Only Somewhat Real: Suffering, in 3D and All-D

Tuesday, October 3, 2017

Seems to me you have a good opportunity for teaching us how “all is well” coexists with all not being well, in the latest terrorist incident, in Nevada.

Yes, it will serve.

My way is that once I know that something like that happened, I avoid anything more than the bare fact itself. I don’t immerse myself in the detail and the analysis that is sure to follow. I suppose that is somewhat ostrich-like, but it seems to work best for me.

Not your reaction to the JFK murder, however. Could your subsequent reaction to tragedies have been molded in reaction to your reaction to that event?

Interesting thought. I didn’t even want to know anything about various theories as to who really killed him. I accepted the official story, and my mourning was too deep to allow me to touch the questions, for decades, literally. It must have been 25 years before I emerged from that shell-shocked condition.

And you weren’t about to allow yourself to be equally traumatized again.

No. I walled it off. I remember that. I felt Bobby Kennedy’s murder deeply, but I stayed away from reading about it after the first week.

Now consider the situation. In the 3D world, there was your suffering and there was the resultant habit to deal with the possibility of similar shocks. What about in the All-D, where your 3D reactions were only a part of the reality?

I don’t know, you tell me.

Outside of time and space – which in context means in the world beyond the constrictions of 3D-ever-moving-present-moment life – what was real? Your day to day movements of your body? Your moment-by-moment words, thoughts, emotions, reactions? It probably seems like it, but no. Outside of the present moment, what is real is –

Well, we’re going to have to backfill for a moment. It is true that in one way every moment of your lives is real and enduring and vividly alive. That is what the Akashic Record is, really, each moment held like a fly in amber, except alive. But it is equally true that this could be considered your soul’s record, while your spirit’s record is in what you sometimes call the completed self.

I think you mean, the spirit’s record could be thought of as the end-of-the-story record, rather than the moment-by-moment record. It is how the spirit was changed by the events and by my reactions to the events, from the point of view of “that life is over and done with; here’s the net result.”

Yes, that is the sense of it.

Which as usual begs the question of how there can be a net effect when every possible path in my life is taken, including any paths in which JFK wasn’t killed in Dallas. As usual, the question is, why wouldn’t they all cancel out.

And as usual the answer is, they don’t cancel, they add. The result is not a result of attrition but of addition. The very plethora of results is the answer.

I keep forgetting that. My tendency is to think that a life will produce a result that will be built upon, and I keep getting reminded that a life produces a huge range of results, all of which considered together, and only all of them considered together, is the result.

It makes a difference. Many a conundrum in logic disappears when you realize that common sense is misleading you by over-simplifying the situation.

A hierarchy of reality

So, to consider our response to your question. What is real in your life, as seen from the non-obstructed All-D perspective, is the result in you of going through such experiences either directly or vicariously. Yes, your moment-by-moment reaction is as real as the 3D world, but in a way, it isn’t any realer, even though it continues to exist in a way the moving-present 3D world does not.

To put it in a hierarchy of reality:

1) The 3D experience itself, including bodily impact, anything sensory.

2) The psychic portion of the 3D experience; what enters the Akashic Record.

3) The net effect on this version of your life of having gone through the experience.

The first tier hurts; the second tier has meaning; the third tier contains the potential from that life forward.

Well, what about the time I healed Joseph Smallwood’s injured back? [As described in Chasing Smallwood. I, working in an altered state from 1994, changed what had happened in 1863, with momentous consequences. Impossible, according to conventional views of reality. Less unusual than we might think, according to the scheme sketched out by our non-3D friends.] Didn’t one life move to at least the Akashic Record version of another life and alter it, thus opening a new path for the entire life, at least that version of his life?

And perhaps you might have been able to – still could – cause him to move his body [during the battle] to avoid the crippling blow. That would be at the first-tier level of reality. Wouldn’t that be a good thing?

I’m sensing a trap. I don’t know if I would still be me if he didn’t have his altered-state experience of an angel healing him. If that is a true risk, I don’t suppose I would change things even to spare him. But, is it a true risk?

Remember, you are considering one given time-line. It isn’t like it would remove all other possibilities or even one of them.

Ah, but in effect I would be creating a new possible time line, and I would be somehow tied to it.

Haven’t you spent years wondering why you couldn’t live in a timeline in which Kennedy did not get killed?

For the first time, I’m beginning to understand. Not all timelines lead to the same place, of course. From your third tier of reality, where we come out is more important than what we go through to get there.

That’s the idea.

Can’t avoid the speed bumps if we want to traverse the road.

That’s a little too simple, but close enough. Now, enough for a while.

All right. Thanks for all this.

 

Only Somewhat Real: Passion and conflict

Physical train wrecks and psychological debris and vast impersonal forces flowing through us.

