The gods at war (continued)

Monday, November 11, 2019

4:55 a.m. Armistice Day.

So, the gods at war, and us.

Let’s say, the gods at war and peace, and you (that is, 3D humans). The older civilizations personified traits and forces; yours depersonalizes them. Neither view is absolute; it is more a matter of taste. But what is true either way is that 3D and non-3D are not and cannot be independent, one from the other. It can’t be. You could as well separate the fates of heads and tails, fore and aft. Distinction between them there is; disconnection there is not and cannot be.

  • A matter of taste and prejudice how the world’s ordering appears to you. But those initial decisions create filters that shape your ability to perceive.
  • Is lightning mere electricity? A bolt of Thor? An omen of this or that? An effect of physical and/or mental and/or force of character?
  • Edgar Cayce’s sources said that force expresses either in human affairs (war, say) or as natural phenomena (earthquakes, say, or volcanoes).
  • The Romans followed omens; so did the ancient Chinese, and the American Indians, and Shakespeare’s characters, etc. Were they all stupid? Ignorant? Merely superstitious?
  • Magicians and priests alike seek to bend non-human power to further human ends. A mistake, all of it?

So far, this is familiar ground, and seems to bring us no nearer to the question of the gods at war.

Bear in mind, the very phrase “the gods at war” must pass through certain filters, to be entertained as possibility. If it do not, it can not be accepted as possible. So, rephrasing the same notion expands the chances of it passing through such filters.

I see that. No wonder you are sometimes so redundant and seemingly repetitious.

In this process, it is “many are called but few allow themselves to be chosen.” We merely widen the throat of the entrance, as best we can.

  • Non-3D forces manifesting in 3D are not perceived as they are, because 3D provides inadequate perceptual grounds. Instead, they are perceived in relation to existing categories. So don’t be so sure what is possible and what is not.
  • Remember, you are the divine, only you are not all that the divine is.

That strikes me as an important statement. Maybe it will be obvious to others, I don’t know.

Well, it is important, but it is only a restating of what we said. How you interpret what you experience depends upon what you are beforehand. More, what you experience, itself, depends upon what you  are beforehand.

I get, that’s why sometimes we get knocked off our horse on the way to Damascus.

That’s right. However, not everybody will know the story these days.

Saul was vigorously persecuting the new heretical Jewish community when, on the way to Damascus, he was knocked off his horse and blinded for three days and asked by a divine force “why are you persecuting me?” When he recovered he was renamed Paul, and for better or worse became a force in the shaping of Christianity. “The Road to Damascus” has been a cultural allusion for 2,000 years. You are telling me, no longer?

Someone rightly said that for a civilization to perish, it is not needed that its books be burned, merely that they be unread for a generation. But after all it is not all loss.

In any case –

You are the divine, but you are only a subset of the divine. Both halves are true, because it cannot be any other way, in the nature of things.

Our 3D conditions are constriction, so non-3D attributes do not manifest here.

Well – let’s say what does manifest does so in congruence with 3D restrictions: this, including miracles.

Given that we extend beyond the 3D, we similarly (or I should say “therefore,” I suppose) perceive with non-3D eyes as well.

You do when your filters allow it, yes.

  • “The gods at war” is the same thing as “natural forces interacting,” but each view has been strained through a different filter.
  • “Animate” v. “inanimate” is a division that seems to be only common-sense observation. Your desk is not given to dancing in the moonlight. Yet this is only a filter operating to make sense of the world.
  • Filters might be grouped by those which make the world static and predictable and those which make it dynamic and even chaotic. The world is neither one nor the other. It is, as it ever was, beyond definition.

Odd feeling: As I am writing this, a bit more slowly than usual, I am aware of a thread of fantasy or something, running through my mind at the same time, almost taking center stage even as I write. What is unusual is less the dual track than the second track being so relatively prominent.

Your minds function on more than two tracks. As your filters allow you to experience them this way, your conscious experience changes, or seems to. What changes is your awareness of your conscious functioning. This is an example of filters in operation.

  • Your filters operate within your culture’s filters, realize, even if sometimes against those filters. So two people of identical composition, looking at the same data through different cultural filters, might see things very differently.

There is no such thing as an “objective” observer.

Not in the sense of seeing what cannot be (that is, an objective truth not dependent upon the conditions of observation). However, what is called “objective” in the sense of independent of personal bias may be a useful distinction.

Messed up that sentence, but I think the sense of it comes through. [Transcribing, I think it meant to say, “objective” v. “subjective” is nonetheless a valid distinction, only more relative than we sometimes think.] Let’s go on rather than trying to fix it.

Always you feel time’s wings hurrying you onward.

Well, I’m wanting to hear about the gods at war.

And aren’t we telling you?

  • First you must realize that life, and therefore your lives within life, cannot be determined by logic. Logic analyzes, but it does not provide what is to be analyzed. Your filters do that.
  • Second, your life in 3D must always be a subset of your life. That you do not recognize your larger life does not mean it does not exist. But if your filters block it, it does not exist for you, and your logic will thus infallibly exclude it, barring miracles.
  • Third, necessarily then, your 3D life is repeatedly, if not continuously, being shaped and affected by forces beyond your cognition or logic. As you are more than you can perceive, so is your life.

