Hanns-Oskar Porr reminds me that I have forgotten to take up something that TGU said they would examine:
- what good is guidance to the individual,
- how does affecting individuals affect the larger reality in which they exist,
- how does it not all cancel out, given that all decisions are taken one way or another, and most importantly,
- the difference between examining a photo as a still picture or as one frame of a motion picture.
We have already addressed most of it, but let’s clean it up, if you would.
We can do that.
- Guidance is radar, extending the range of the senses, a reliable friend offering advice whose intent may be trusted, even if it is not infallible. It is reassurance for the 3D-bound individual that s/he is not alone. Guidance supplements, extends, reinforces the 3D individual’s judgment; it does not supplant it.
- Affecting the matrix individuals exist within. Surely this is tautological once you remember that “individual” is a word which strictly speaking is a misnomer. You are all part of one another. How could affecting one part not affect the other parts?
- Aristotle’s simplistic logic overlooked two intermediate conditions between A equaling or not equaling Non-A. It may be both and it may be neither. It is in those non-binary conditions that organic growth takes place. Life is larger than logic primarily because logic is a stepped-down abstract definition that cannot take into account the intangibles that were lost as seeming precision was gained.
- The difference between examining a photo as a still picture or as one frame of a motion picture is the most important thing to be discussed. If you think you are examining a photo when in fact you are examining a still from a movie, on one level you are absolutely right, for a photo is a photo. But on the level of accurate interpretation of the object in context, you are not
Same photo, same observer, same reality, but the interpretation is the variable. Not what you look at, but what you see. So if we examine an account of what people call the afterlife, or of an NDE, or of any state of being, it will look one way if you take it to be depicting a static situation and another way entirely if you see it as an instant in a continuing process.
And I suppose, another way yet, if we alternate how we look at it.
Haven’t we been encouraging that habit, all these years? Yes it will, and by doing that you will see things that no one seeing it only one way will or could.
I take it we want to keep this in mind in context of guidance.
Yes. Living your life choosing, with continual access to a non-3D source willing and able to advise you (the motion-picture analogy) is very different picture from seeing yourself as on your own (the still-photo analogy) except perhaps for miraculous inexplicable moments of additional clarity.
There is an immense difference in treating an entire life as if it were a self-contained unit or treating it as one still in a movie. There is an equally great difference between a moment of time as self-contained or as part of an unbroken stream.
You can examine the span of the New Kingdom – or of America since Columbus, say, roughly the same amount of time –as one moment of time, or as the wrapper for innumerable moments of time. It isn’t the data that change, it is the context you examine them in. Any conclusions you might draw, in examining whatever field of time you were examining, would be tied to the context you looked at the data in.