This will go better, the more each reader brings to mind specifics as we discuss the general principles. That is, you all know how these forces sweep through your lives; you see it first hand, you see it in dramas and histories and twice-told talks. Passion and conflict is at the heart of story, after all. No conflict, no story. But is conflict as simple a thing as self-interest colliding with self-interest? You could make a reasonable argument that that is all it is, but we would say that argument would amount to “nothing buttery,” and would clarify nothing.

Lust manifests! Anger, envy, swollen pride manifest! You see them on all sides. Conversely, anybody could tell first- or second-hand stories of noble actions, of self-sacrifice, of quiet unnoticed heroism. Scratch any story and you will find people acting out of motivations, and scratch the motivations and you will find desirable or undesirable passions, maybe quiet, even placid, but passions. An old woman may be invisibly passionate over her flower garden, or her pets, or – anything, really. The key here is not “woman” but “invisibly.” Although passion is at the heart of all drama, not all passion expresses itself in a dramatic fashion.

The point is that these forces make up your life. The man who sacrifices his life day by day at a meaningless job, that his children may live and hopefully may live better than he, is acting from conviction, and what is conviction rooted in, if not some passion?

We will not continue to pile up examples. Look at other aspects of your life, the events around you and those you only hear of. Wars, cooperation, disasters and disaster relief, millions of private enterprises commercial and otherwise, and millions of pointlessly destructive activities like vandalism. Music, art, poetry, technology, finance, scholarship – all the forms of human activity you can think of. At some place they connect to passion.

So where does it come from? In trying to answer that, realize that plugging in a word like “instinct” is not an answer (because not a process, not a linking-together of things, but a word implying “nothing but”); it is a decision not to inquire. So – inquire. Where does this force come into your life from?

Spirit and soul

You may think, “I was born with it,” and that is certainly true, but it doesn’t actually answer anything. All it says is that you have never lived without it. (Nor could you.) But we knew this: Soul without Spirit is not living in the 3D world; it is closer to being a ghost of itself.

All right, but that sort of answers the question, doesn’t it? These forces are the forces of Spirit.

Fine. And what are the forces of Spirit?

I take it the answer is not as simple as “The electricity that runs through the wires,” or “The light that shines through the fiber optics.”

That would be merely to restate in other words what was said. Resist the temptation to consider the Soul as in 3D and the Spirit as coming from the non-3D somehow. Try to see both inhabiting the All-D, so that, although they coexist in the same space, Spirit is mostly not comprehended by Soul. You could say, pretty accurately, that Soul is bound to its 3D limitations in which it was founded, while Spirit inhabits all of reality, not only the 3D portion of it, hence is invisible to greater or lesser extent depending upon how conscious the Soul is or becomes. Spirit is always here, always functioning, but is it not always perceived, and rarely is perceived in the same way at different times by different Souls.

That certainly makes sense to me.

The next step is to realize that since Spirit interpenetrates your being, its vagaries are going to affect you, often directly.

I didn’t realize that Spirit has vagaries. I think of Spirit as – well, as a vast impersonal force, the way you have been describing it.

You are thinking of Soul and Spirit as two different kinds of things that happen to intersect in human enterprises. But Spirit created Soul. It animates Soul. It shares its essence with Soul.

I thought we were saying that a Sam creates a soul of its own essence.

Do you think a Sam’s essence (even in so far as it is personal) is somehow different from Spirit? That we have Spirit on the one hand and Sam on the other?

I guess I don’t know what I thought. I never thought about that as a problem at all.

Well, let us give the kaleidoscope a shake and see if anything emerges more clearly. Look at it this way. Sam = Spirit creating and incorporating and developing and fostering Souls. In being so engaged, it loses some of its freedom of action (somewhat as a parent does to a dependent child) and becomes part of a compound being. So the difference between what we call Sam for convenience and what we continue to call Spirit is whether one is or is not part of a compound being.

So I take it that Spirit too can be subdivided into more or less individuals, some of whom make one choice, others other choices?

“As above, so below.” What is individual seen one way is community seen another way.

Huh! Well this is a startling development.

Think about it and we’ll come back to it.

 

 

Only Somewhat Real: WYSIWYG

Monday, October 2, 2017

WYSIWYG (Pronounced “wissywig”)

To continue, then: How can all be well when all is not well, at the same time?

And you heard the answer even as you wrote.

Well, I heard the analogy: How can we be individuals and communities at the same time?

Mostly it is a question of focus. “What You See Is What You Get” is an expression you use sometimes. Perhaps this is true in a sense not intended by those who invented it.

No, In computer terms, WYSIWYG means transparency: Literally, whatever you are looking at is the result. It means there won’t be translation errors, you might say. But you are using it to mean, depending on how we choose to see things, that’s how they are.

Well – not quite.

Smiling. I get that a lot.

Better than “Dead wrong,” probably, or “Don’t be ridiculous.”

Better. Still smiling. So –

Depending on how you choose to see things, that’s the aspect of them that seems to you to be real. That often seems like the only aspect that is real. In this case, closer to “choose your own reality” than “create your own reality.” It isn’t that you are shaping reality by how you choose to see it, but that you might say you are shaping you, shaping your reality (which after all is the only reality you can know, your reality; you can’t know the ultimate reality any more than we can. Our perception of reality is always going to be less than whatever reality really is in essence).