And as for us as individuals, necessarily for a culture or civilization.

Yes, only a culture has a greater mass, a greater inertia, a greater stability (three ways to say the same thing) than the individual. Hence change comes from the individual in 3D; stability comes from the context in 3D. It is a balance.

  • But 3D life is a construct, remember. It appears to be solid, but its essence is evanescent.
  • Can a soap-bubble be said to be independent of internal forces (surface tension, say) or of external forces (such as wind or a solid object)?
  • The gods at war, or the gods at peace, exist in their own terms, but their existence necessarily has consequences for the 3D world that experiences their shadows.

What distresses you in our explanation is that it does not match what you thought was going to be forthcoming. Thus it feels like evasion. But have faith.

Well, “faith is the evidence of things unseen,” and I don’t see it yet.

Yes, very funny. But actually you are beginning to see it, only the process of readjusting your filters takes place mostly pre-consciously.

Call this session “the gods at war.”

Thanks. Till next time.


How to deal with science

Friday, August 20, 2010

6:15 AM. A little hard to get moving today.

Remember to balance. You observed the exhaustion in your son-in-law’s eyes from work and child and too little sleep. Your life is easier than his – but you are older, too. So, be wary of disregarding balance, in your continued enthusiasm and avid interest and deep satisfaction. Any of these might tempt a person into imbalance; together they are a powerful lure.

It isn’t much different from Hemingway in the middle of writing a book, I imagine.

No, quite wrong. He tried to balance every day. You do that mentally but not physically.

All right, I’m trying to be careful. And I just got that (of course) this is as much for the benefit of those who can overhear us as for myself.

Of course, for you are only one example, and they are the ones who will turn an example into a movement, if they choose to do so. We almost said “trend” but something that becomes trend-y goes out of favor just as quickly, for just as little reason. But – there are ramifications to this beyond your personal experiences. If there were not, it would still be worth your while to do it, and anything worth your while is worth our while, but it would be in subtle ways entirely different. It would be more as it was until December 2005 when Joseph came in, in response to your (prompted) invitation. Everything since has been of a different order than everything before hand.

So. If you are ready to proceed, we are ready.

Proceed ahead. You’re doing pretty well already!

We’ve done this before. Compose yourself a little.

Yes, I got a little scattered. Okay.

The winnowing of physically possible characteristics proceeds over time by the non-presence of every necessary factor. In other words – but said in that clumsy fashion first so as to get your attention – the lack of any one critical ingredient is enough to prevent any traits dependent upon it from manifesting. However if that lack is then provided – in the following generation, say, as the result of a mating with a partner who furnished it – the traits that had been unable to manifest are again enabled. This is one view of recessive genes.

Now, if the mention of the word “genes” is somewhat of a shock, because not in the accustomed context, so much the better. It is important to remember that though this work and these understandings may proceed – and may have to proceed – in the absence of science, they don’t proceed in defiance of science. And a few words on that subject are needed.

Science remains ignorant of many things. In such matters one is forced into one of three courses. Proceed without science, or attempt to bring the subject matter within the realm of science, or stay with science and discard what is not known. Each of these courses has its advantages and its proper place in the scheme of things; each is appropriate for various types of people with various tasks, priorities, obligations. None is categorically wrong. Like weeds that are defined as “plants out of place,” attitudes toward science may be appropriate for one’s task or not, and there is nothing more to be said on the subject.

What science does know, however, it would be silly to disregard even if it need be totally reinterpreted, for what is going to substitute for detailed analysis and investigation and synthesis and further analysis? Thus, if you are examining the transmission of traits, is it worthwhile to proceed as if Gregor Mendel had never existed, as if his work was irrelevant to the human body of knowledge and, more important, as if his work had not served to point people in the right direction so as to lead to so much that he could not imagine?

If your work is important – we remind you all – so is everyone else’s. That doesn’t mean that everyone else’s is important to you, or accessible to you, even. It only means (one more time) you never have the data to judge where anyone’s work fits into the total picture – anyone else’s, or yours. It is merely a matter of avoiding the twin errors of excessive pride and excessive humility.

So. Genetics. We’re not saying it would be worth your while to study the loss of genetic transmission of possibilities (which is how we see it). It may be, or may not be, and who will prompt you more reliably than your own guidance. We say merely that if you wish further insight into the physical factors governing the transmission of possibilities, that is one very worked-out field of inquiry.

The reason to bring genetics into the discussion that started with rings and threads is so that you see more clearly that we are offering less a new point of view than

Sorry, got that backwards, as thoughts were intruding and competing. Trying again —

Yes. Not new facts never before observed in human history – how likely would that be? – but new interpretations of known facts, and new associations of data usually considered only separately if at all.

The entire subject of genetics is not wrong, nor is it irrelevant! It is, however, misleading as every other field of knowledge is misleading, unless seen in proper context. And conversely, fields of inquiry may be incomplete, or skewed, in the absence of the taking account of genetics. It is not science that is the opposition here, but a superstitious approach to science and a setting it up on a pedestal above equally valid means of inquiry. This has been your society’s norm, but not for much longer.

