25th talk with Rita — 1-30-2015

Friday, January 30, 2015

F: 6 a.m. So, Miss Rita, here we go again. This is becoming a habit, very like my fond memories of getting up each morning to have coffee with Ernest Hemingway and see the sun come up while sitting at the dining room table – your dining room table, come to think of it – writing. So, you said you wanted to begin by disposing of the question about language.

[Rita had said, “Next time we will begin with Bob’s question about language, which should be easy to dispose of.”]

R: That sounds like I’m going to toss it aside, but I’m merely going to clear up a point that many may not have considered. It isn’t particularly complicated, but some easy questions are nonetheless worthwhile.

F: In other words, there are no stupid questions, so people shouldn’t worry about asking things.

R: Yes, but also there isn’t any way to tell in advance which question may illuminate something important, and which may not. So – same conclusion: people shouldn’t worry that something they really want to know about may not be worthwhile. If we – or you, or I alone – choose not to answer a question for a particular reason, fine, but there isn’t any reason for people to hesitate to ask, provided their question is sincere.

F: You saw me decline to ask you a question that would bring us to ideology or politics.

R: The real objection is that it would move us from the real work of examining reality from two viewpoints at once (in hopes of seeing it more clearly) and would move people into the easy and unproductive terrain of opinion. Opinion has its place, and so does agricultural price reporting or news briefs or economic speculation, but this isn’t it.

F: In any case, to proceed with the question of language.

[Bob had asked: When “Rita” was in 3-D, she spoke and thought in English. She is communicating to us now, through Frank, in English (or does she just stimulate Frank’s language so he writes the words in English)? It’s hard for us in 3-D to imagine anything without use of whatever language we use on this planet, so how does the use of English, French, Swahili, etc., “translate” over to the non-3-D consciousness. Do you “think” and communicate in a language over there, or is there an entirely different way to communicate?]

R: This is one of those questions that sounds complicated but is actually rather easily clarified.

F: I’m remembering the joke about the rural preacher who opposed bilingualism because “if English was good enough for Jesus, it’s good enough for me.” We don’t speak in words at all, do we.

R: Well, that depends on which “we” you mean. Within 3D rules, everything is sequential. You experience one thing, then the next thing, one at a time like children reciting their ABC’s. And that is what language is, a sequentially processed code. Written or spoken, it is one word at a time, no matter how quickly the words are said or how simple or complex the words used, or in what language. That is one reason why Bob [Monroe] stressed the use of NVC [non-vocal communication] – it is in simultaneously “grokked” understandings that 3D-accustomed people – meaning, anybody experiencing themselves as in the body – may

F: Lost it.

R: Next time don’t go back to fix the grammar or dot the i’s, etc. until the thought is complete.

F: Mostly it doesn’t matter; this one went on too long, not meaning too many words, but too many turns in the thought. Try again?

[And it occurs to me, typing this, that some will not know what “grokking” means. From a Robert Heinlein novel, Stranger in a Strange World, it describes the instant comprehension of something, rather than the sequential processing of thought.]

R: If you (anyone, that is, not just you in particular, Frank) practice experiencing communication in non-sequential ways, you get closer to communication as it is in non-3D. In other words, the way guidance is experienced, the way “psychic” knowing comes in, is always non-sequential, even if it needs to be translated into sequential processing for the individual to accept it. Thus, if you can pick it up without such translation, it is a sudden knowing – which is why such knowings are the purest form of such communication. If the information cannot be comfortably processed in that form, it may have to be experienced sequentially, as a vision, or speech, or some variety of dream or dream-like way.

F: That’s very interesting, and puts what I already knew in an enlightening context.

R: That’s the idea here. That’s what teaching mostly is, the reinterpretation of familiar things in a new context.

So, the question was, in essence, what language do we speak in non-3D, or to be fairer to the question, it asked the relation between various kinds of speech experienced in 3D and our communication in non-3D. As you see, you already experience non-3D speech, some of you more often or more consistently than others. It is in the simultaneous grokking that accompanies the temporary group mind that true communication occurs. It is in the subsequent “stopping down” of such communication into 3D-sequential speech or thought that communication with minds occurs (and slips). It is in the spoken or written conveyance of one understanding to another 3D-processing-system connected to another mind that 3D communication occurs, usually with huge slippage, and, therefore, distortion. Clear?

F: To me, yes, but I have the benefit of direct communication, so I am grokking things every so often, as you know. Whether clear to others, I guess we’ll find out from feedback.

R: Summarize your understanding?

F: Okay. In 3D, everything sensory is experienced sequentially – speaking, writing, reading, even watching or hearing or anything sensory, I suppose. Therefore we communicate by codes that are sequential, a faster version of tapping out Morse Code messages. Different people speak different languages, but they are all sequential because everything sensory is sequential.

R: Or is perceived as sequential, anyway.

F: Yes, that’s what I meant. But in the non-3D, it isn’t sequential but simultaneous, though come to think of it I can’t quite imagine it, so non-3D thought is experienced not in sequential systems like language but in bursts, or in –

R: Well, that’s close enough. Your summary made clear to you, and thus to others, something you hadn’t yet thought about. It isn’t really simultaneous outside of 3D – from the 3D understanding, anyway – but is very, very fast.

F: A million times faster.

R: Tell them.

F: I read somewhere that the conscious mind perceives 42 (I think it was) bits of information per second, and the non-conscious mind 42 million bits per second. This million-to-one disparity tells me that the unconscious mind – which I imagine amounts to us outside of 3D, experiencing life directly as opposed to us experiencing it through sequential processing –is probably the same thing as saying “the guys upstairs.” Anyway, anything we experience a million times faster than we can process it is going to appear instant to us.

R: Yes. And although there is more to be said on the subject, if only because everything connects to everything else, that is enough for now. A delay in saying more will enable people to ponder on just this much, and will give them a firmer ground as we proceed. Saying more now might tend to slur over certain things.

F: Okay, you’re the boss. Do you want to continue by going back to the first question?

[How is consciousness, which is non-physical, connected to a physical brain? Scientists have demonstrated that when certain parts of the brain are stimulated, images and words and events may appear (memories, I suppose). I have always thought that memories were part of what we physicals call consciousness, as our “awareness” can call them up (pre-Alzheimer’s of course) as part of what we call “thinking.” How can consciousness manipulate the brain to “park” those memories–through a chemical process or something else?]

R: The last sentence assumes something special when there is only life as you know it. That is, biological processes can be well understood in their own terms. No need to try to divide them into “natural” and “supernatural,” or, as here, into part physical and part non-physical process.

All physical life is a miracle, viewed one way, or none of it is, viewed another way. Memories are implanted in the brain (or so it seems) by the understood chemical processes. It is in the description of those points as gateways rather than repositories that our view differs from conventional anatomy, nothing more. And by the way the fact that stimulated memories (stimulated by a probe touching a neural point, I mean) bring to the person detail and clarity beyond what was experienced at the time should tell you that the person is experiencing not a record but the original perceptions.

F: Okay. By the way, writing the date at the top of the page just now, I notice that it is the 30th. Happy birthday, Miss Rita. You’d have been 95 this morning.

R: I prefer to celebrate it here.

F: A smile. Very well, more for today, or is that a good place to stop?

R: Enough for the moment, and we can begin a fresh topic next time. Make a note, though, that we’re always ready to answer follow-up questions on anything. They can be very valuable.

F: Okay, thanks. Blow out the candles.