So, then, accepting that, how does it tie in to the vast impersonal forces you keep mentioning?

First, are you clear that life is how it appears to you, more than how it really is?

I’d never get away with a sentence like that, but I know what you mean. Life is always our personal subset of reality. We never see the entire picture, only our subset which we often take to be the entire picture. I am clear on that, yes. Even the fact that each of us has uncounted versions living different timelines tells me that reality has to be bigger than anything anyone or any one timeline can apprehend. By definition, really.

All right. So then it shouldn’t surprise you – though we suspect that it will – to hear that the shape the world is in is no more fixed than anything else, except in any given timeline.

That makes perfect sense, and you’re right, it never occurred to me. Not sure why. Or, actually I suppose it has been obvious all along, but in a different context that I didn’t happen to associate with this one.

Most of learning is less the acquisition of new facts than the associating of what you already know in different contexts.

And I’m starting to get your drift.

Systematic inversion

Well, it shouldn’t really surprise anybody that the world they see around them is integrally connected to the version of themselves that is walking that particular timeline. I mean, how else could it be? You and your world can’t be connected only arbitrarily. External events are only seemingly external and unconnected, as Rita was at some pains to point out in the context of the newly dead soul realizing that its 3D life had all been internal after all. It is in the confusing of external and internal that so many people’s anguish takes place. And perhaps you can spell that our in our place.

You seem to be saying, if we didn’t take “external” events to be more real than the internal life we know first-hand, we wouldn’t be so upset at how badly things go. Can that be what you really mean? I know, “not quite.”

It’s hard to find an equally useful phrase, you will admit. No, this requires some careful spelling-out.

Up to you, I think. It’s just a jumble to me so far. [More or less immediately:] I hear you: Slow down and center. So I will.

You will notice a pattern. Once we point it out you will, anyway. When there is a lot to be said, you sometimes start to race your editorial motors, and it doesn’t improve reception.

True enough. So –

If you take external events to be self-evidently real, if only because they seem to be perceived and accepted by everybody around you, you are going to wind up giving them primacy of reality. I mean, they will seem realer to you than the many thoughts, feelings, emotions that make up your life. It is crazy but natural: What is remote from your experience will seem more real than what is immediately at hand.

And don’t think this means only events you may see on the news. The things that happen to you – the innumerable things not necessarily of any importance that make up the external interface with the world also may seem more real, because more undeniable and more unmalleable, then the internal events. So, tying your shoe, eating your breakfast, driving your car, reading your mail, talking on the telephone – that kind of thing – is all going to seem realer to you than your own thoughts! It’s crazy, seen from our viewpoint, except that we do understand the underlying dynamics.

So do I, now that you come to explore them: We are used to crediting our senses more than our intuitions. Sensory data seems objective, intuition or call it non-sensory data seems at least debatable.

Does this seems like a stretch, then? To say that 3D life is a life that systemically inverts the order of importance of things?

I can see it. But seeing it doesn’t overrule the reality I experience. My lungs still function correctly or they don’t, and my part in that seems secondary to environmental forces.

Why, and how, all is well

Well, we aren’t trying to say that people in 3D conditions ought to be able to overcome them; just the contrary, in fact. 3D life was designed to work, not to be superseded or outmaneuvered. Our point here is that this systematic distortion in how you understand the world, rooted in how you experience the world, helps explain how “all is well” and “all is not well” can coexist, both being true depending upon viewing point.

It still comes perilously close to saying, “It’s all a show; those mangled bodies don’t mean anything.”

No, that is not the idea. What we are really getting to is that the reality is the energy flowing through those lives, it is not the external incidents that you can see, that result from energy flows, and redirect energy flows.

I’m starting to get what you’re driving at. They are real forces, real consequences. But the reality is in the real part of us, and not in the merely physical part of us.

You’ve gotten it by a spark leaping mind to mind, but your readers may not get it from the words they’ve read so far. Some may, some may not.

Well, how to put it any clearer? Our emotions, and that includes all the emotions of anybody in any news event, are real, and they are the point of the experience. They – and whatever changes they result in, within ourselves – are what we will take with us (so to speak) in the realer All-D world. Nobody carries a burned building or an exploded bomb or a deadly virus from 3D into All-D. They are all, you might say, local phenomena. In that sense, it hardly matters what happens externally on earth (i.e. in 3D). What matters is what happens internally to each of us, because that is what is real and that is what will persist. In that sense, all is well no matter the train wreck.

Although, it does leave the fairly large question of what about the psychological debris caused by the physical train wrecks.

That has everything to do with those same forces we keep promising to discuss. And of course, your time being up –

Next time. Okay, thanks.

 

Only Somewhat Real: Unfinished creation

Sunday, October 1, 2017

III. All Is Well?

Unfinished creation

We as 3D beings may be receiving different-colored input (so to speak), as well as coloring it ourselves?

