A dialogue about attention from the 3D to the non-3D

[Cat’s paw submitted on 2015/09/05 at 4:59 pm, in response to “Immortal and yet mortal.” This lengthy response, in the form of a dialogue between “cat’s paw” and cat’s paw’s guys upstairs, seems worthy of its own post.]

“for discouragement is a great drain on power.”
Man, don’t I know it. Nothing more readily stops the flow (or transmission?) of power than discouragement and its many cognates.
But, as Nietzsche put it, why dwell upon such painful matters assuming one does not have to…

“There is a direct link between the soul in the non-3D and the attention it receives from 3D. That is its food, enabling its continued existence. This is why there are what have been called “hungry ghosts,” hungry for attention from the 3D, stringing people along for the sake of their attention.
F: As you may be doing here.
T: Certainly your attention is reward enough for our tutelage, and the more people’s attention we attract, the more well paid we will be. Hence, our incentive to provide material that will be of interest, and hence your continued necessity to be sure you don’t allow yourself to be led astray.
F: Never any guarantees, are there?
T: Not really. How can there be? But your best safeguard is your own attitude, your own intent, so that you draw to you what is sincerely interested in being helpful.”
This bit here is similar to thoughts I’ve been grappling with recently. It can be boiled down to something like, “what are ‘they’ getting out of this?” Now, that question is actually misleading if for no other reason than I’ve never asked the question. But it is the best translation/compression I can come up with.
Not-me: May we?
Me: Seriously?
Not-me: Well, it is up to you. We can speak through you, as your “I”, with no recognition of our contribution. The advantage of doing it this way is that it focuses you and frees you up a little.
Me: Fine, but don’t go on too long. I have things to do that require “mental energy.”
Not-Me: All of you have read here and elsewhere that so much of what seems mysterious, opaque, and incomprehensible about non-3D and its denizens is really quite basic and direct. In fact, so much so that it scarcely seems credible to many humans, especially educated ones.
Me: Non-3D itself is often scarcely credible among educated humans.
Not-me: Exactly. And there is much to say about that, but perhaps later. The passage you quote above goes to our point…
Me: I’m not quite getting it.
Not-me: Yes. We are, shall we say, conferring or arguing how best to frame it. That’s what you feel–our indecision. We want to say the universe loves “attention,” especially that which comes from 3D. It is quite rich and delicious. Now, it goes without saying there is much in the universe that is completely uninterested in 3D. But the universe is a big place so, perforce, we are talking about something that is vast but obviously more local. The real point here is that attention-energy-feeling-thought-force-power –name any or all of that what you will– can be tremendously “fulfilling” to absorb and interact with. You, “there”, do not perceive this or at least most don’t. We give an analogy, and remember that this is an analogy.
Think of someone whom you deeply love, are passionately fond of, or are extremely fascinated by (perhaps you know them intimately or not all– it doesn’t matter) and consider what their attention directed toward you would or does feel like– the electricity, charge, and excitement of it. Encased in your bodies you do not, though it is certainly possible, directly perceive the very basic exchange or flow of energy/radiation that is always occurring.
Me: Then why is your example an analogy?
Not-me: We say that in part because of your own translation efforts which desires to hedge what we put forth, but also because people will bring assumptions to the claim and it is helpful if they are given a pause to consider what those assumptions might be.
In a previous thread you noted that we communicated how people’s I-there’s as well other kinds of intelligence were simply interested in and curious about this forum for its own sake–as if it were just a good show. Part of the reason it is such a good show is that the participants’ attention (and “participants” denotes not just Frank and those that comment, but everyone who gives their attention to this project)is being directed toward “us”, toward our region of being. We love the attention!
Me: Well–
Not-me: Yes, we feel your question and you already know the answer. We will say for everyone’s benefit: this attention we love is not a matter of narcissism or seeking of the spotlight like the common egotistical human that desires attention as a glue to plug the perceived holes in their being (the non-3D versions can be and often are the “hungry ghosts”). What we are saying is this: the exchange and reciprocity of attention/energy is very basic, direct, and always on-going everywhere. We perceive this more clearly in our condition than you do in yours. But when you consciously or knowingly engage in this exchange with “us” it sweetens the exchange, so to speak.
One last analogy. Humans, some humans anyway, and more than a few who would claim otherwise, are quite taken with those symbolic notes of exchange called money. In one sense money is pure abstraction, make-believe, which is what makes it so useful, it is fungible and can be converted into millions of other things. On the other hand, it is an actually existing thing, material and real enough to touch. However, it is in its circulation, its capacity to flow and transform in the process of trillions of exchanges which gives it its power.
Me: And?
Not-me: Your attention/energy directed toward “us” and non-3D is not unlike that in a rough and metaphorical way.
Me: Doesn’t money convey a far too local and specifically modern human meaning here to be of much use.
Not-me: No, so long as its understood that attention, consciousness, awareness, thought, feeling, and so on are highly “valued.” That they are more mediums of exchange, if you will, rather than properties of this or that being.
Me: Okay, not sure I buy it but I have to leave off now.
Not-me: We know. Your attention is much appreciated…