Saturday, July 2, 2022
5:30 a.m. I dreamed of a Kafka-esque quality to it, where he didn’t even know – and couldn’t find out – what he was accused of, or suspected of, or perhaps had done. Guys, will you give me the relevant bits of the dream I had requested, and explain?
- Pulling the child’s wagon by the road near the Baltimore-Washington Parkway
- Trying to use the gas pumps that were too advanced for him to figure out. Wanting to ask for help, but the woman in charge was involved in some argument.
Those two elements at least. So, some explanation, if you would.
You associate the parkway with both Baltimore (NSA, Fort Meade) and D.C. (seat of government overt and covert).
True. Nice association, the road. And the wagon?
A child’s wagon, and you associate it with a young Travis McGee hauling his car battery to be recharged, while he was trying to make the car work.
All right.
The gas pumps that are too complicated, or require a piece of technology he doesn’t have, or doesn’t have access to – a sense of technological overwhelm. Note, still no sense of him having a car even while he is trying to get gas.
Maybe the wagon was carrying a fuel can?
Maybe. But the woman – and clearly it was a woman – who could help him is occupied in a dispute with two men, about what, he doesn’t know. These are elements, you see. Not incidents, not yet story line, but elements.
I do see. I’ll note them on cards.
[Time out to talk to Hemingway, who killed himself July 2 in 1961.]
Okay guys, a session today, or do I get to mull?
From Mull to Iona is only a short hop.
Very funny.
It could be a successful mantra, though. It is through mulling , through quiet meditation, that you can come to the connection that was Iona.
A monk’s is one more vocation I was not given.
No, busy enough being you. But being oneself is enough of a job for anyone.
I guess we’re going to skip today.
Nothing lost, if so. There’s plenty of thinking about the novel to be done. Only, will you do it?
I am doing it.
Continue, and you will work through it. Repeated thought – mulling – associates things, and structures reveal themselves.
7 a.m. New idea, while reading notes. What if new souls are created by associating various strands, so that is a new life; and previously shaped lives are sent back repeatedly to be refined by further 3D living. Not either/or, but both. That would reconcile what appears to be irreconcilable opposites. I wonder if it is true. Guys? What say ye?
It is usually sound procedure to gather opposites and consider them in relationship to one another. You cut many a Gordian knot that way.
And in this instance?
You are forever asking “the way things are,” as if the way things are doesn’t change.
Does it change? I thought it was we who change.
And the difference in your experience would be what? You experience what you experience. This means, what “happens” (that is, the part played by the shared subjectivity and the times as you interact with them), and what you experience as happening, which is not necessarily the same thing! So, as you change, your experience changes and it looks to you like something different happened. But how can you know? Is it even a real distinction? You continually change, the times change, the unfinished business changes – where is your fixed point to measure drift from?
So – I take it you are saying, in effect – it doesn’t matter what the unknowable truth is, we will only experience a sort of construct, and the construct is liable to change on us.
Does your experience suggest anything different?
But then, what of the search for truth? For truer, anyway?
What of it? No matter where you are, there will be things that are truer or less true for you. And that’s all you are responsible for.
That seems too free-form to be true.
Think about it in context of 3D life being projected from a realer reality. As a projection – and you are a part of that projection, obviously, as long as you live in the 3D or non-3D world! – it functions much like a dream, a waking dream, call it. Mot people, mot of the time, experience most of reality in the same way. It is the unsleeping shared subjectivity that maintains the continuity of the world, after all, and how many of you can escape the influence of the shared subjectivity? And for how long? So of course the world appears solid, stable, “real.” Equally “of course,” it has strange vagaries that some experience and some do not. So, it is both stable and changeable, both predictable and predictably surprising. So where is the room for any one unchanging truth, let alone a perception of a one unchanging truth?
So the Egyptians looked reality in the face and saw one thing, and we, even looking it equally in the face, may see something different – and neither be wrong.
What is “wrong” in context? They saw what they saw; you see what you see. Where is the room for “wrong”? Given that the observer is part of the equation, it is not as simple as giving an eye exam to any given civilization, to see how well their vision is functioning. It is more like measuring the effect various sunglasses have on one’s vision. Maybe without sunglasses, you don’t see anything! Who can look God in the face, one religion asked. You can’t say it was wrong. The 3D requires that you adopt a viewpoint – that you choose your protective lenses – lest you be blinded by unmodified light.
“The light that puts out our eyes is darkness to us,” Thoreau said, roughly.
And in that, he was seeing clearly.
So it may be a valid way to see reality, as a combination of newly created souls and repeating souls.
There is no need to choose up sides, as if you were going to play philosopher’s baseball. In any basic controversy held intelligently and with integrity, there will be poles attracting people and dividing them from those who were attracted by the opposite pole. There is also a place for someone to see the opposite poles as in fact part of a conjoined dualism.
Interesting. Today’s theme? “Old souls and young”? Or maybe, “Take your pick”?
We smile as well. Try, “Truth and viewpoint.”
Better. Okay, thanks for this unexpected session.