You are part of a process, not only the result of a process. Creation isn’t finished, and creation isn’t something that was done to you, so to speak. It is something done with you, and is forever being done with you, not merely to you. Remember this, if you can.

As I was writing that, I got an image of people watching television, passively receiving input.

That may be how it seems to them, and it may be how it seems to you, but in reality even “passive” is active, in a sense. You might as well describe plants in a garden as being passive to input like water. Receiving is transforming, conscious or not. It isn’t really possible for you (that is, for anyone) to remain unaffected by anything that flows through you. Even an active decision not to be changed would be a change, you see.

The resolution would itself be a change from a prior state.

Even if it were a continuing resolution, yes, it represents an effect of an interaction.

Moral of story, be careful what you allow in as input?

Well, that could be a long subject if we followed it out. After all, what you choose to allow in can’t exactly be said to be random. But yes, you need to choose as much by what you won’t consider as by what you consider and decide upon. The point at the moment, though, is that you are never inert recipients; you are by nature, and inevitably, creators. That one particular aspect that you attribute to your God or gods is the one single descriptor that best includes all humans. Creators. But creation is not merely a matter of imagination, of focused thought, any more than it is merely of skilled hands, or channeled willpower. It is your essence, your continued and uninterrupted and uninterruptable effect upon the world around you and within you. Every moment, you create by what you are. You are creating your flower, remember; you are creating a habit-system (your mind); you are molding the possibilities of the present moment in the context of past moments and future moments. And of course it all proceeds in a broader context – past lives, other versions, interactions with all the parts of your Sam, and so on  and so forth.

I don’t know, that sounds kind of high-flying. Too mystical to still have any practical meaning, almost.

Choose your battles

Oh do you think so? Then you tell me (so to speak) the meaning of uncounted lives that last maybe 10 or 15 years in the middle of some African war-zone, or in semi-starvation somewhere in Asia, or in meaningless drudgery in middle America. We are not here referring to poverty or suffering or even a sense of ennui or depressed frustration, though there are plenty of exemplars of those. But, in general, how do you make sense of the world if you think (implicitly, as you often do) that the measure of a life is what one does with it?

All is well, then? Is that why you can say all is well? Because no matter how miserable a life people may have, it is a creation somehow?

You see, we just pushed a button you didn’t quite realize was still wired up.

You certainly did, I take it [you did so] deliberately.

Well, we aren’t sorry to have done so. the more you are aware of, the larger your options, as you know.

I put it, if it’s unconscious it controls you, and if you make it conscious, you control it.

It comes to the same thing. It is always well to have compassion for others and to do what you can for those who touch your life. But it is a hasty person who concludes that life is poorly designed because the world is full of suffering or – an even more common, if unconscious reason – because the world does not conform to our expectations of it, or our desires for it. Here’s an experiment: Why don’t you do something to prevent the slave trade of the 17th century? Or, why not prevent the Roman Republic from degenerating into the Roman Empire? Or stop the Opium War of 1842? Those are all worthy causes, and your ability to affect them is exactly the same as your ability to affect things halfway around the world today.

Between the lines, I get, “unless your life calls you that way.”

Well, unless your life brings you there, or brings them to you, yes. Explain.

You aren’t saying don’t help when you can; you’re saying don’t confuse feeling bad over a situation with actually doing something to help, and don’t spend your life feeling guilty that you are leading your life instead of somebody else’s. I get that the people who formed the anti-slavery society, for instance, were doing something that came to them, or they were finding a way to affect something that was affecting them. This isn’t a contradiction to what you’re saying, but an illustration of it.

That’s right. If you are called to a crusade, all right. But if you are called to every crusade, well – not only do practical objections arise, but what you are doing with your self-creation is not perhaps what you think you are doing. Look, all paths are good; we aren’t saying, “Don’t do that, it’s futile,” any more than we would say, “Don’t do that, you’ll make God mad at you.” We are saying what you decide will be what you do, and what you do (internally as well as externally) will be what you are. And it is “what you are” that ultimately will count.

Life is always good

But there is a larger point to be made, and a more difficult one, that is closer to our central concern. Life is good, no matter what it looks like to you. Human life on earth in 2017 is not mostly a failure, no matter how it looks to you. Your political and social and economic and ecological troubles – not to mention the huge spiritual vortex stirring up everything, ramping up the intensity of all conflicts, and not merely in the United States – all of this could tempt you to say, “All is obviously not well. We are doomed. The injustice of the world is suffocating us all.”

Here’s the thing: Can you hold that thought and feeling – which is not wrong – and still realize that all is well because all is always well?

I think people would be glad if you could help them with it.

We can, probably making them angry in the process because it involves associating two lines of thought that they typically are careful to keep separate, even if they shuttle from one to the other several times a minute.

Exaggeration for effect, I take it.

