Re-envisioning our lives

Saturday, December 15, 2018

4:55 a.m. I am a little surprised that yesterday’s transmission hit three different people as intense. It didn’t seem particularly strong to me. Do you care to comment on that? Or continue on? Your choice, of course.

New ways of seeing things can come up smoothly like sunrise or can startle. For you it was sunrise, and 20 years ago. For them it was a sunburst, unexpected and immediate.

The “it” being the idea of the non-physical rather than the physical being the center of our universe.

Not quite that, though close. More, the realignment. The learning that your being has been driven from the back seat, so to speak. Necessarily so, in the absence of a closer conscious link between 3D and non-3D, but still, off-centered.

This is simple and obvious to me, but I am afraid perhaps not so to any others who do not begin from this same understanding of the world. I was struck, the other day, in opening a volume of Emerson to his essay on “History,” to see that it is written, from the first sentence, out of the same understanding we share. How is it that anybody in the dark 19th century understood him? Read from the right orientation, it was clear, and merely laid out the obvious conclusions for our 3D life of the fact that the world was what it was.

Now do you see why we want you to write a little book explaining it?

This isn’t quite the same thing. Is it?

Our idea hasn’t changed, but your comprehension of it just did. You have been thinking of it as a sort of self-help course. Just give the readjustment and the reasons for it, and people will do their own work – assisted by their non-3D components, obviously – in spelling out the ramifications. Once give them the key to the riddle, and everything in the world will provide the text for further elucidations.

I don’t understand how Emerson could come into the world, acquire this different way of seeing, express it (after due hesitation) and be understood and, at the same time, be vastly misunderstood, or in fact dismissed without hearing. That is, I can’t see the logic of his life.

This time we need to correct your way of expressing things in order that you may be understood.

Feel free. I can’t seem to get it said.

What you mean to say is, How was the Emerson phenomenon possible? To see the answer, look to the career of Colin Wilson.

Okay, I get it. Or Richard Bach.

Yes. Take as example anyone who establishes a reputation early, and you see someone who has created interest in what he says next. That is, there is a market for his words, based more on who is saying them than on what he is saying.

And then others will be able to find him.

Equally important, then he will be able to say wilder and wilder things and yet still receive attention.

His fame is his bridge to public attention, and his message is their bridge to another life.

You could put it that way. So you see how deeper understanding rearranges the relative importance of things. Fame is then seen not as an end in itself, not as ego satisfaction, not as reassurance that one’s life has not been a failure, but as an attractor, a star, a provocation, an advertisement calling people’s attention to a new message.

And, misused, it discredits itself.

Let’s say it is a two-edged sword, and cuts both ways. The same fame that may be used as servant may become master, with very unfortunate effects.

That’s how sincere people become phonies.

It’s one way, yes. Any attribute of life, misused, leads downward, and the choice is not a one-time thing, but a continuous process.

As Q in Star Trek used to say: The testing never ends.

Yes, except it is life itself, and not some outside agency (though usually through some outside agency) that does the testing. It would be better perhaps to say, you test yourselves, continually.

“You”? Or “we”?

In context, almost a meaningless distinction. You always experience yourselves as the center, even when you know you aren’t. So when you come to realize you are a “we” – that is, that your non-3D component is at least as important as your 3D component that you are accustomed to, you continue to think of your 3D self as running the show, and you soon forget what you learned.

That doesn’t sound very hopeful.

No harm done, mostly. Only, it is better to remember, given that the 3D is not the center.

Now, consider. We have been discussing the 3D world in an attempt to put it into its proper 3D-plus-non-3D context. So, talking about the relative value of different kinds of societies is not for the purpose of advising you on politics or ideology – obviously – but to point out that what sometimes seems important is in fact merely the clothing in which underlying forces manifest.

Yes. The things of this world produce first-tier effects, but you are concerned with interesting us in the third-tier effects.

Do you remember Thoreau, on his deathbed, saying “One world at a time”? We aren’t saying “Wish the world away.” It isn’t like the 3D world is a distraction. It has its own importance in and of itself. Only – it isn’t what it seems to be.

That is all we have been saying from the beginning. See it straight, see it in its proper depth and context and limitations, and it remains and yet is transformed for you. That’s all we have been trying to get across.

I come back to Emerson. How was it possible for him to realize the things he did?

In one sense, you overestimate him because you are tempted to think he understood everything he saw.

Oh. Duh! I get it. He was a pretty clear conduit, through which the non-3D could express.

Sound familiar?

And of course it happens all the time, only different blends are to different tastes, like coffee.

Precisely. But still you could write your little book, explaining. Only don’t think you need to prove anything. Merely point, and people’s own non-3D component will provide the response for them, often against their own conscious comprehension, but nonetheless irresistibly, whenever they are ready.

That is, you want me to function as a doorbell, or an alarm clock.

Or a snooze-alarm specifically, yes. And not just you, or course. Just as your 3D is not the center of your being, so you as a person are not the center of society. But you are all accustomed to backseat driving, by now.

Thanks for all this. Till next time.