Rita: Interconnections between 3D and non-3D

Saturday, July 22, 2017

5:35 a.m. Rita? We could take the day off, but I’m ready for a session if you are. Most of this week responded to questions. I hope your lesson-plan is ready for days without questions.

Let’s return to my statement you correctly put in italics, for there is much to be said that stems from the fact.

“There can be no passion or motive for passion in 3D that does not exist in non-3D.” Your flat statement.

That’s the one.

It argues the close and necessary connection between 3D and non-3D.

Now, look at that sentence! Of course the two must be closely connected, being the heads and tails of the same coin! But language conceals the fact even from you sometimes who have been living with this material from its earliest manifestation in your PREP sessions in the autumn of the year 2000! Nor was it any easier for me to keep it in mind. So if it is not easy for you, remember to have patience with others. Again, the root problem is language, which creates or emphasizes difference in things with different names, and de-emphasizes or ignores similarities or even points of identity. That is one reason to be careful of the terms you use.

I can see that 3D and non-3D, as opposed to physical and spiritual, say, to some degree emphasizes their connection even while primarily describing their differences.

It isn’t quite true to say it emphasizes their connection, but it does at least suggest their kinship, even though the “non” emphasizes their non-identity.

I think of Russell Targ’s book in which he points out the flaw in two-value logic and advocates four-value logic. Rather than only either A=B or A not= B, two more possible positions are both A and B, or neither A nor B. I don’t think I have that quite right, but close. It is in the loss of the middle terms that divisions are emphasized and connections minimized or ignored.

Give your color example.

Well, we’ll see how it comes out.

Red is not yellow. A not= B. Red does include orange, though, that is, it shades into it, so in that sense orange is both red and yellow. It is also neither red nor yellow, and which relationship you concentrate on will determine your abstract thought about it. The relationship of red, orange, yellow remains the same, but the logic you apply to it will color (if you will pardon the play on words) how you think about it.

And it is the same thing with 3D and non-3D. They are not the same thing, they are the same thing, shading from one to the other, they are neither of them the same thing, they are both the same thing. A totally incoherent statement, if seen standing alone, yet if seen within four-value logic, much that was obscure becomes a bit clearer.

So do we need an equivalent term to orange as between red and yellow?

Perhaps. We coined All-D to represent the over-arching reality. That would be closer to describing white light that includes the full spectrum. But so much for analogy. Let us return to the implications of the fact that 3D and non-3D are inextricably connected, that they inform each other, so to speak, and that what happens in each necessarily affects the other.

Up to this point we have been concentrating on the fact that the non-3D has a continuing interest in 3D because 3D continually provides new minds for non-3D’s enhancement. (And a word for the paranoiacs out there: Don’t go attributing sinister motives for this. It isn’t sensible to feel used. In 3D life you gain the opportunity to contribute to the life around you; it is much the same when you graduate into non-3D.)

Many myths and religions describe non-3D life as a war among the gods. Does it occur to you that different values that manifest in 3D are going to be represented in non-3D as well? And that they will be as antagonistic in non-3D as in 3D? They will manifest differently, because awareness of connection is stronger here, but they will continue to exist. And the relative strength of various points of view will be affected by the 3D events that create new non-3D partisans by way of their shaping in 3D.

I’m a little nervous about my translation, here. Am I more or less getting it? It’s a strange idea, though one I have long entertained, and I am second-guessing myself even as I write.

You aren’t just making it up. Any misleading nuance that gets introduced will smooth out over time if you merely keep your eyes open as we go.

I’ll take your word for it, as usual. So, war in heaven.

Not with cannon and shot; not with armies and hatred. Not the way Milton painted it. But in a way war, or let us say a serious on-going contest. Unity v. diversity, for instance. Expansion v. contraction. Love v. fear – yes, even here outside of the direct constrictions of the 3D. Any conflict of principles and values that you experience in 3D has its equivalent in non-3D, only remember that we do not experience ourselves as separate in the way 3D conditions lead you to experience yourselves, so it may be better to call it self-division than warfare.

But this isn’t an easy subject, because it has so many sides to it. (Do you wonder why it isn’t included in easy tossed-off statements, like, “on the other side there is no time”?) For not only are we in 3D interconnected in so many ways directly, we are also very much aware of those of us who are partly directly experiencing 3D at any given moment. We naturally try to encourage our 3D selves to represent our values.

Those couple of sentences could do with some unpacking. I don’t know that I’m the one to do it, though. Can you?

Well, perhaps we need to go up a level, to make it clearer. Envision a field of Sams. Each Sam contains innumerable Lifes. Those Lifes are not unconnected, like marbles in a bag. They inter-thread; they are closer to a bowl of spaghetti, or the wiring of some intricate machine, than they are to a bag of separate marbles. In other words, each Sam comprises many, many elements, but they are not disconnected. Sam’s total specific gravity, so to speak, its place on a scale of values, is determined partly by the nature of the Lifes it creates, but the converse is equally true, it is from its nature that the Lifes derive their nature, so in an equally accurate sense, it pre-determines their makeup which determines its. It seems to make less sense than it actually does.

Each Sam will be different. Each Sam will continue to change with time. (What? On the other side, there is no time! Then how can there be change?) There is your on-going contest.

But it has been an hour, and I’m running out of gas.

Not a bad place to pause. And perhaps you might take tomorrow morning off.

Well, we’ll see. Thanks as always.