Nathaniel on geography and consciousness

Nathaniel on geography and consciousness

Friday, December 29, 2017

4:10 a.m. Nathaniel – or whomever – are you ready to proceed? I’ve lost track of where we are and what you are explicating.

Again, a logical progression makes less difference than you might suppose. Is it too much to expect that the pathless path – the maze of freedom in all directions – would be explicable in more than one way? It isn’t like a treasure map, leading to one definite point in space, nor like a radio schedule dependent upon position in time. It’s closer, much closer, to saying “The journey is the reward,” or, as Richard Burton said in the 1800s, “Voyaging is a victory.” Just accompanying us along the way reorients and magnetizes, so to speak. The incidents of the journey are thus less important than the journeying.

But in a larger sense of direction, you were talking about evil.

That is one thing, mostly in the process of reminding people to reintegrate their concepts of subjects they usually forget to associate.

So, today –?

Let’s talk about geography and consciousness. The fact that one may be living on Terra Firma this lifetime says nothing about where one’s strands may have lived, nor about what resonances may arise from other people’s strands (so to speak) who may be from other places. And, don’t forget, the same goes for people in other worlds relative to Earth: For them, a Terran life is the exotic factor in their heredity.

So when a psychic looks at someone and says, “You are originally from the Pleiades,” it may not be quite as definite as that.

Let’s say, the psychic may be speaking in a hasty shorthand, knowingly or otherwise. That kind of statement assumes a singleness in the individual that is not in accordance with the model we have been painting.

That’s a curious way to put it. I take it this is your way of saying, “Don’t overinvest in our model either.”

Well – almost. It’s a way of saying that obviously the ways in which people have seen the world cannot be said to be absolutely wrong or even inadequate for their purposes, and for their time, so there isn’t need or excuse for throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Different conceptual schemes divide reality into different categories according to their perceptions, strategies, meta-goals.

So, to make an analogy, the spectrum of electromagnetic radiation that extends from below infra-red to beyond ultra-violet is conventionally divided into colors by arbitrarily beginning at one range and ending at another. Even though the beginning and ending ranges are ranges and not points, still the division is arbitrary. Red, orange, yellow, do not exist per se as definite colors. You [agree to] see them that way. (That’s why children have to be taught their colors.) Divide that same spectrum another way, and you would experience your colors differently.

It’s easy to get that idea, but it is hard to imagine it, as a reality.

Well, it will be less so if you think closely about the shades of blue and green toward the perceived boundary between the two. Obviously artists and scientists of light know there is no hard and fast boundary, but society in general assumes that there is, so assigns aqua, teal, cerulean, etc. to one or the other “primary” or “secondary” colors. But surely you can see that the designation of some colors as primary and others as secondary etc. stems from a conceptual decision. The primaries are different between paint and light, say. So it isn’t even as absolute as you might think in terms of “These colors may be blended to produce other colors.” If you had a different scheme centering on different colors

That’s getting tangled. I think you mean, if we drew the lines differently, we would educate ourselves to see differently.

You would, it’s inescapable. The vibrations would be the same, but you would conceptually experience them in different units. Of course that alternate scheme would be no more correct than your present scheme, because any scheme depends upon discerning divisions, which are always going to be more or less arbitrary, like dividing a tree trunk.

That image isn’t quite clear.

Precisely. You might choose to see a tree trunk as logically divided into X and Y, but that doesn’t change the fact that the trunk is (from one point of view) one and indivisible, or (from another) a flow of associated elements.

We have gone to a great deal of trouble to provide an alternate scheme in which the concept of the individual as a unit has been downplayed, and the concept of all the elements of humanity being interconnected is emphasized. This is because the way you draw distinctions has consequences. If you could remember from moment to moment that such divisions were necessarily somewhat arbitrary, no harm would be done. But the circumstances of 3D life in the absence or abeyance of a strong connection to a sense of non-3D reality means that such conceptual schemes come to assume a greater importance and permanence than is warranted or helpful. At another time, in civilizations with different assumptions, we might downplay the associative aspects and stress the relative individuality. It is not orthodoxy we are trying to encourage, but consciousness and in a sense you could say that consciousness is never easy within any scheme.

By “easy” I get that you mean, it doesn’t rest easy, not that it is difficult.

That’s right, though the second meaning isn’t exactly wrong. So, speaking of your extraterrestrial connections, which is the unspoken basis of today’s discussion –

Yes?

If all the universe is connected – and we assure you, it is; there are no dotted lines in reality – and if the connections and divisions one necessarily discerns are arbitrary, which is equally true, you will find that the difference between “alien” and “family” is more a reflection of classification schemes than of “reality.” This is true among humans on earth; it is no less true among all the sentient beings on earth, and no less true in the vast 3D world you call the universe. Obviously there exist relative divisions, relative species. To say that “All is one” is conceptually true, but only as true as “All is a vast interlocking scheme of relative differences.” And a moment’s thought should show you that this is true in your everyday experience. You classify, which means sort by categories. You experience rhinoceros differently from daisies, even though both are made of the same building blocks. You experience races even though on close enough examination they shade off into one another.

I have a question I can’t decide upon. On the one hand it seems you are saying we interrelate; at least our Sams, are not local in the sense of all its components being from one place any more than of one race or even on species. But on the other hand, I get the sense that even our Sams have a home base, a center of gravity, so to speak, and that one planet, say, is more like “home” to it than others, and certainly than some generalized “all places” locale. What’s the story here?

[Pause] Pause, because it’s easier for you to comprehend (once we are able to associate two strands of thought in your minds) than for us to explain. We return to the larger topic of “vast impersonal forces.”

I don’t quite see how. Unlike sometimes, when I get a sense of coming attractions, even if I can’t yet express it, this time I don’t have any of it.

We are at the end of an hour, and perhaps it is convenient and useful to give people time to think about it before setting out our view.

Okay. Well, thanks as always. Till next time.