You will notice that you have had conversations about the social crisis developing around you, and your (and by reflection, our) views on the causes and nature of the crisis differ somewhat from those with whom you are in sympathy on most other things.
You mean because I am critical of both liberal and conservative intolerance and self-delusion.
As Dirk pointed out at one point, the words “liberal” and “conservative” no longer convey meaning. Nor would “right” and “left,” nor any conceivable synonym such as “progressive” and “reactionary.” But it is easier to see the need for new descriptives than to fill it. This you have not yet done.
If I had symbols and story to couch my understanding in, perhaps I could do better.
Not that you know “the” truth either, of course. But you do have a way to help people see better.
Provided you paint a few signposts for us.
Provided that. And here they are, but these are not battle flags. They are, shall we say, orienting reminders. There is no use choosing sides and thinking that is solving anything. To overcome deadlock, one has to move to another level of analysis. And you can’t get to another level of analysis except by getting to another level of perception.
We are setting out a view of things that will reveal these crippling political and economic and ideological antagonisms for what they are. But this new view requires the ability to see it, It is for the individual capable of comprehending it. It will not be a banner under which anyone can rally the troops to build the New Jerusalem.
Understood. But a clear way of describing the current situation would help those able to comprehend.
It would and it will – only, look what we have to overcome first. Nobody holds political or ideological opinions thinking, “These are only partial views, and no doubt those on the other side are just as right as I am.” Instead, they say, at best, “They are not necessarily evil, just ignorant and being misled by their ignorance and by those who seek to take advantage of that ignorance.” Therefore, almost by definition, anything we say will seem somewhat unfair, somewhat biased, because it will to some degree criticize views people hold in good faith, perhaps with great emotional investment.
It’s a problem. What is the solution?
For you, for those you live among mentally, spiritually, the answer is to stay centered upon your primary concern. How can centering that is off-centered produce stability? Your concern is not centered upon the 3D world, so how can analysis that remains at the 3D level suffice for you? It sounds like a paradox, but is not: To understand 3D developments, you cannot remain within 3D terms. The 3D can only be understood in its larger context, or what have we been doing here these past years?
It is one thing to redefine your view of life and the world conceptually; it is a second thing to begin to learn to trust that view; it is a third thing to live it, and a fourth, following upon the third, to allow that transformed view to transform political and ideological views formed much earlier at an earlier state of your consciousness.
Your views, conservative or liberal, may be very long-held views, but they were not formed at your current level of consciousness, nor with your current understanding of underlying causes and currents and meanings. Discussions conducted on the basis of such slippery labels as “liberal” and “conservative” come to little or nothing, because neither party knows what the other hears in the labels.
Instead, try to hold on to the expanded perception we have been providing:
- The 3D world exists within the context of the larger All-D world.
- You, as individuals who are also communities, exist within the context not only of your personal attributes and backgrounds, but also within the context of vast impersonal forces that affect the world and everything and everybody and every idea in the world.
- Your values – be they whatever they are – are supplemented, or complemented, by other values in a 180- or perhaps 120- or 90- or 60-degree relationship, as all values and forces balance out. There is no room in the 3D or All-D world for leftover positives or negatives. Whatever is, is (that is, exists) of right, not by accident.
Seth, Edgar Cayce, Ramtha, any such voices, were not liberal nor conservative. Their truth cannot be found at the ideological level, because the division and partial-views necessary to such positions are antithetical to the view that attempts to make sense of the world by seeing it with new eyes.
I’m sure I’m not the only one who has no clue as to where we’re going.
It is a very long lead-in to a new point of view, so it isn’t surprising that you should lose the thread sometimes, nor that you should be unable to hold it all at one time. That is why a new worldview isn’t learned, or memorized, but grown into. It is holding together in relationship facts and classes of facts that one has not previously associated, like studying geography and then being told that it really needed to be seen in connection with botany, then biology, then ecology, then sociology, say.
