Nathaniel on truth and viewpoint

Sunday, January 14, 2018

Nathaniel on truth and viewpoint

6:15 a.m. Watched parts of some YouTube video interviews with Colin Wilson last night, and was reminded that he called himself a hedgehog rather than a fox – that is, he knew one thing rather than many – and of course so am I.

Very well, my friends. This idea that came to me yesterday from wherever it is that ideas do come – let’s give it a try. What I got was that we might do a session apiece on the seven deadly sins and the four cardinal virtues as they appear from your viewpoint. I imagine we won’t be getting a pietistic viewpoint, and can’t wait to see what we do get. First off, you agree that sin is missing the mark – an error of judgment or execution, rather than an offense that is going to be prosecuted in some after-death court of law?

Let’s start a little slower. You can’t just invalidate major threads of human thought with a wave of your hand. At least, it isn’t wise to do so.

I assumed that it would be common ground between us, or among us, I suppose I should say, given how many of you there may be on the line. (And how many of me, come to think of it.)

It is and it isn’t. Let’s put it this way: We share one way of looking at things, but we remember that there are other ways. It isn’t as if anyone ever comes to a “the” truth. You know this, it’s just in another context.

You are saying it is all viewpoints.

Viewpoint, and the result of viewpoint. If you look at things from one viewing-post (as, in practice, everyone must, that viewing-post being their life in all its far-flung ramifications), everything you build upon that view proceeds from it. If you are in a ship in the South Pacific in 1775 and you are English, that’s the outlook you will have. Everything you see will be seen out of the eyes of a 1700s Englishman in the South Seas. It’s obvious, once you think about it. You can’t expect that you’re going to have the viewpoint of a Phoenician or a Tibetan Lama or anybody. You are who you are, and you see things from that platform’s vantage point, in perspective from that spot in space-time.

A complicating factor is that this is only this simple as long as we ignore the fact that that “you” in the South Seas in the 1700s is internally connected to so many other lives living elsewhere and elsewhen. Those extensions (of course from their point of view, he will be the extension of them, but you know what we mean) will alter his perspective unpredictably. No matter how unconscious that 3D personality may be of how widely he extends, he may be – will be – unconsciously affected. No matter how psychically aware he may be, he will still be mostly unconscious of his full scope, necessarily (as you and all your readers and friends), because you can’t pour a quart of water into a pint container. All we’re saying here is that people are stranger and more unpredictable than their evident surroundings would lead you to expect them to be if a current 3D incarnation were as isolated as it appears.

Sure. We all have these cross-currents within us, from God knows who and God knows where.

That’s right. However, within that context, the fact remains that you are each shaped by your circumstances, as you should be, as was inherent in the whole shaping of 3D reality to be a crucible. It isn’t complicated but it is easily overlooked, being like the air you breathe: Search for the truth, but try to remember, it is going to be your truth, not any nonexistent “the” truth.

Nonexistent? I don’t see how that can be.

We mean it not in the sense of “the whole reality is a lie and anything you want to say about it is as true as anything else and no more” though we see that our idea could be mistaken for that, but “the world is way more complex and interrelated for anyone in 3D no matter how aware, how extended, to comprehend; thus any truths will be only partial truths, as your lives are only partial lives when seen from a wider deeper perspective.”

Do search, do sift and weigh and come as close to your truth as you can. This is not only not a waste of time, it is intrinsic to your existence in your particular piece of 3D time-space. Who is going to give a true report of the world from your point of view if you do not? (You understand, we mean, a report to the larger All-D world, a report in the form of what you make yourself by living.) Only, do not confuse that very useful quest and result with an imagined pursuit of (still less an acquisition of) truths greater than you can comprehend. You, stretching to your uttermost, will find it quite enough to do to absorb the truth of your own 3D life you live; don’t march off to a pretended siege of Babylon. We trust that you and your readers take for granted that this is aimed at one and all, not just you, Frank.

So, when we come to look at sin and virtue, our viewpoint will be limited (another way to say it would be, “will be focused”) by yours, Frank. Any transmission comes via a 3D person acting as middleman, and his essence is integrally involved. How else could it be? A trance medium may be entirely unconscious of the messages being delivered, but listen to that sentence carefully: unconscious. That is, who the medium is, is still indivisible from the process. If his or her conscious mind is not involved, nonetheless his or her un-conscious mind will be because it must be. Who Edgar Cayce was, who Jane Roberts was, beyond the level of their consciousness, had to be part of the equation. Their participation was not limited to willingness and vocal cords.

Sure, I see that. Maybe that is why Seth used to refer to his channel as Rubert rather than as Jane, to remind Rob and the readers that there were more relationships and more on-going factors than met the eye.

So, you see, let this session serve as reminder – there can scarcely be too many, nor too often – that we are going for the deepest truths that can be brought forth, but that the depth has practical limits. It is so difficult to be confident that people will employ a rheostat rather than an on / off switch, will say “As true as I can find,” rather than either “there is no truth to find” or “it’s true because I know it is.” Of the two, it’s hard to say which is the greater pitfall. The one leads to irresponsible nihilism; the other leads to Psychic’s Disease or to irresponsible certainty. That doesn’t mean the task is impossible, only that it can be difficult, and has hazards.

So, after all these preliminaries, we can begin – a short beginning in the time left – and we will proceed when and how you wish, after that. As you intuited, Frank, it wasn’t exactly your ideas, though of course the whole idea of ownership of ideas is a little – well, strange. You own an idea insofar as you provide it a home, or let’s say as you recognize a kinship. But you do not originate one, any more than you give birth to a beloved kitten or puppy.

Pet ideas, I like that. Better than pet rocks, even.

And what makes you think that 3D individuals are not, in a sense, the pets of the ideas?

In the sense that people may be said to be owned by their cats or dogs?

If you were to look at the subject from the viewpoint of vast impersonal forces interacting with 3D structures, you’d see it as the ideas seeking and finding vessels to contain and express something of the idea’s essence.

Very interesting thought. (It must have been mine! J)

So, we’ve burned an hour on preliminaries. I can’t quite see where we did it, as we have filled only seven and a half pages, but would clocks lie? Last words?

We will begin with Pride, traditionally first and chief of the sins, but that doesn’t mean that other thoughts may not intervene [first].

Understood. Well, it’s all very interesting, and I see pretty clearly (not that I didn’t earlier) how much of a hedgehog I am, always worrying one bone. Till next time.