TGU – A bubble analogy

Sunday, August 14, 2016

7 a.m. It has been only a couple of days since we’ve talked but it seems a long time. So let’s proceed from what I just got.

Rereading our conversations from the first of the month on, at some point an image came to me, perhaps hard to describe but emotionally clear. It is of us as a bubble (not a fragile evanescent thing but a stable bubble like the bubble in a level) included in a medium that allows it to move in any direction – right or left, up or down, forward or back, and additional “dimensions” I don’t have a concept for. I got that this better represents our life than previous, more static, images. Would you care to take this and run with it?

Not “more static,” so much as “more bounded.” There is a difference.

Your somewhat involuntary two-day vacation from this was helpful in moving you from an active to a more receptive space, because it is only natural to become tempted to logically extend whatever one is getting. It seems helpful, even perhaps obligatory. But usually it tends to keep one in accustomed channels, or most particularly tends to push one toward reverting to accustomed channels. Nothing wrong with the impulse nor with giving in to it, but we prefer to move beyond the shore.

Again.

Again. So do you, or you could choke this off without a struggle.

So, the bubble.

You won’t get far with physical analogies on this one, so settle for the sense of being a bubble, able to float in a given direction according to various factors, the most immediate of which is your conscious intent as focused rom the totality of what you are, funneled through the lens (let’s call it) of your habitual direction.

Other than that sense of yourself as suspended, or existent, in a medium

Already even that much physical analogy gets in the way.

Well, what if we just visualize the bubble in a level, and visualize it – no, I see the problem.

Hold the feeling of existing in a supportive medium – floating, only without the implication of floating above the surface of a meeting of two different dimensions, as the idea of floating on the ocean would suggest, for example. Floating, but floating in one’s own

The potatoes Emerson suggested. He used the analogies of potatoes in a tub, each rising or falling to its own level according to its density.

That will do. The desired image is not floating above anything, nor on anything, but in its surroundings, at its only possible place to be, because it is of the density that it specifically is, at least at any given time.

However, we are not discussing potatoes. The only part of the analogy we wish to hold is the felt image of various “individuals” floating in a supportive medium, effortlessly (unavoidably) reaching their own level. It is not structure we are pursuing, but flow.

Your intuition – your reception, perhaps? – was helpful. The key to the connection of illness and sin and overwhelming background circumstance is intensity, is desire, is intent, is willingness to express. And surely you do not pretend to understand that sentence as given. Not immediately, not completely.

How about – not much?

Revert to your sense of the world as being projected from a realer version of the world. I realize that isn’t quite an accurate paraphrase of your concept, but let’s say it is a slightly corrected one.

Your present moment – always – is where you are.

Since that is a tautology, I take it you mean more than immediately appears.

Well, how did you get to “where you are”? Drift? Reaction? Intent?

I’m not getting what you’re after.

Life is choosing. But you can’t really understand what that means if you think one being sets up a situation for another being to experience and report on. Yet that is the way you have been thinking about it, on some level, ever since you were given the bridge concept of you in 3D and you in non-3D, only the “you” in 3D being in a sort of temporary exile until it could get back to safety and comfort as a 3D mind translated into a non-3D mind (even though, contradictorily, that 3D mind was a no-3D mind all the time). That concept carried you from you’re your previous concepts into the place described or suggested by The Sphere and the Hologram. The more recent material [meaning, I take it, what Rita began in December, 2014] only refined it, only sanded the edges, retouched the paint. Other redefinitions were more important. But now we much tear down that idea. The reality is unchanged, but “3D and non-3D” may be regarded as an epicycle whose usefulness has come to an end (in terms of further exploration) or is of only limited usefulness (in terms of continuing to function as a bridge).

If Dimension is concept rather than reality, how can 3D or non-3D be any realer than a concept? No, you are not separated in the way 3D logic would seem to necessitate. (And, note, “3D logic.” Just because a concept is not reality, does not mean it is not still a useful concept, only, handle with care.)

You – we – are vastly more than you know (or even we know), by definition, as I believe we mentioned earlier. It is also important to realize, we are not divided beings. Not within ourselves, not between ourselves. No division is more than a relative difference in emphasis.

Therefore questions of equity among various beings do not really arise. Is there a question of equity between a finger and a toe, between a liver and a pancreas? Is there a question of equity between yesterday and next Tuesday? By cutting closer, and applying logic, you could make it seem so, but in reality – even reality as your somewhat unconscious level – no.

We’re still dancing around this, I can tell.

You mean, you think, or perhaps you feel. That’s how you live your lives, thinking, or, more usually, feeling, as circumstances seem to arise around you.

“Here is the gist of what they mean.”

Yeats? [For, I recognized the line from “Under Ben Bulben,” and knew who was speaking.]

Himself. As real as anything else, and as present, and no more.

Life is will. Not teeth-gritted intensity, though it may be that, nor palaces of thought spun into physical existence, though it may be that as well, certainly not the working-out of some scheme of logic. Life is existing and being awake to it, and adding your won bit by moving this way or that. The result has little to do with physical result, and little more to do with mental creation. The key to it is magic. Magic not to impose your will upon  creation, though it can do that, but to impose your vision upon the underlying creative chaos that awaits such vision. You impose that vision first by choosing your self, then by using that self to influence the life around you.

And illness, and sin?

What house has never known sorrow? Whose passions have never led a man astray? [I think this means, “who has never been led astray by his passions,” but I didn’t think to ask.] But these are powerful aids. You cannot avoid them and therefore shouldn’t think to. You may minimize either, or both, and yet go astray from your own path by so doing. Why do you think I sang the drunkard along with the sainted monk, the lecher with the virgin, the fool with the scholar? Life is not many things, but all things.

It is odd (as usual) to have long-time puzzlement suddenly clarify in a few sentences. Thank you for this.

If you do not start off with the certain image, you will not arrive at the world only that image can lead you toward. But how to get hold of the right image?

The part of us that is greater than our 3D awareness nudges us, I’d imagine.

You could say spirits whisper in your ear, and what would be the difference? Only a difference in respectability.

Excellent. So I’ll sign off for now and hope to continue this another time.