You are saying that a new point of view associates seemingly unconnected subjects, in ways that may seem crazy or, at best, arbitrary. Back when Rita and I were playing 20 Questions with the guys upstairs, they talked about how thoughts we could not think appeared self-evidently nonsensical. Not quite the point you are making here, I see.
Illustrative nonetheless. The person who discovers a mantic art has his or her world-view changed. But discovering that any such art works, including some that are made up on the spot, involves a mind-set that puts its trust in everything being one, everything being inextricably bound by invisible connections to everything else, hence all being ordered. (That isn’t saying everything is predetermined. That would be true if there were only one decision-stream, but if that were the case there would be no need for the 3D world at all.)
Now – apply this to your view of politics and ideology. Can you see the difference between seeing everything as one and seeing everything as antagonistic pieces? This amounts to the difference between non-judgment and judgment. Can you see that chaos has its own implicit order and any order always includes its own chaos, in the same way that there cannot be a stable system in the absence of a trickster?
So where is anybody’s excuse for thinking that if their own values do not predominate, all is lost? Where is anybody’s excuse for thinking that their values are wrong, or are destined to sink without a trace? Mostly, where is the excuse for someone on the one hand believing Seth, who said he came to tell us it is a safe universe, and at the same time believing any of the voices that continually blare that life is not safe?
Now, while reading this you may agree and say, true, true, and it’s too bad people get misled. But where will you be ten minutes after turning from these words? How much of your mind is still living in that unsafe, polarized, divided, hatred- and fear-filled world, with only a larger or smaller ghetto reserved for these beliefs? Instead of thinking that “those” people are wrong, thank them for acting out your own unacted beliefs and tendencies, and send them love, that they may be assisted to overcome their demons, as you hope to overcome your own.
While I was refilling my coffee mug, several further developments flashed by; I trust they are not lost.
Not if you maintain your intent, which maintains the link. That’s why we call it Intuitive Linked Communication, instead of channeling or mediumship, etc.
Well, I got that what you say is exactly right in principle, and very difficult to do in practice. For instance, if one’s ideological vis-à-vis is actively promoting hatred, to pick but one of the antithetical values that may be on the other side of one’s political or ideological views. How do we deal with that? I am aware, again, of Robert E. Lee praying every night for his enemies, but I’m not sure what it means for us in practice.
If nothing else, praying for your enemies would prevent you from falling into hatred, would it not? You could be just as determined to oppose their values and actions as ever, yet would be fortifying yourself from the often unperceived common enemy, which is hatred, exclusivity, judgment (condemnation), isolation, with all its paralyzing and embittering results. So, that is the benefit to you of praying for your enemies.
But it is still better if you cease to think of them as enemies at all. Does your left hand regard your right hand as an enemy when, between them, they carry something? After all, a large part of their function is to systemically oppose each other, in a sense. After all, each of them, though pushing in opposite directions, is pushing toward the center. By definition neither hand is the center. By definition either hand is off-center in symmetry with its vis-à-vis, and that cooperative opposition makes many things possible that otherwise would not be. So even at the common level of such concerns, it is easy enough to see that left and right together assist each other.
There was a split-brain patient whose right and left sides fought each other, each side considering itself the true will, each considering the other as interference. A good analogy?
A very good analogy. However, let us proceed a little deeper into the area such analogies do not touch.
Remember, what we have described so far is first-tier and second-tier experience: what happens and then how one processes what happened. But let us proceed to third-tier experience. How will the same experience affect you in light of your reactions to it?
Seems to have several pieces.
- No two people are going to experience anything the same way, even physically and mentally, because our base platforms are all different.
- But even within the specific and unique experience any one individual has, the secondary effects will differ depending upon that person’s decisions past and present. My old example of how a person’s life will differ if s/he reacts to things always from love, or sometimes, or rarely.
- But there is also third-tier experience to consider, the result of a lifetime’s decisions. You had X event occur, and your reaction was Y. But that doesn’t mean your ultimate judgment will confirm Y. You may come to process that event entirely differently after the fact and, in effect. Overrule it, or modify it (or confirm it, but, not necessarily).
That wasn’t so hard, was it?