Monday, June 3, 2024
4:30 a.m. When I realized, yesterday, that one of the reasons for 3D life is that it teaches the experience of living with sequential processing, it felt like a giant lightbulb turned on. It connected so many things, most of them unspoken. I’d like you to spell out some of them, if it does not interfere with whatever else you have in mind.
That was one of those intuitive leaps that are possible only via this ILC process, because, you see, it needed the reasoning mind to be active on another channel while you were actively linked intuitively.
That sounds like you are saying, using the whole brain.
It has taken you since 1989 or so to reallocate your mental processing to embody Monroe’s admonitions, but yes. The connected use of serial and parallel processing, or sequential and gestalt, or reasoning and intuition. You were given two means of perception for a reason. Some cultures teach you to use them correctly, effectively. Yours did not, but its one-sidedness did serve a purpose. The difference in perceptual strategies is one difference between your current civilization and the one being born. The times have rolled around, and new possibilities are active.
By that, we do not mean that no past civilization enjoyed the use of an integrated approach; we mean to say, merely, that first there was a mountain, then there was no mountain, then there was.
I resisted that sentence, recognizing it as a quotation from Charles Sides’ blog entry of yesterday, but I got that this is what you wanted. Care to explain?
No two civilizations are the same, just as you can’t step twice into the same river. Two cultures using identical perceptual strategies but separated by eons of human experience will be far from identical. They may recognize one another’s kinship, but they will be different in many ways.
As opposed to the idea of “progress.”
Yes. It isn’t a movement from lower to higher (nor from higher to lower) except in certain respects. Different cultures are different experiences, not stages of growth or declines. Each culture will be better able to express some things and less able to express other things.
Here we finally come to where you tell us what you meant by (I had to look back to recall the phrase) psychic interpretational structures!
Is it not clearer, from what we just said?
Perhaps it is. But, pray tell us.
[A pause of a few minutes. It felt like my brain was in idle.]
When we figure out how to approach the subject, it will probably have to involve bullet-points. And as an initial attempt at formulation, it is likely to be clumsy. But, here goes:
- You as an individual see the world in a unique, non-repeatable way. Each of you, necessarily, as a result of your individual journey in 3D and your “past” journeys (your strands’ journeys) in their portion of 3D.
- You also see the world somewhat as your family does or did, and your various groups to which you belong – race, class, geographical area, etc.
- You see the world somewhat through the filters shared by your political and economic and ideological community.
- Implied in all this is a larger, less visible, filter shared by your times. Imperial Japan and Communist Russia and revolutionary Ireland and the various societies coexisting in the 1930s, say, or the 1960s, or 1990s, all to some extent saw things through what you might call the astrology of the times. The same cosmic energies affected them all.
- Confusingly, you and everybody, all the time, are also affected by the patterns being broadcast within you by your various strands, each of which was formed in different circumstances and is experiencing different “weather” in its own time, while you are experiencing your weather in your time.
Can you feel the tremendous complexity of it? Is it surprising that an overview of human life would be characterized by what Monroe called M-Band noise?
He described it as cacophony made up of endless numbers of patterns and rhythms. That sounds like a way of seeing what you are expressing.
There you go. And every one of you has to find a way to make sense of it all, usually by filtering out most of it.
And I get that you do too!
Nobody’s capacity for input is endless. Just as Thoreau said you are all provincials in the universe, so might we say it of us in the non-3D, tied as we are to you in the 3D.
So we have to decide what we are going to address, even before we address it.
That is a clumsy way to put it, though no clumsier than our own approach, perhaps. But yes, that is the problem. You – and we – continually have to decide to judge what we have not yet encountered. “Judge,” of course, meaning “perceive,” not “condemn.”
In our case, in 3D, I’d expect that we are being guided by our non-3D component. But in your case – I’ve asked this question more than once; I remember Rita asking it, early on – are there hierarchies in non-3D, thus providing you with a relatively wider view, a relatively wiser source? And as I write that, I see yes, of course there would have to be.
If you keep in mind that there are no hard and fast divisions in the world, you can also remember that there are, necessarily, relative divisions, relative concentrations. Always there are wider associations and narrower, wiser heads and less experienced ones. It’s all in what you tune to, what you experience.
And perhaps now you can see that in order to make sense of the world that is flowing into our perceptions at any given time, we employ strategies, whether effective or ineffective or in between. And if we need to, how much greater the need for your end of the equation! You are at the same time experiencing 3D reality (time-slices) and continuing to experience non-3D reality to the extent that you remained open to it, or reopened access to it.
And you can’t be doing it – as you often put it – horseback. You can’t be reinventing the wheel at every moment.
Ah. So we create or anyway employ structures.
Certainly. Most of life is structuring. Much of the difference in people’s experience of life centers on how fluid or rigid the structures they choose to adopt.
Our psychic interpretational structures.
Correct, and that is where we will resume next time.
You thought you’d have a hard time bringing the idea across, but it doesn’t seem to me you did so badly.
Yes. We smile. This is akin to your saying, “That wasn’t so hard,” you not having to do the work. But yes, it did clarify fairly smoothly, as it turns out.
Till next time, then, and our thanks.