Not much of one. On the one hand, follow the news, with its unending serial of disaster upon problem upon intractable conflict. You mostly do it all the time, scarcely even noticing. Studying it in history isn’t all that much different from allowing it to flow through you via television or computer or gossip. Even sagas of heroism, altruism, even success stories, take place against a background of on-going train wrecks. Or, if you prefer to believe in the existing state of affairs as desirable, you see it as a past record of achievement now being threatened by the forces of (the left, or the right, depending upon your villain of choice). Either way, this half of your mind is pretty firmly mounted in a setting of on-going unfairness, stupidity, incompetence, malice and – in general – a throwing-away of all good possibilities, and unnecessarily.

True enough. That has been my experience since Nov. 22, 1963. [The day the assassination of President John F. Kennedy changed everything.]

Certainly. You compare what did happen with what you think might have happened, or should have, could have happened, and it all looks like waste.

It does.

So you understand half of the dilemma, the half that looks around and says all is certainly not well, and anybody who thinks so is blind or stone-hearted. And by nature and on faith you nonetheless hold to the conviction that somehow all is well, regardless.

I hold to it, I feel it, but I certainly can’t explain it or even defend it.

And, unlike many, you are able to hold both incompatibles at the same time. Do you know why?

I do since you just conveyed it. (At least I imagine that’s what just happened.) It’s because I got “all is well” not from somebody else, either first-hand or second-hand, but from essence. The guys flowed it through me, telling Rita in 2001, and I never doubted it, even if, as you point out, it is incompatible with everything else I know.

That is where we can go next, then. How can both be true, and what does that tell us about those vast impersonal energies flowing through you, which we remind you is our main focus at the moment.

 

Only Somewhat Real: Our lives as we know them

Saturday, September 30, 2017

How do you want to proceed?

Before we addressed those couple of questions, we were describing compound beings living, deciding, shaped by and shaping (to a slight individual effect but a somewhat larger cumulative and collective effect) the winds of spirit that blow through them. Rather than address the remaining question in its own terms, we shall proceed in a slightly different direction that will get us there just the same.

We remind you, as you seem to need to be reminded periodically, that all of this effort, on Frank’s part, on our part – and of course that includes everybody who has participated, not only Rita and other named individuals, but the many lumped in the category of “guys upstairs” – all this effort is not so that we may draw castles in the sky or that you may daydream “what if” pictures to compare with other schemes, but so that you may change your lives. In other words, work with this, don’t merely be entertained by it. You don’t have to accept it, or reject it, but, work with it, wrestle with it. See what you really think.

Of course, this too is within your choice, but the reminder is there. We don’t mean this as a chastisement, but think of us as an alarm clock, set to go off at unpredictable intervals, lest you fall asleep and have no one to nudge you.

So, keeping in mind that we intend to give you something of practical use, let’s consider your lives as you know them. In all their infinite variety, still they have patterns common to all. No need to enumerate them, you know life. But for the moment, concentrate on your emotional life, or – let’s say, your internal life, which is nearly but not quite the same thing.

How forces flow through us

When the morning’s energies flow though you, how do they flow? Do they flow through unshaped space?

I think you are meaning some illustrative images, like wind flowing across a field, unobstructed; or funneling through terrain, perhaps through and between trees, or being channeled down the streets of Manhattan, or blowing into windows on one side of a house, blowing through and emerging on the other side, things like that.

Yes only more intricate, more obstructed, more convoluted, and at the same time under less pressure and more pressure.

Harder to find an image for that. Air conditioning is one example that comes to mind, perhaps an absurd example.

Not so bad in some ways. Air conditioning is channeled through duct work, and the ducting may be looked at as both channel and obstruction, as interference with flow and as magnifier of flow. But for the analogy to work, you need to see your lives as the building, and the ductwork as the pattern of your life to date; that is, at any given moment.

I see that a less mechanical and solid analogy would serve us better. It would need to be able to change the ductwork moment by moment, like a computer responding to commands of a programmer.

More than that, it would need to allow for different kinds of winds blowing through. Experiment: Try another analogy.

Okay, let me think. [Pause] All right, the analogy came to me, but I think it will end up causing us some confusion of ideas.

If it does, we will deal with it.

Instead of wind, let’s think of the forces as electricity moving through a neural net. The configuration of the net determines the direction of flow and, to some extent, the strength of the flow (in inverse proportion to the obstacles it throws up, the tortuous pathways it requires). The configuration is determined not by the electricity but by the controller of the net, however we wish to envision that.

A much more elastic, serviceable analogy. We congratulate you.

I can’t decide whether that is sarcasm. I’m well aware that what I did was wait, receptively, holding the requirement in mind, until it surfaced.

No need to fear sarcasm. When something has been achieved, it has been achieved.

Okay. So then—?

Well, you see, between the two analogies, you get closer to the idea we are trying to present. Analogy is never exact, but two or more may together suggest what cannot quite be stated outright.

Yes, the guys told me that, as long ago as when I asked them to write bits of Muddy Tracks.

