Tuesday, April 12, 2022
4:50 a.m. Very interesting to see a concept thrown in without explanation or elaboration – “habit patterns”- and then smoothly fitted in 20-plus years later. I wish somebody familiar with The Sphere and the Hologram would send me a list of throwaway lines you guys have delivered over the years. We could address them successively. I suspect we’d learn something.
Bear in mind, it’s one thing to send out sparks, but it’s another thing entirely whether or not your understanding of things has matured enough for you to get the benefit. Sometimes it is easier to set off delayed-action mechanisms that will be tripped-off only when and if the rest of your mental world provides context. Set your switches and perhaps we can look at the process of playing catch.
All right. Focus, as usual. Receptivity, clarity. Presence, above all. Go.
It should provide reassurance to you, these embedded unelaborated asides that much later prove to have relevance to a much-altered mental construction of how the world is.
They do. Regardless how it may feel at any given connected moment (“I may be making this up”), it is clear that wherever the overall structure is coming from, it is not my 3D mind in any even semi-conscious way, and beyond that, who cares? I no longer see any definite separation between my mind and the universal mind of which it is a part. I don’t see how the two aspects could be meaningfully distinguished one from the other. That being so, what sense does it make to say that any given idea or orientation is “mine” or its”?
And now you understand what Emerson didn’t have the means to express, when he experienced himself as a transparent eyeball. He meant, you see, that he was the man and he was also the universe flowing through and expressing itself as the man.
I see it. There’s many a professor of English who doesn’t, though
Judge not, lest you be judged.
Understood. Just commenting.
I feel like, if we were to limit the session to just these few grafs, it would be worth people’s reading.
We could; it would have the advantage of pointing up the message. You might begin to divide our conversations typographically, if you wish, perhaps putting a line of dashes between different topics.
No, I don’t think so. Wouldn’t that tend to blur the continuity?
It would sometimes. We don’t suggest that you do it, we merely say that if sometime you see advantage to it, it’s fine with us.
So – playing catch?
What goes on between you and us is the same process as goes on within yourselves continually, only you may not realize it. Communication is the bridging of gaps by a spark, regardless of the nature of the gap. It may be:
- Between a 3D individual and “the guys,” meaning an undefined entity or group of entities existing beyond the 3D world, or
- Within a 3D individual (seemingly), 3D component to non-3D component, or
- Between 3D individuals, in person or via intermediate devices such as writing or prepared videos or whatever.
Can you really distinguish among there? Add a fourth, for that matter: communication among non-3D beings. This is mostly transparent to you in 3D, appearing to be something else.
Let’s go into that, please.
You caught that. Good.
I caught that it is a little complicated to unpack, and I thought you’d be more sure-footed at it than I would be.
Well, bearing in mind the first three conditions of communication, this fourth is easy to understand once you’ve heard it spelled out. It may associate in your minds things that until now you have considered only separately, without seeing the connection. Focus again, please.
Go ahead.
You have to remember, the distinction between 3D minds and non-3D minds is purely arbitrary, for the sake of continuing analysis. Given that your minds operate in non-3D, by non-3D rules, and could not function merely in 3D, nor by 3D rules, the continuity around 3D and non-3D creatures ought to be obvious. But now consider, it is mind that suffuses mind-stuff, obviously. And it is mind that is undivided and indivisible even though portions of it must be experienced separately in order to be small enough to be experienced at all. (In other words, mind and thought are what follow once you want to proceed beyond “All is one.”) And it is mind therefore that connects personal and shared subjectivity.
Of course.
You say “Of course,” but in other moments you will revert to seeing yourself as separate from “the world,” from “others.” You can’t help doing so; it is a condition of 3D existence, separated as it necessarily is into time-slices and space-slices. But you can get momentary feelings of the essential unity, as now, and can remember them later. That’s the value of this communication.
One value, maybe. One of many.
Thank you. We feel the same way.
So, then, four seemingly different forms of interaction, actually one process among different participants. And the first form – among non-3D creatures – has interesting side-effects for 3D experience.
Losing the focus again. Because it is new material, I suppose. Okay, go ahead.
We can only describe it as you will have overheard it, so to speak. That is, true description of non-3D experience cannot be conveyed, because anything that you can comprehend will have some reference to 3D, which immediately distorts it.
I understand. But you can hint at it, for our non-3D component to use to convey intuitions to us, even if it can’t convey logical proofs.
That’s exactly right. In fact, that’s what we have been doing with you right along.
So let’s put it this way:
Long pause. Not so easy, I take it.
No, not so easy. Scripture that refers to the gods talking among themselves is an example of 3D minds attempting to provide a rough approximation for 3D understanding. This is an example of discarded past characteristics that will prove useful to the future: The gods contend; they create and interfere with the world, and with human destiny. They favor some individuals, like Caesar and Napoleon and John F. Kennedy, and their careers seem to be inherently lucky at crucial moments. They take what seems to you to be unwarrantable liberties with your personal and societal destinies – “whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad” – and you are left scratching your heads in perplexity, and making up fables to explain it.
I’m still caught on your connecting Caesar and Napoleon and Kennedy. Caesar, I know, was said to be loved by the gods. Emerson’s son wrote a poem about it. Napoleon himself said he was an agent of destiny, and as soon as destiny didn’t need him any more, the slightest thing would destroy him. I don’t know that JFK expressed similar thoughts – he was cooler and more Irish than that, more of a fatalist and less of a mystic – but he certainly knew how to push his luck. Still, I don’t think most people would group the three of them that way.
Plenty of other examples could be proffered, but you know these three pretty well. Our point is that it is not a recent phenomenon, Caesar being ancient and Napoleon being already 200 years in your past, but neither has it ceased to manifest, Napoleon being only 200 years past, and Kennedy being your contemporary.
But don’t be distracted from our main point. It is time for you to look again at the world-view that created the fables you are half-tempted to dismiss, as Jung was half-tempted to dismiss alchemy before he got the key.
Maybe continue this next time?
Probably. Title this one “Continuity,” perhaps, or “Unsuspected continuity.”
We’ll see. And I’ll append Edward Emerson’s poem, I think,, just because I like it and because I admire Caesar.
– – –
Julius Caesar
By Edward Waldo Emerson
Kind in a cruel time; sound ’mid a vast decay;
Weighty pleader; scholar calm; cool head, strong sword in the fray:
Friend of the warrior, friend of the yeoman, friend of the foe when the battle was done,
Binding fast with wisdom that which the red sword won:
Foe to the haughty senate, the pitiless in their power:–
Yes, false to his caste and their rule, while they longed for the vengeance hour,
Ambushed forest, stormy waste, and snow-bound pass were his fair highway,
The lightning’s gleam and the foam on the rocks but led his ships to the bay.
Men he feared not, for life had not showed him his peer:
He feared not the gods, for which of the gods gives man back love for fear?