How to change the world

 Reviewing past non-3D conversations, I came to this, which certainly seems appropriate to today:

The division into science or religion or art or what we might call contemporary observation is the problem, not any of them in itself.

In practice a culture imposes itself on individuals more than the other way around.

The civilization you were born into was already significantly different from the one I was born into in 1920. The world your children were born into was different from yours, in turn. This is always somewhat true, but in our time we were and are part of the changing of the guard into a new civilization comprising a new order of humans. That is why change often seems catastrophic, and it often seems that everything is breaking down and the end is near. The end of what was, is near; is in fact in process. But that doesn’t mean the end of life on Earth, even human life. It may mean a Hairbreadth Harry dance on the edge, it is true.

Society must change. The individuals comprising society must change. The new relationships, the implied structure within which society and individuals comprising society will exist, needs to come into being.

• Don’t you suppose the overseers of reality know that?
• Don’t you suppose that the intelligences that maintain the complicated ecology of mind / body / spirit / soul / individual-community / community of individual-communities / thought-form-manifestation, etc., know that?
• Do you suppose you are orphans in the universe and it is all up to you and your choices what will happen?

Emerson said don’t trust children with edge tools; God don’t trust humans with more power than they have learned to use wisely.

True except in so far as the process of learning involves making mistakes. The loving parent tries to assure that the child’s mistakes will have only limited consequences until the child’s experience brings greater wisdom and skill. Do you suppose humanity has no loving parents silently assisting it?

Hmm. I get that you are saying it is not by ET’s that we are to be protected from ourselves, but from the other side – and I guess that means from the higher dimensions, which means, from our own greater selves.

Yes, and the  point raised by these questions is that the way forward is precisely the way that may seem most irresponsible, because it addresses causes and not apparent causes, and employs real forces as opposed to pretend forces. Work on yourselves, one individual at a time, no matter what else you concern yourself with, and you will be doing what you can. Omit to work on yourself and nothing else that you do will matter much, and may in fact hinder. Do you see why?

I’m willing to hear it spelled out.

Increasing your connection to your non-3D self – interacting more freely, accepting guidance more routinely, expressing your own preferences more clearly – affects the non-3D world which is where the pattern is laid down for the 3D world you recognize. Trying to effect changes in the 3D directly is more challenging, because for one thing you are attempting to overcome already-manifested effects, and for another, you in 3D don’t know and cannot know which levers to pull.

It is well to recognize your values and act as best you can, to manifest them in the world, but how do you do that? By preaching to others? By serving as example? By organizing like-minded individuals? Nothing wrong with any of these approaches, but consider how limited they are, in that they attempt to reverse already-manifested realities, as opposed to concentrating on contributing what you can to the non-3D consensus of what should come next in the world.

Wait a minute! That’s a huge change, casually plopped in the stream like a boulder. First you say, we are being supervised and perhaps somewhat protected by the forces of the higher dimensions, now you say it’s still up to us. You don’t see some tiny contradiction there? I’m smiling, but I’m serious too.

Of course I see the contradiction, and it is typical of your civilization at this point in its development and change to see it as a contradiction. But from another point of view, it is not a contradiction, and it is to that point of view that you will need to come.

• I said that science as presently constituted cannot bring a culture to the reality it needs to address. This is because science and religion and art and personal exploration are still describing different realities. Only when they again see the same reality will they be able to work together and assist each other in the way that binocular vision adds depth perception.
• I said, don’t go looking to other 3D beings – and what else are ETs, but 3D beings, however different their connection to their non-3D dimensions may be than yours?
• I said, don’t expect to change society by working on the 3D level rather than at the level from which 3D reality manifests.
• And I said, human activity is being supervised protectively by forces which are non-3D and are nonetheless still integrally connected to human existence.

Doesn’t all this give you what you need to know?