Friday, October 7, 2022
6:50 a.m. Gentlemen, I realized yesterday, we’ve done this for thousands of hours, these past couple decades. Thousands of hours. Very satisfying. But if I had similarly pursued other things systematically over time, what might I have accomplished! I’d be fluent in several languages, for one thing. I regret not having done that. Colin once wrote something about how little use we make of our time.
In any case, can we continue from yesterday’s? Or, shall we discuss how the universe always presents the bill (as I put it), or always sweeps up after the party (as you put it)?
It is only two ways of looking at the simple fact that reality has no extra pieces, nor any missing ones. Whether you think of life as things bumping around in space, or see it as mind-stuff in the universal dream, after a while you learn to trust that reality knows what it is doing. It has been doing it longer than you have been watching it; it works in ways half-hidden to your senses five and even to your intuitive knowing. It isn’t “winging it”; it has done this before.
I agree with all that, but I don’t see how it demonstrates that life has no loose ends.
Oh, any particular level of focus will show loose ends and unresolved problems and inexplicable happenings, but readjust the focusing knob of the microscope/telescope, and an explanation appears, sooner or later, and does not – could not – contradict itself. A dream may contain many discordant elements, and may be beyond your ability to understand it, but even if it were nonsense, it would not be nonsense in its own frame of reference. That is, it wouldn’t have sprung out of partly-nothing. A thing does not cease to exist, merely because you have no conception of it. It does not manifest effects without itself existing.
That won’t be clear, but I think you mean, whether or not we know it or even can imagine it, everything is caused, and gives rise to other effects.
Let’s say, everything has its place, and how could something be half in its place and half outside of the scheme of things? And what is “uncaused,” if not “outside of the scheme of things”? And “uncaused” is what people are really getting at (if they only knew it) when they think things are random. Without real randomness, where is the room for something to exist without cause, even if it’s a thought we’re considering. What people experience as randomness is actually an experience of the multiplicity of possibilities.
That’s an interesting way to look at it. We may experience any of a dozen alternatives, and may have little or no ability to choose which will manifest, but each of them will itself have sprung from its causes, and our experiencing any of them is merely to continue a particular chain of cause and effect.
This is an example of the advantage of this form of interaction. (ILC, we mean.) You would not have phrased things our way, and we would not have phrased them your way – and the difference in the two phrasings may itself function as a spark for some, seeing the common understanding that ties the two ways of saying it.
I hadn’t looked at it that way, but (as I say so often), clear as you say it. Our end of the conversation is itself an active contribution, not merely a form of staying awake.
What you have to keep remembering, even when it is hard to retain the sense of it, that you are playing tennis on both sides of the net. (Is it a wonder that you tire, after an hour or so?) You define us – TGU – as non-3D beings, and yourself as a 3D being, but of course that isn’t an accurate nor a sufficient definition, because, for one thing, the 3D and non-3D are not really separate except conceptually. The 3D and non-3D interpenetrating each other, where is the room for division into beings that are all one and beings that are all the other? That difference is mostly a difference in perception.
You in 3D are also in non-3D, of course. You in your sensory world also participate in the intuitive world, inescapably. Indeed, the very calling them “sensory world” and “intuitive world” is a misnomer, though in this case useful to make our point. It is one world, sensory, intuitive, 1D, 2D, 3D, etc. You are all in all dimensions, regardless how you perceive at any given moment. So when you are communicating with your guys, or your higher self, or Guidance, or whatever, you are talking to yourself.
And also aren’t.
And also aren’t, depending upon your point of view, because of course what is inaccessible to your normal consciousness must seem “other” to you. But both halves are true; you are talking to yourself; you are talking to another, or rather to others. Given that “all is one,” and that reality experiences itself separately (indeed, that is how it experiences itself), how else could it be. So, you play tennis with us, and it is in a way you returning your own serves.
And, it comes to me (from where? From “you”? From “me,” whatever that means?) that this process is a way of waking up.
Not waking up, exactly. You couldn’t do this in your sleep. But you are on the right track. Pursue it a bit.
Well, if not waking up, it is a way of broadening our categories, of seeing things from more than one viewpoint, and the process itself accustoms us to move beyond our habitual boundaries.
Yes it is. [a way of broadening our categories]
It’s maybe more like a guy with a tennis racket, bouncing the ball against a wall and returning it as best he can.
Find an analogy now that does not depend upon serve and return (call and response).
Again from somewhere (where do things come from that suddenly move into consciousness?) I get an image, but in writing out the parenthetical clause, I lost it. A moment for it to resurface. Oh, yes, art. An artist produces something, lives with it, alters a line here, a color there, lives with it, follows impulses or intuitions that say, “try this,” “maybe do that,” and sometimes those intuitions ruin the work and sometimes they perfect it, and sometimes they merely alter it.
But the artistic process is one of call and response with the material. Yes, good. That’s practicing intuitive linked communication. It helps keep you in practice as you work on the piece of art that is your life.
So what are you? The art critics?
Who are you, the lonely genius in the attic? Why limit either of us as to definitions?
You want to say more on that?
Definitions are necessary for you to live in the world. It is a way of setting boundaries to things, that you may make sense of the world. But definitions are always inadequate to a broader, higher, understanding. This shouldn’t be a discouraging fact of life, but an encouraging one. It means, as you grow, you acquire the possibility of changing your definitions, and as you change your definitions, you effectively change the world you live in.
Which is another way to say that outgrown definitions become constrictions.
For one thing, they cease to explain. At the very least, outgrown ways of seeing the world lead to discomfort, to disorientation, perhaps to momentary panic (or, perhaps, to momentary euphoria, perhaps to delusions of grandeur). But once you recognize such symptoms for what they are, again, they show themselves as hopeful signs. And that’s enough for the moment. Call this “tennis and artwork,” perhaps.
Perhaps. Our thanks as always.