hanging.
We have told you from the beginning, you have to work the material. The less work, the less profound the impact. The more work, the greater the potential gain, for you will have made it yours by mixing your essence with it.
To continue: “External” is of course literally impossible, but that is how it appears to you. Remember our earlier model of a smaller sphere entirely contained in a larger one. The smaller sphere represents your conscious world; the larger sphere represents your greater 3D mental world of which you are unconscious, and the boundary level between the two represents the emotional reaction you have to life. So in this sense, “external” means – something pertinent to your life of which you have no conscious knowledge, or over which you have no conscious control. Thus, “external” never means disconnected, let alone contingent or arbitrary. It almost always means “unrecognized as connected.”
I see that.
So within the model, you might ask, Where is the room for emotion among non-3D elements, if emotion is the isobar between consciousness and unconscious “external” events?
I suppose we are using the same word to describe different things.
No, more like we are using the same word to show hitherto unsuspected connections between things.
As in, that non-3D experiences emotion at all?
As in, you have to try to remember that everything is connected. It’s all one thing. It is not really non-3D v. 3D; that is merely a helpful way to think of it. In fact it is non-3D plus 3D as components of a larger system (that we aren’t going to go into) just as you are individuals and communities both.
I get that we’re back to “As above, so below.”
Of course, and “As within, so without,” though that is not a common adage. If you in 3D experience emotion, can you in non-3D not experience emotion? The expression of it, if any, may vary according to the geography, but how could the essence be confined to one part of yourself? And if you in non-3D experience something, isn’t that the same thing as saying that that experience is in the non-3D?
But I thought that impatience, say, resulted from 3D conditions of compression.
So?
Oh! Duh! I see. Just because it originates here, doesn’t mean it manifests only here!
Correct. As we have said from the beginning, 3D allows certain things to manifest that could not originate in non-3D.
I will be damned.
We doubt it. But, you see, there are always deeper understandings possible.
I hadn’t looked at it that way. You originally described the 3D as having been created in order to allow the mixing of strands and thus the creation of new individual souls that would help keep things tied together.
We didn’t put it exactly that way, but you do realize, one can say only one thing as a time. The level of sophistication of the mind of the receiver is a major chokepoint in the transmission of understandings. We have had to eliminate one set of misunderstandings at a time. It’s always that way. You don’t get instant “enlightenment” the way people think you do. Even a major “Aha” comes on prepared ground, and even that major “Aha” is not a one-time fix, leaving the recipient suddenly knowing and understanding everything.
All right. Regardless, this is a major readjustment in my thinking. At least, that’s what it feels like.
Yes, it gives you a different view of 3D and its uses, does it not?
It seems to me like poking through a wall in a tunnel, and breaking through to a cavern that seems to extend forever. I mean, I can’t even begin to think of the right questions.
Then remain with the question you began with.
Emotion in non-3D and 3D.
If we tell you that we feel emotions like impatience, longing, anticipation, even dread – what does that tell you?
It tells me I need to hear more, hopefully with more explanatory context.
Yes, but what does it tell you?
I guess it suggests that either you pick them up from us, or we pick them up from you, or I suppose they exist independently, like ideas, and either you or we pick them up, or both of us do. I don’t know.
The analogy between emotions and ideas is well thought, but we will set it aside for the moment. What does it tell you, that we in the non-3D experience emotions? Don’t think your response has to be the final answer, and as you know, we aren’t grading your report card. Just – what does it suggest?
You made me ponder, for a moment. The thought that comes to mind doesn’t seem very likely – scarcely makes sense – but I’ll put it down, as I suppose it may lead us somewhere. The analogy between 3D and non-3D suggests that you, like us, have a boundary between what you are conscious of and what you aren’t conscious of. But I don’t see how that can be, in the absences of 3D limitations.
And what are you, if not 3D limitations on us?
Huh?
You think of us, still, as relatively all-knowing, etc. But we and you interpenetrate. Why would your limitations not help define us as well?
Now you’ve really lost me.
We are merely stepping into deeper water.
You mind if I hold my breath? Are you saying we are a drag on you?
Not a drag, exactly, but a limitation, certainly. That is one reason among many why we are integrally concerned that you advance from wherever you happen to be. We can’t advance without you, nor you without us.
Dana said “No one crosses alone.” I don’t know if this is what she meant.
Doesn’t matter. Just remembering the sentence will help. Enough for now.
Today’s theme?
“Another look at the 3D/non-3D connection,” maybe. Or something like that.
Thanks as always for all this.