Different characteristics

All right, so look at what we have. Energy flows through you. If it did not, your computer would not work, so to speak. But how it flows through you is not the same as what flows through you.

May I? I think you mean, the very same energy, flowing though us, will appear to be different in that it will exhibit different characteristics depending on the nature of what it flows through.

No, not quite. It is the same energy, and depending upon what it flows through, it will seem to  exhibit different characteristics. Spirit will be blamed or credited for what it animates, not for its own neutral animating force.

A better analogy comes to me: Light shines through a vast maze of fiber-optic threads, and the configuration of the threads is what channels the light.

Now you have three analogies; so much the better. Continually triangulating, you can get closer to it.

Now, bear in mind the contradictions in what we have said, for it is in reconciling contradictions that greater understanding is produced. We have described these vast impersonal forces – and we repeat these words for a reason – as representing or even exemplifying what you know as sinful or soulful attitudes, negative or positive biases, predilections that dominate and complicate your lives. We have also described these vast impersonal forces as being, in effect, causative and neutral, like wind, like channeled air, like electricity, like light. That is contradiction, and in contradiction, if faced and (so to speak) faced down, is greater understanding to be found.

In effect, you are asking us to be Rita when she was in the body, posing questions and pointing out ambiguities and contradictions.

Wrestling with the material, yes. Taking it seriously. That’s the invitation.

And I guess I’m Rita – me, and anybody else who posts a comment on my blog or emails me – in loco parentis. Well, how do you reconcile the two positions?

We don’t.

I beg your pardon?

We don’t reconcile them, we use them to show contrasting points of view, or rather, to show that they are contrasting points of view. And in such case, resolution always comes only by moving to a higher, more encompassing perspective.

The analogies are still too simple. They are good as halfway houses, to position you, but they contradict the facts somewhat. The resolution is in realizing that the terms are too simple. It is as if all the light shining through the fiber optics must be white light, or all the electricity must be at the same amperage or voltage.

All light may have been white on the morning of creation (so to speak), but that was a long time of experience ago. All voltages may have been uniform initially, but, again, not by now. Remember, these are analogies. Try not to get caught up in the logical problems caused by the nature of the analogy; center on the logical problems posed by what the analogies are trying to convey.

I get that by this act of the play, nothing is pristine; everything shows the result of prior use.

An interesting take on what we are trying to convey. Not that the forces of the world are shopworn, but that the very energies that flow through you are themselves the product of much that happened before you arrived on the scene. It isn’t white light, but light some of whose qualities have been enhanced or hampered. (That is a definition of color, you see.)

So that we as 3D individuals may be receiving different inputs, as well as treating our inputs differently?

Next time.

Okay. I’m a little at sea, and yet at the same time this felt like it began to clarify some things. Next time, then.

 

Only Somewhat Real: Naming

Thursday, September 28, 2017

Three questions queued up:

Henry Reed: Many ancient cosmologies point to a dualistic interplay of opposites that produce creation… light, dark, yin/ yang, creator/destroyer … any relation to what somebody is referring to? Is somebody’s perspective shared by everyone in all-d, or are we interacting with something that expresses relative to its history?

Subtle Traveler: I am wondering if a more focused question helps expand the conversation here. What are the underlying forces of lust? Desire? Attraction? Ever expanding (pro-creation) Consciousness? Something beyond human language?

Jane Peranteau: We are affected by the forces as they come through. Do we affect the forces in any way, other than by how we express or channel them? In other words, you could say they hone us. Do we hone them? Or is it just about honing us?

Symbols and idols

Somebody? – And, do you mind if we give you a name, just for ease of reference? I realize that behind the name may be a shifting coalition of forces, and that the person responding to the name one day may not be the same person another day, but you see how we’re situated. Calling upon “somebody,” as I have done, isn’t any improvement over calling you Jack, or Rover, for that matter. A name you’d like?

We do see the problem, and rather than having you call us Fido or something, we will agree to a name. but – you select the name. If we were to select it, people would wind up reading things into the name, no matter how often or how emphatically we might deny any implied significance.

Oh, this is the dynamic behind the creating of idols in the desert in the Moses story, isn’t it?

Human nature – or perhaps we should say compound-beings’-reaction-to-3D-limitations, only “human nature” is far more concise – doesn’t change much over time. The Jews wandering around in the desert were uncomfortable owing their allegiance to an abstraction. A golden calf had symbolism; it offered visual reassurance. And, as is typical of human 3D reactions, a symbol became an objectified reality in about three seconds.

Hence the tension over the centuries in all the religions over representation or iconoclasm.

“All” might be a little too broad, but in general, yes. People who have an ability to perceive abstractly are not as numerous as those who take sensory reality to be “the” reality, and anything beyond that reality to be just words, or anyway either debatable or somewhat fuzzy, somewhat theoretical. So religions using symbols move over time toward a more literal interpretation of symbol as itself the thing symbolized, and you have the worship of idols. And, conversely, over time every so often counter-forces will acquire influence and will smash those symbols and representations as idols.

