Friday, March 18, 2022
5:35 a.m. Leaving it to you to choose the theme, as usual. Setting switches. Go ahead.
You woke up with a chain of association of thoughts. You can always examine such associations, whenever they arrive, because they arrive for a reason at that particular time. Don’t let yourself think that anything can be random. It isn’t determined; you don’t have to do this or that. But it isn’t meaningless, either. It arose out of what has recently happened on the inner or outer plane, either to you particularly as one 3D creature, or to someone to whom you are closely linked. You truly are one with the world; separation is at most relative and is in any case more appearance than reality.
But is it always worthwhile to spend time and attention figuring things out?
That depends. If you think it is, yes. If you’d rather do other things, then no. We merely point out that it is there for the examining. So is etymology or palmistry or bridge strategy.
“The world is so full of a number of things,
I’m sure we should all be as happy as kings.” [Stevenson]
Do you doubt it?
Not at this point in my life. There were years upon years when I did.
We can make this a short session, if you wish. Or none at all, of course. The 3D soul usually holds the on/off switch; free will is what 3D is all about, as we keep reminding you.
“Usually”?
Consider people in mental institutions who can’t stop the voices in their head. In a way, you could say the 3D person doesn’t have the on/off switch in its hands.
I would have assumed that it was the – oh!
Yes. We can discuss that, if you wish.
I do. It could go in interesting directions. Who was it, who said that Western psychology had hold of things from the wrong end? Dion Fortune, somewhere.
Well, you see here an example. But it will take some spelling-out, even thogh it is a simple point.
Too much for one session?
Maybe not. Let’s see.
The point at issue is, “Who is in change of your life when it is not under your conscious control?” At least, that’s how the question first appears. But really it is a question of definitions and of arbitrarily seeing things as divided that are in fact part of one thing. You might repeat our bullet points from the other day.
I’ll have to look back and find them. Lord, it was only yesterday! At your prompting, I imagine, I shortened them, or will when I transcribe, anyway. What we really are is:
- A 3D being: the intelligence of the cells and organs and systems.
- A 3D being that extends into the non-3D.
- A 3D and non-3D being that perforce extends far beyond a specific time and place.
- A 3D and non-3D being that, as a unit, also relates to other beings as units.
- A 3D and non-3D being that is a part of the larger being of which it was created.
- A being that participates in that larger being’s life, in ways beyond your ability to imagine.
As we said, these are layers, not discrete entities. They are abstractions more than separate reality. Still, they should help analysis. Do they look as simple as the concept consciousness, unconscious mind, etc. used by psychology? Is even Jung’s greater scheme of abstract understanding equal to the reality he experienced and tried to map?
Of course not. How can the map be the territory?
Well, take this set of bullets and merge it conceptually with the thought that the entire exterior world is a shared subjectivity in which you participate but do not dominate. Does this not better reflect the reality you live than do models that take the outside world as something separate that mysteriously exists on its own but keeps impinging on your life?
This was triggered by the question of who holds the on/off switch.
It isn’t a question simply of you v. your unconscious mind, nor of you v. your “higher self” (defining that as more than merely your conscious and unconscious mind as centered in your 3D existence).
Yes, that’s what I sort of got, only it came as a tangle of half-seen connections.
Life is not simple, but people will persist in trying to simplify it in order to understand it. If they would keep reminding themselves that simplicity is necessary for analysis but is at the same time a guarantee that the analysis will be incomplete, they’d make fewer excursions into swamps of mistaken certainty.
Your life is continually motivated by things seen and unseen. It affects things it doesn’t even suspect the existence of, and is affected similarly. These connections are unseen not because of some divine decree, nor by their indescribable nature. What is invisible is so usually because your mental categories render it so. If you know that transmutation is impossible, it is, for you.
Richard Bach said, “Argue for your limitations and they are yours.”
Yes, and this doesn’t mean only limitations to your abilities; it also means, assumptions about the limiting nature of the world you experience.
So I think I’ll insert my comment to myself before I began this.
[5:30 a.m. “The Law and Jake Wade,” a silly story, a Western, bought for the sake of seeing De Forrest Kelly in an early role. Not much of a glimpse, at that. Thinking about it was part of a long chain of associations this morning, including “Just say no” and “You don’t win the war on drugs by surrendering” that show vividly how an emotional saying will trump a merely logical one.]
It fits in.
Amazing, isn’t it? You’d think life had patterns.
Very funny. I have forgotten most of the associations, but the place they left me was that we are indeed emotional beings before we are thinking ones.
As we said. But expand your thought. What prompted you to buy those old movies? What prompted the postal service to deliver them yesterday? Why did you not look at that one until evening? (Yes there are circumstantial reasons, but as you know, our question is more “What did it serve?” than “How did it happen?”) How did it happen that you have chains of mental associations into which these particulars fitted, rather than other chains? And so on and so forth.
There was another major link in the chain, about drugs and the idea of marijuana being a gateway drug, and the pro and con of depending on a physical substance for a mind-altering ability, etc. [And, transcribing this, I remember other links.]
No chain of associations is limited to one line of development. The whole metaphor of a “chain” is misleading, in that way. A better analogy, though flawed in a different way, would be grains of sand on a drumhead, rearranging themselves into patterns as sound waves impinge upon their reality.
Yes, no implication of one invariant order.
The truth is somewhere between analogies, as usual. Now, you wanted a shorter session, so here it is.
Did I?
“Which you?”
I see. Today’s theme?
“The on/off switch”?
Does that really capture the nub of this?
Sparks, remember, not definitions. But if not that, then maybe, “A chain of associations,” or perhaps “Associations and consciousness.”
Yes, that may do it. Thanks as always.