Wednesday, June 29, 2022
7:15 a.m. Anything on your minds, particularly?
You might pursue your thoughts about the Sixth Great Extinction.
If you wish, but what’s the relevance to anything we’re talking about?
Anything, discussed in an unfamiliar context, has the potential to do two things, regardless of the subject, regardless of the opinion: (1), in refocusing (by associating two things previously not seen in connection), it offers a way to go where you yourself have never boldly gone before, and (2), the mental effort of reassociating things, of seeing things differently if only for the moment, will keep you awake if only for that moment; in other words, it will have you here, now, rather than half-aware, half-awake..
While I appreciate the Star Trek reference, it doesn’t appear particularly bold to me.
Again, we refer less to the specific than to the process – as so often.
All right, I see that. I take it you refer to my saying, yesterday in our small ILC meeting, that although I hate at least certain aspects of the ongoing Sixth Great Extinction, it seems to me that “nature” – of which we are a part, of course – is using us to do what it has somehow done repeatedly before, presumably without us. But this is not a new thought to me, so how is it an unfamiliar context?
We can pretty much guarantee that the thought will be a new one to many of your friends, and so will work for them, if they allow themselves to consider it. But beyond that (potentially very helpful) effect, there is the juxtapositioning of what appears to be a 3D process, or event, or predicament, with an attention to one’s own individual consciousness as a part of the wider human consciousness, which is itself a part of All That Is, given that the entire 3D, like the non-3D, is mind-stuff.
You see? There can be a tendency to consider things in isolation from each other. You can wind up, in effect – unknowingly – no longer actively considering these things as realities, but merely playing with them as concepts, or as fantasies, or as disembodied theories. There isn’t anything wrong with that, but it isn’t real work; it isn’t consciousness being employed to realize itself.
I get that you every so often throw in a hand grenade, to shock us out of our mental grooves.
Let’s say, we occasionally set off firecrackers. We’re not interested in maiming or killing, but in awakening.
Fine, but my point remains.
Oh, of course. Bear in mind, we are in the situation of dealing with people in 3D. That means, dealing with people who periodically go to sleep, in more ways than one; who have a hard time associating things over time unless the things are connected by a strong emotional tie, or are part of an ongoing continuous interest. So it is no wonder that words go dead on you. Sometimes we have to wake you out of your comfortable drowse on warm summer days, or the summer would be gone and your life and its opportunities would be gone with it.
For the record, I never doubt your benign intent.
Well – as the musical refrain goes – hardly ever.
Smiling. You wouldn’t want me to swallow everything without examination.
Indeed we wouldn’t – and here’s a new thought for you, let’s see what you do with it. We may be trustworthy to you, less so for another, antipathetic to another, and downright malicious to still another. This, without our changing and without our revealing certain aspects to one, other aspects to another. How can this be?
I don’t think that’s particularly hard to understand. We on the 3D end are half of any such communication. If your values match ours, that’s one thing; if they don’t –
Yes. Your thought caught up with your instant reaction. So –
Well, I ran off assuming (or let’s say, you tricked me 😊 into assuming) that “you” are the same “you” for each of us, and clearly that isn’t so.
How could it be so? Could any conceivable emotional and mental mix in 3D not have its analogue in non-3D? Where would it have come from in 3D?
Which means Hitler’s guys upstairs were in resonance with him, or he couldn’t have expressed them.
You have the relationship backwards, but yes. If there were not non-3D forces that were capable of expressing in 3D, where would the 3D get them? It isn’t isolation, or stress, or trauma, that produces malign examples of humanity. Those factors relate to how those qualities express or don’t express in someone’s life, but the qualities themselves obviously pre-exist their expression in 3D. At least, we assume it’s obvious.
So I sat here re-reading what we’d gotten so far, and it occurred to me, this is going to tie you (as a concept) to the vast impersonal forces, isn’t it?
Yes. You see how interesting it gets when you think, you ponder, instead of merely running with whatever first impression you get?
I think you’re insulting me, but I’m used to it. (Smiling, of course, as you know but others may not know.)
Consider the model we have been offering: The times allow certain energies in certain combinations to enter into 3D life. Those energies interact with you as a 3D individual, with everyone else as 3D individuals, with the general ambiance – what we might call the abstraction – that is society.
3D life is about choice, about self-modification through applied choice. The process is often messy, but the 3D is never the intended product; it is the workshop in which you create the product.
Life – and not just 3D life, but it is more clearly separated in 3D – is light and dark, pleasant and unpleasant, productive and obstructive, etc., etc., – and everyone’s experience of it will be different, because everyone brings different gifts to the table.
If you experience your guys as discordant, or inconsistent, or careless, or malicious, or whimsical, or irreverent, or trivial – or anything – bear in mind that this is a portrait of what you resonate with. It is an indirect portrait of who you are.
There is an unexpected upside to this. By choosing your habitual frame of reference, you choose your guys, and point yourself to what you want to be.
That may be a little opaque for people not linked in directly.
Oh, we think they’ll get it. But rephrase if you wish.
Well, I think you just said, what we concentrate on, we draw to us. What we consciously reverence, we help ourselves become.
You said it long ago to a friend, in a different context.
I’d forgotten that. Can’t remember who I was talking to, but I told him, the fact that you admire this or that quality shows that you already embody it, at least somewhat, or it wouldn’t attract you.
And this was true, and may be extended to your choice of non-3D companions.
So if I were less of a comedian, or wanted to be less of a comedian, I might get guys who were less prone to puns and word-play, not to mention insulting analogies.
We’re smiling too, but it is straight fact. The 3D life is not a trap, but a workshop. If you don’t like your life, you can change it!
H.G. Wells, The History of Mr. Polly. I haven’t read it but I somehow know the tag line.
Because Colin Wilson occasionally referred to it.
Yes, of course. Maybe he’ll contact me some day. Knowing him, though, he’s already off doing six more things at the same time. Today’s theme? What was it?
“Your part in non-3D interaction”?
Is that the snappiest thing you can come up with?
“You guys upstairs and you”?
Getting there. Again?
“Your guys upstairs; your choice.”
Well, maybe. Our thanks as always.