TGU — politics, ideology, and consciousness

Sunday, March 25, 2018

6:25 a.m. Bone-tired yesterday after a week in company. And now a week since I have talked to the guys here, so let’s see if they know where we left the bookmark, as I do not.

So, my friends, where do we pick up?

You will notice that you have had one or two conversations about the social crisis developing around you, the kind of talks you have never, or rarely, had in the TMI environment. And your – and by reflection our – views on the causes and nature of the crisis differ somewhat from those with whom you are in sympathy on most other things.

You mean because I am critical of both liberal and conservative intolerance and self-delusion.

That isn’t the way to put it. Center.

I thought I had done so already. Very well –

How about, because I see a conflict of values, a collision of past grievances, a shared misperception of reality.

A little closer. So this time maybe we will need to spell it out, rather than being able to give you the idea and have you phrase it.

I suppose in this case I am too used to traditional ways of phrasing such things, even of thinking about them.

As [my friend] Dirk pointed out at one point, the words “liberal” and “conservative” no longer do the job of conveying meaning. Nor would “right” and “left,” nor any conceivable synonym such as “progressive” and “reactionary.” In all cases, political labels now serve only as battle flags, as you and he noted. But it is easier to see the need for new descriptives than to fill it. This you have not yet done, because of (and despite) your center of gravity being far more in this work than in political or social or economic – hence, than in ideological – matters.

It is true that whenever I tell people at some length my reasons for seeing this breakdown as the fault of all concerned, not just of “the other” side of the ideological fence, I can do it if we have enough time and if there is emotional trust between us (though I doubt if my view continues to influence their thought later), but not otherwise. If I had symbols and story to couch it in, perhaps I could do better.

Not that you know “the” truth either, of course. But you do have a way to help people see better.

Provided you paint a few signposts for us.

Provided that. And here they are, but bear in mind these are not battle flags, not banners under which the righteous can gather to fight at Armageddon, etc. They are, shall we say, orienting reminders for people who see the world in a certain way but have not yet allowed that new way of seeing to so permeate their being as to wash out perceived antagonisms with those who uphold contrasting values on the social level.

Friends who are very conservative have said to me, from time to time, how they have to deal with the perceived liberal bias of so many TMI participants in programs and on computer mailing lists. Some of them perceive me as one of the liberals, some see me as still salvageable, some assume I am one of them.

And in all such cases, you see, there can be no meaningful shorthand in the absence of a different angle of vision as to what is going on. There is no use choosing sides and thinking that is solving anything. There is no transcendence to be found at the same level as the opposition. You have to (one has to) move to another level of analysis to overcome the non-productive deadlock. And you can’t get to another level of analysis except by getting to another level of perception.

“You shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free”?

Something like that, but we are talking here not of which “side” is right, or most right. We mean, what is the most productive view of things for the individual capable of comprehending it that will reveal these crippling political and economic and ideological antagonisms for what they are. But you see, by virtue of the fact that this new view requires the ability to see it, it will not be a banner under which anyone can rally the troops to “fight for a new world” or to “reclaim what is being lost” or to build the New Jerusalem.

Understood. But a clear way of describing the current situation for those able to comprehend would at least help them.

It would and it will – only, look what we have to overcome first. Nobody holds political or ideological opinions thinking, “These are only partial views, and no doubt those on the other side are just as right as I am.” Instead, they say, at best, “They are not necessarily evil, just ignorant and being misled by their ignorance and by those who seek to take advantage of that ignorance.”

Therefore, almost by definition, anything we say will seem somewhat unfair, somewhat biased, because it will to some degree criticize views people hold in good faith, perhaps with great emotional investment.

It’s a problem. What is the solution? I’ve never found one other than prolonged exposition, definition, redefinition, story, argument, etc. – and how many people will stand still for that, and how much good does it do anyway? I find that, in practice, it doesn’t even serve as a way of clarifying my thought to myself, let alone to anybody else, not does it point me toward truths I need but haven’t yet found.

For you, for those you live among (mentally, we mean; spiritually, call it), the answer is to stay centered upon your central concern. How can centering that is off-centered produce stability? (Personal stability, you understand: Views that persist, that explore and orient and lead us on.) That concern is not centered upon the 3D world, so how can any analysis that remains at the 3D level suffice for you? Yet that is what political and ideological [illegible] tend to do.

So what do you suggest as a center?

It sounds like a paradox, but is not: To understand 3D developments, you cannot remain within 3D terms. The 3D can only be understood in its larger context, or what have we been doing here these past years? The thing is, it is one thing to redefine your view of life and the world conceptually; it is a second thing to begin to learn to trust that view; it is a third thing to live it, and a fourth (if somewhat inevitable) thing, following upon the third, to allow that transformed view to transform political and ideological views formed much earlier at an earlier state of your consciousness. You may be a conservative or a liberal in your view, and they may be very long-held views, but they are not views formed at your current level of consciousness, nor with your current understanding of underlying causes and currents and meanings. Although “liberal” and “conservative” have meaning seen strictly in terms of relative willingness to move from one’s present position to another, that is nearly all they mean [now]. This is why discussions conducted on the basis of such slippery labels come to little or nothing: Neither party in the discussion knows what the other hears in the labels, so often they are arguing past one another.

Instead, try to hold on to the expanded perception we have been providing:

The 3D world exists within the context of the larger All-D world.

You as individuals (who are also communities) exist within the context not only of your personal attributes and backgrounds (defined as broadly as you care to) but also within the context of vast impersonal forces that affect the world and everything and everybody and every idea in the world.

Your values – be they whatever they are – are countered or say supplemented, or complemented, by other values in a 180- or perhaps 120- or 90- or 60-degree relationship, as all values and forces balance out. There is no room in the 3D or All-D world for leftover positives or negatives. Whatever is, is (that is, exists) of right, not by accident.

Many TIM folk come to TMI via the New Age movement, and that movement might be described as political liberals drawn to spirituality but blocked in traditional expression of that spirituality. It represented a new path forward when everything seemed blocked. But Seth, say, was not a liberal. Edgar Cayce was not a liberal. Ramtha, any such voices, were not liberal. Neither were they conservative. The truth they were leading to cannot be found at the ideological level, because the division and partial-views necessary to such positions are antithetical to the view that attempts to make sense of the world by seeing it with new eyes.

Now, it has taken us an hour to get to the very beginning of the subject, but it was not lost time and effort. We have a place to continue now.

Very well. Many thanks.