Thursday, September 19, 2024
6:15 a.m. Ken Kesey said somewhere that his father said the trouble with Ken was that he was always trying to unscrew the inscrutable. Seems to me that’s my disease too. I am not much interested in straightforward problems. I wind up wondering how a cat’s markings were determined. I know about camouflage and all that, but that’s why. How? How is it determined for any given animal what colors, what patterns? Yes, sure, DNA, but that’s like saying “heredity” or (my favorite) “randomness.” There must be a “how” to it, just as there must be a specific if very evanescent “how” to each ripple and pattern of ripples in a boat’s wake, and I wonder what it is, how it is done, and I know I’ll never get the answer, because – other than generalities – I doubt anybody knows or can know. We would have to be able to perceive so quickly, see relationships so deeply, I think it is beyond our ability. Maybe our mechanical and electronic enhancements of the senses can do it, the way microscopes have extended our understanding, but I don’t know.
Jon, I suspect you know more what I am groping for here than I do. You may be prodding the thought, for all I know.
You need to connect this thought to your life history. It will show you what you have been doing, and that will tell you what you’ve been looking for.
As usual, I get a vague sense of it.
You weren’t interested in science classes and labs because it seemed to you they were just laving you repeat what had already been discovered.
I wasn’t smart enough to realize what everybody else would have found obvious, that the labs were trying to teach technique, to give us a feel for it. Stupid of me.
Not stupid. You were never stupid. Disconnected.
Yes, that’s a better word. Never reasoning from A to B, let alone farther. Trying to intuit what needed to be reasoned to.
Yes, but let’s concentrate on what is to be learned. You weren’t interested in science as exploration for a couple of reasons that you never reasoned out, but took for granted.
Typically.
One, it was all disconnected into specialties and you wanted unity. Two, it was all superficial (to you) because it meant looking more and more closely at manifestations instead of investigating underlying meaning.
That’s a funny way to look at it, but it does seem accurate.
What you wanted, and didn’t know you wanted, was a metaphysical science, such as characterized the 1400s and 1500s and 1600s. and at the same time, you couldn’t take anybody’s word for what it all meant.
What it meant? More like, how it really functioned. What held it all together at the center, not all these peripheries.
And all that was impractical, of course. Who could do that? And, how could it be done scientifically?
Clear, even obvious, as you say it. I didn’t know it.
You didn’t analyze your impulses, values, motivations.
Didn’t reflect on my self. Rita first made me aware of that, in her intro to The Sphere and the Hologram manuscript.
Now, you see, what you wanted was beyond the grasp of anybody in 3D. You wanted the principles the universe runs along, and you wanted all the specific manifestations down to how is a specific cat’s markings determined. BTW that last question amounts to asking, How is randomness built into order. You will remember your initial fascination with chaos theory.
So then, why was I so made up as to want that? I mean, “why” in two senses of the question: What good would it do anybody, and how did it happen that I was the specimen?
Just that kind of question shows why you could have become a scientist, and also couldn’t have become a scientist. Your reach exceeds your grasp, which can be good, but can be futile.
As I think about it, I see that I should have studied psychology. That interested me in a way that examination of rocks or biology or physics, etc., did not.
You would have chafed at the limits of the study. If you could have survived within those limits, you might have thrived. But was it really psychology that drew you, or wisdom?
All right, very true. Jung, not Freud or Adler. Jung at his most exploratory, not Jung as everyday practitioner.
The science that was native to you didn’t exist in organized form in the time you were born into. Prior ages didn’t have a lot of the data and experience that would have allowed them more sophisticated concepts, and contemporary psychology was too timid, or anyway cautious.
Ah – because there were things I knew but couldn’t know how I knew.
There you go. Pursue it.
We’re back to 100% intuition as a preference. I guess some things leaked into my 3D mind from what I used to call Upstairs, and I couldn’t doubt them and couldn’t justify them. So, there I was outside the herd I would have liked to be a part of.
Not quite so stark. Let’s just say you were a little more on the edge than you sometimes wanted to be, but weren’t comfortable closer in.
Catch-22.
Just the way things were. You think it happened by coincidence?
I’m getting that life has been using my eccentricity to show less eccentric people a way to approach greater intuitive input on an on-going basis.
Or you could look at it that it is demonstrating to you that one may preserve an intuitive link without being so eccentric. Or – I would suggest – both. It isn’t like there is a right or wrong position. Life can use everything and anything, and usually does.
Can you, from non-3D, see the lines of cause and effect that I have always felt I ought to be able to see? Why specific markings on an animal, why this chain of consequences and not that?
You mean, since I have access to anything, do I have access to everything?
That isn’t what I mean. I’m asking, merely, since your perceptions are no longer bounded by time and space constraints, are underlying forces and interactions clear now?
There is a problem here that you are not considering. How do you use that combined telescope/microscope of your analogy both ways at once? A conspection and a microscopic analysis taken together would give you a better understanding, but that understanding is a construct, not a direct perception. Not that the construct is necessarily wrong or even fuzzy, but by nature it is not a perception. It isn’t much different from the laws and consequences 3D scientists deduce.
If I were to ask you how a specific cat’s markings were produced, could you tell me?
If I could tell you, could you hear me, or understand me? if I had to go into quantum mechanics to describe the variables, could you, would you, follow me? You’d have to have a stronger interest than a mild curiosity.
And at the end it’s all mind-stuff anyway.
Well, it is, but you would be asking about the specific manifestation of mind-stuff in the 3D/non-3D system. Nothing wrong with that.
Not sure what this session has centered on, if anything.
There is a blurred area between physics and metaphysics, and we looked at one way it can manifest.
Namely me, as Daisy Mae used to say.
Specifically you, but everybody will see themselves either as analogy or by contrast. It’s not such a bad way to work.
And call it — ?
“Exploring the world,” maybe.
Maybe. All right, thanks and next time.