Thus the Protestant sects that accused Catholics of being idolaters, and did not allow any statues or paintings of individuals. And come to think of it, thus Islam, with its ban on the creation of similar representations in art. (I wonder how they deal with photography, let alone the Internet.) And at the other extreme, Hinduism with its vast array of statuary and art, Buddhism with its endless array of statues of the Buddha.

You may choose to look at the tension of opposites as an example of the natural effect of living in a dualistic world. There is no “right” position, and no “wrong” position other than the position that claims unique validity for itself. But even that is an argument waiting to happen, and perhaps our focus today should be less abstract.

Yes, but that was a very interesting side-light. Okay, I’ll call you – let me think –

[pause]

Naming

I’m tempted to say Moses, in the hope that you will lead us out of the wilderness of our own confusions. But Moses never saw the promised land, come to think of it. Or, he saw it, but he could never get there. that was left to others.

I’m tempted just to call you Friend. But then somebody sure as shooting would read Quaker into it. Ridiculous to spend so much time on something totally arbitrary anyway, but for some reason this seems important. I can’t use the name of people I respect as pioneers – Swedenborg, Emerson, Thoreau, etc. – for the same reason, to avoid unwanted associations. And you decline to suggest, then?

You can see why, in your own process. It can be very difficult to avoid unwanted accretions by those who come later, perhaps with misplaced admiration, let alone reverence. That is what happens in churches.

Oh, I know. I’ve been explaining that for years to people who think churches lose integrity only by someone’s malicious intent. Superstitions grow from the bottom; they aren’t imposed from the top. But this still doesn’t result in a name. Maybe we ought to just proceed to the business at hand?

Maybe this – and the thoughts it brings up – is the business at hand.

Interesting. Well – Nathaniel. I don’t know where that comes from, but suddenly there it is. Let’s call you Nathaniel.

That’s fine, and we’ll see how long you can remember the caveats about it being only a brand name, only a label, and not an individual.

And don’t go looking for significance in the name.

You just saw, and shared, the process. Ultimately it was like any time you “get” a bright idea: It wasn’t there and then it was, and who is to say why it emerged? But hopefully our spelling out the process of searching for it will discourage people from being too sure of whatever significance they choose to attach to it.

Okay, we’ll see.

Duality

So, let’s go to work. Henry’s question?

[Henry Reed: Many ancient cosmologies point to a dualistic interplay of opposites that produce creation… light, dark, yin/ yang, creator/destroyer … any relation to what somebody is referring to? Is somebody’s perspective shared by everyone in all-d, or are we interacting with something that expresses relative to its history?]

Two questions, actually, the second quite incisive. The first is easily dealt with: The dualities he cites are examples of people’s interpretation and representation of the dualistic nature of reality as experienced in the constricted awareness you are calling 3D. Everything expresses as part of a duality, and it was the contribution of these ways of thought to see that duality extended to the non-physical world (as they thought of it, most of them) as well as manifesting in the physical world they experienced.

But as to the second question, that is not so easily answered. Superficially, yes, we could say – and will say – that everyone observing the same conditions will describe them more or less in the same way, and so what we are setting out would be obvious to anyone in the All-D – that is, anyone whose perspective is not constricted by 3D conditions. But at a deeper level, any agreed-upon view of anything, seen more closely, resembles a compromise rather than a definitive view. Is the color orange really a color at all, or a compromise between red and yellow? And the same question applies to red and yellow, of course. So, for all practical purposes, everybody in All-D sees what we see. But if you look at that shared agreement more closely, it would break down somewhat. We will not pursue this farther, as it is a distraction in context, save to note the fact.

Subtle Traveler’s question is going to be an involved discussion, I imagine, so how about dealing with Jane’s first?

Interaction of forces

The short answer is yes, it is a mutual interaction. But don’t take that to mean that 3D choices will—

Well –

The closer you look at this, the more complex and nuanced it is. As usual.

If we stick to the human level as commonly experienced – that is, if we consider only the effect of 3D decisions upon the forces that blow through them – then you could say, no, there is no effect. Hurricanes are not much affected by whether you do or don’t leave a lawn chair out on the deck. The lawn chair will be affected! But the hurricane, no. The disparity of forces is immense.

However, 3D experience indirectly affects you in 3D – that is, the real effect is in your changes, which are decisions express or implied. In turn, changes in you result in change in your overall being, hence in your Sam. Again, the disparity of forces is great, but there is an effect, especially considered cumulatively. And – we aren’t going to go into it – changes in Sams in effect result in changes in the winds sweeping through 3D life. But that is all we’re going to say about that, as well.

And we’ll defer the third question for another time.

Yes. This was better work today than perhaps you realize.

Well, if you say so. Thanks, and more another time.

 

 

Only Somewhat Real: Forces that influence us

Wednesday, September 27, 2017

Soul and spirit

Let us begin our long discussion of the forces that influence your lives, and that your lives use in order to make shapes.

