How the 3D world is maintained (from September, 2019)

Monday, September 23, 2019

Guys, I’d be open to your explanation of how the various kingdoms maintain the 3D world.

Bear in mind, explanations are models, they are schematics.

Yes. The map is not the territory. Still, it helps orient us.

That is the intent, to orient you. Anything experienced first-hand is going to be different than expected, but a little preparatory explanation can help point you in a helpful direction. So, let’s paint a few broad strokes, and see where it leaves us. Your reactions, as usual, will help us to refine the presentation; that’s just the nature of teaching.

Taking the old conceptual scheme of things, we will look at the 3D world in terms of kingdoms, and will not concern ourselves to adhere strictly to the scheme when we have reason to diverge from it. After all, a scheme hundreds of years old must in some senses be incomplete, in terms of the revolutionary discoveries and theories that followed. Animal, vegetable, mineral didn’t really have room for electrons and plasma and quantum states. However, in practice this is less of an obstacle than you might imagine.

Let’s begin with mineral, vegetable, animal, human, celestial. A progression from inert to energetic, from static to active, from unconscious to conscious, from dead to fully alive.

Bear in mind, this scheme was not prepared by “modern” minds. The mental world of those who devised it contained very different premises than yours does, and contained premises that will be in some ways more and in some ways less similar to the civilization that is shaping itself around you. Life, we remind you, is not linear, and the mental life of a culture is not a progression from ignorance to knowledge, from error to truth, or from puzzlement toward comprehension. It is more like a fade-in/fade-out process, in which a new field of perception gradually clarifies a different world, as older ways of seeing close and newer ways open.

Although I understand what you are saying, I’m not sure this is going to be clear to our readers.

Feel free to translate.

A civilization has limits to its perceptions and understandings, within which are contained all its possibilities. The ancient Greeks, Jews, Romans, Parthians, etc. were not different from us merely because they didn’t have our science and technology, but really almost the inverse. They didn’t build our civilization in their time because they lived in a world with different mental limits.

Yes, and of course that is true in far more detail, to a far greater extent, when you consider not only the civilizations to which you are directly affiliated but also those like the world’s indigenous communities that entirely reject or cannot comprehend the underpinnings of your worldview that resulted in your technology, and your way of being. African tribes, North and South American tribes, Aborigines in Australasia, subcultures everywhere including in Europe – they are not necessarily failed attempts to produce the Model T Ford. And they are not necessarily unsuccessful adaptations to the world. One small example, the mostly unsuspected world of shamans in many cultures, intimately in contact with vegetable mineral and celestial intelligences to which your particular civilization has been mostly blind and deaf.

I imagine that some people will find it hard to think of primitive people around the world, particularly in the tropics, as successful but different. To us they appear to be more like degenerated remnants of an earlier level of development. They appear to have been ground down by the difficulties of life in their environment, and appear to have lost the thread that their ancestors had. Today’s Maya, for instance, descendants of what seems to have been a fabulously accomplished civilization, appear to be totally incapable of understanding it, let alone recreating it. Of course, this could be because the invading Spanish burned their books, but I don’t think it is entirely that simple.

You could look to medieval Europe for a more accessible example. People believed in alchemy and astrology, in geomancy, in communing with spirits, with many forces you cannot take seriously in your current civilization’s model: elementals, demons, familiars, etc. Another civilization’s assumptions and working models are going to appear superstitious to a different civilization using different models.

We’re slow off the mark this morning, though. We’ve burned 45 minutes and we haven’t even begun on the kingdoms as explanation.

Oh, but we have, only we didn’t begin where you might have expected us to. These preliminary brush-clearings will shed light on the subject, if absorbed.

We begin by reminding you that the 3D and non-3D worlds not only interact, not only interconnect, but are two aspects of the same undivided reality. The West, and its cultural children, tends to proceed as if this were not so. No one else has done so since the days of Atlantis. (That particular blindness to inconvenient facts doomed them and is dooming yours to obsolescence.)

Seems to me the Greeks and Romans took their gods seriously. What is the underlying assumption of the Iliad and the Odyssey, after all, if not the continuing interaction of the gods and humans? The Roman Army cast augurs to see if this was a day they should fight. These were not seen as superstitions nor poetic license. So in what sense may they be said to have lived without a sense of 3D/non-3D interaction?

The Greco-Roman civilization did begin as religious; it ended as skeptical, materialistic and “hard-headedly practical” in a way your own civilization finds comfortingly familiar. After all, your civilization, which in a sense may be said to date from somewhere in the Middle Ages when the Renaissance attempted to recreate Greek life in its attitudes and perceptions, began one way and moved to another. Do you think John Adams would recognize your times as his logical mental and spiritual descendant? Jefferson might. Adams would not.