Interesting way to think of it.

An analogy: Think of the air you breathe. Chemically, you change its composition; physically, within limits, you direct the outward flow of breathed air. You are not the air, and yet the air is a part of you, but not as a component so much as part of a process. Air flows through you. It is changed in predictable fashion as it does so, but this is not a one-time change, nor an accident, nor an incident: It is a process, and it must continue if you are to live. Eliminate humans and the air continues to exist and be influenced by other beings. But eliminate air and humans die. For good, for keeps.

So you may wish to think of these “vast impersonal forces” we have been mentioning as the equivalent of air to breathe. And in fact the same word is sometimes used for breath and spirit, and that’s what they are talking about.

I see. I thought I understood before, but this is clearer. The soul is us, the created physical beings attached to strands etc. The spirit is the force that flows through us, animating us, interacting with us, but not us.

That’s correct. You have been close to this understanding, closer sometimes than others, but now you have it. Spirit both is part of you (because you couldn’t exist without it) and is not a part of you (because it has its own independent existence that would not fail in your absence.)

Compound beings are soul and spirit, localized collections of strands and characteristics, serving as conduits for forces forever beyond them. So now that you are clear on that distinction – you interact with spirit; you embody soul – let us look at the forces flowing through you.

The forces of good and evil, I take it.

Good and evil

Well, not quite. Good and evil may be looked at more as effects than as causes.

Huh?

Remember, God looked at his creation and found it good. He didn’t find it good and evil, he found it good. Evil didn’t enter into the picture until a compound being chose to experience the result of perceiving things as good and evil. Dropping into duality, in other words.

But wasn’t “creation” – the 3D world in its widest ramifications – already by nature dualistic?

Only if experienced – seen – that way.

You’re going to have to explain that.

Oh yes, and it won’t be a brief explanation. By the time we have explained it as best we can, many things will appear in different light.

Remember if you can – the 3D world is not exactly a creation, more like a separation from the larger reality. It is a creation in so far as anything is a creation that is gathered together from a larger assemblage, a larger more comprehensive whole. But only in that sense. “The world was created out of nothing” can only mean – nothing like it existed before it was created. That doesn’t mean first there was a vacuum, then there was rubble filling the vacuum.

I get the sense of the 3D world as being a truncated part of reality, and it was the treating the truncated part as if it were a whole that is meant by creation. Is that right, or even partly right?

That is a serviceable interim way to look at it. Remember, we are reminding you, as Rita did, there is one reality, not two. The 3D world is part of the All-D, as we are calling it. So if 3D had been created out of nothing, in the way people commonly understand the idea, what of the rest of All-D? Yes, you might imagine that it was created and unnoticed, or was created and somewhat noticed and considered as the spiritual complement of the physical world, but there is no need for so complicated a reaction.

Considered as a world in itself, the 3D world came into existence when compound beings were – truncated, I suppose we should say – to experience only so much of reality and no more. But it is not this simple.

I notice it never is.

Over-simplifying is one of the great roots of fanaticism and determined ignorance.

So, to continue: The forces that flow through you manifest as good and evil not so much because it is their nature as because that is your nature. It isn’t spirit that is perceiving things as good and evil; it is your perception, just as was said in the Book of Genesis. But misinterpretation of intent leads to mistranslation and misunderstanding, and a devil of a lot of bad theology is based on logical conclusions from bad translations and incorrect assumptions.

“A devil of a lot.” Nice.

Energy flowing

That wasn’t merely a play on words, but no need to underline it. The “vast impersonal forces” that flow through you are beyond the human level in its 3D manifestation. That is, they themselves are a non-human energy transforming what they flow through and being slightly transformed in turn, but they should not be considered to be human energies merely because they flow through humans.

Again, this is going to need to be unpacked.

We’re well aware of it. Tackle this particular bit.

I get that the energy that flows through us manifests as our passions. So, sometimes – depending on what it is flowing through – it may manifest as one of the seven deadly sins, or one of the virtues. I imagine it may also manifest as mental energy, not necessarily associated with either. How different is it from what Freud called libido?

In the sense that it is an energy that does not originate within humans but flows through them, and in some it flows stronger than others, and in some it may get dammed up here, in others there, it is closer to Jung’s idea. It isn’t just sexual energy – that is, to speak more fully, it isn’t in itself sexual energy at all; it may (and often does) manifest in that way, but it is not itself limited to one kind of energy.

Then we should look at it as the source of our animation. Does that mean we each get different amounts, or does it mean our internal makeup means that we each allow different amounts to flow through us?

All the differences between people that may be observed are the results of their initial composition combined with the results of their choices on an on-going basis. But one person’s lesser amount of psychic energy flow does not imply a cosmic injustice. Don’t jump to that conclusion. Here, as everywhere, one size does not fit all. What some handle easily would electrocute others. What is comfortable for one would cause another to die of boredom, so to speak. Should it surprise anybody that it is as complicated and varied as life itself?