I gather that the distinction you are drawing is religious.

Not religious in the sense of following any particular creed, let alone belonging to any sect, but religious in the sense of at least an instinctive recognition of non-3D ties as vital. Washington would have agreed with Adams in that; he believed in divine providence, because he had repeatedly experienced it.

Hold in mind the distinction between different civilizations and their beliefs (which is another way of saying, their codifications of the results of what they experienced). We will be looking at a medieval scheme of classification not as they would have seen it, and certainly not as your civilization sees it, but as the next, emerging, civilization might tend to explain it.

Looking forward to that. See you then.

 

Tuesday, September 24, 2019

So let’s look at the 3D world as an entity to be maintained in being. First, remember that in this context, when we say “world” we mean 3D reality as a whole. To say “the 3D world” is so much less cumbersome to say than “the 3D energetic pattern taken as a whole, including energy, matter, 3D/non-3D interconnections, etc.” You will remember that you in 3D are projected from non-3D; that matter is energy bound in slow-motion patterns; that spiritual and physical, and many other such polarities, are polarities, that is, bound opposites, hence are two sides of the same coin. It is important that it be remembered, or you will revert to your previous categories.

All right, let’s begin with the mineral kingdom, that holds your reality in persistence. We have said mountains, but this equally includes the material elements comprising gas giants, dwarf stars, plasma interactions, electro-magnetic storms, all physical manifestations that are commonly regarded as inanimate. As said, this kingdom provides the persistence of the way things are. This is why your world is not so plastic that its geography does not persist.

In other words, without this element, what is Africa today might be nonexistent tomorrow. Today’s mountain might be only tomorrow’s memory of where a mountain was. Without this element, nothing would have any stable continuing existence in time.

However, be aware, “stable” is not the same as “unchanging.” Your world changes, it does not fluctuate wildly and in chaotic fashion. Without this element there could be no physical laws, no continuity.

All right, atop the mineral kingdom is the vegetable kingdom. For this and for subsequent kingdoms we will stick to Terran examples. What is your experience of the vegetable kingdom?

I’d say it has to do with a different kind of persistence. Woods, for instance, have a different emotional feel than cropland, as both do than city parks or suburban lawns. The tropics are very different emotionally than the arctic, say.

Yes, and this is not subjective response, but, shall we call it, an emotionally objective response. That is, human response to these patterns is real and is not dependent upon someone’s ideas about such areas.

So even though we vary individually in our appreciation of nature, say, still we have in common that we do feel those differences, however we react to them.

Some people love forests; others find them oppressive, or even frightening. And the same variation of response may be noted for any vegetable manifestation. People with green thumbs are counterbalanced in the world with people who couldn’t keep a houseplant alive to save their own lives. But the maintenance of an emotional background depends not upon the human response but upon the vegetation itself.

We know this will seem fanciful to anyone who is accustomed to thinking of the vegetable world as scenery, or as the life-support system (the food) for herbivores, or as the part of the ecosystem that exchanges gases. It is also these, but there is no need to dwell upon roles and processes that are fairly well understood. The intercommunication of plants, their mental world, is still to be unveiled in concept, but plants as part of the gas-exchange system and as part of the food-chain are blocked in to your view of the world. What has been overlooked in theory – even though well experienced over millennia by individuals in a more “spiritual” concept – is that plants provide emotional climates in the way that the mineral kingdom (including weather patterns, for instance) provide physical climate.

I get suddenly that geomancy and similar divination systems are rooted in place, in the way astrology is rooted in time.

You might say, astrology is based in the variation in quality of different moments of time. Similarly, other means of divination are based in the quality of differences in place. Differences in place (in the quality of the mineral composition of a place, call it) may be modified by judicious alteration of the vegetable kingdom in that place. And if this is new to a materialist science that is blind to what it cannot measure, it is not new to uncounted generations of people who plant trees, shrubs, herbs, flowers to alter their immediate environment. It isn’t merely a matter of aesthetics, or rather, aesthetics is a matter of more than merely an indefinable “good taste.” There could be a science of aesthetics, but it would need to be based in an understanding of how the vegetable kingdom maintains an emotional presence in the physical world. You couldn’t have a vegetable kingdom not based in an underlying mineral kingdom, but a mineral kingdom in the absence of a vegetable kingdom would be unrecognizably different to you. Such worlds exist, but they require that humans bring their own emotional support-system.

This is a good place to pause. Some time spent pondering this kingdom before we proceed would be well spent.