We don’t seem to be making a lot of headway on the question of rings and threads.

That’s what you think. In this case the journey – the process of associating subjects not previously considered together – is worth more than the goal, which can only be one more analogy, useful but limited. You will remember, we began with a thoroughly mechanistic and ungrounded analogy and have begun to tie it in to your everyday experience and conventional scientific understanding. That isn’t exactly a waste of time.

Take Hemingway as once again an example. His life is well known in outline and detail, however much overgrown the facts may be by the Myth. Take, for instance, his great generosity in financial matters – and his equally monumental pettiness, cattiness, in talking of others.

Those are two traits that might seem to belong to two different individuals. One thinks of a person as being generous or petty; one imposes an idea of consistency upon whatever one’s image of another person happens to be. If there are utterly inconsistent – in fact, contradictory – traits observable in a person’s life, it isn’t enough to say he was one way in one mood, another way in a different mood. (It might be enough, if you knew what a “mood” was!) In practice, that is how you understand, or, or properly said, how you gloss over the difficulty. But if you understand the underlying situation, it becomes tautological.

Hemingway’s person-group contained a great range of traits, some of which manifested as financial generosity, some as backbiting of the most uncharitable kind. Each was a legitimate part of his heritage. That last sentence may stop you. If so, good. We say it again: Each was a legitimate part of his heritage.

Legitimacy, you see, has nothing to do with desirability or admirability. It means, simply, something that has a right to be there. And herein is the germ of an essay in itself. Mark it, when you outline the day’s catch, for you won’t want to let it go unpursued. And to the extent that we can rely on you to keep track of untaken side-trails, just so far can we pursue main trails more easily. Note to anyone reading this: You might try the same technique. In pursuing any main trail, jot down possible side-trails on a piece of paper and continue as you were going. Over time this will add richness of texture.

We have talked of Hemingway’s greatness. Greatness – as you well know, Frank, for it is a saying you have quoted more than once over the years – consists of touching more than one extreme at the same time. (This, as opposed to merely to staking out any given extreme.)

But what does that mean in our context? It means, greatness consists in being able to function by turning a difficulty to advantage. The difficulty is the great range of contradictory elements within one’s person-group. The advantage is in bringing them into productive relationship. Even surviving such an experiment, such a predicament, may be a manifestation of greatness, may be a great accomplishment, even if nothing external results within time-space, for we are here looking at the creation of the individual as tool rather than as product.

I understand that, but maybe I’d better rephrase it. As I understand it, you’re saying, once a person has held greatly divergent elements together in a lifetime, it is easier for others to do the same, and thus the very living-out of these possibilities is an achievement.

Yes, and more, but you have come to the end of your rope, here.

I have. I can scarcely form the letters.

Enough, then, until next time. Don’t let yourself get discouraged or impatient; we are accomplishing what we need to accomplish. But get some exercise today. Take a walk or something.

We’ll see. Till later.

The gods at war

Sunday, November 10, 2019

4:30 a.m. Yesterday after our session, I was tempted to do another. I resisted, but got our theme.

[10:35 a.m. I keep thinking of “the gods love those who willingly do their bidding.” Let’s hope the gods don’t go to war.

[Oh, but they do! Why do you think humans go to war?

[I was speaking rhetorically.

[We are not.

[Another session, then.

[This will do to be the theme of your next session.]

Pray expand upon your statement.

We have arrived at the junction of 3D lives, vast impersonal forces, vast personal forces, the “exterior” world as something in and of itself, and, of course, much more that follows from this understanding of one more way in which the 3D and non-3D worlds tie together.

  • The 3D and non-3D may of course always be considered separately and will make sense to a degree in that context.
  • But, not really.
  • When 3D life is looked at as existing in and of itself to a degree, it makes sense. Seen absolutely, it must always seem tragic, pointless, confusing, tedious: “A tale told by an idiot.”
  • When non-3D is looked at as absolutely (rather than relatively) separate, it too must appear pointless, chaotic, or else disconnected from real life, fairy-tale-like.
  • So, a good instance is the gods at war. In the sense that the Greeks and Romans had, the non-3D is the origin of human conflict and the 3D is more or less the level where conflicts that are nothing to do with humans are played out, or where human conflict engages the gods to take sides. Read The Iliad and The Odyssey for a peek into that worldview. This is the view that was accepted from older times in Caesar’s day.
  • In medieval times, there was less of a sense of divine interest in human affairs but it is still there. Now God and the Devil are seen as battling for human souls, more than as playing politics and warfare. However, “more than” is not “rather than.”
  • By the 19th century, the sense of divine interest in human external affairs was fragmented. Some believed in divine providence, in “fighting for the lord,” and some did not.
  • World War I was the watershed, beginning in Victorian-Era piety and ending in the despair and cynicism and moral exhaustion described by Hemingway and Fitzgerald and a hundred chroniclers of the ordeal as seen in different countries.
  • Only the threat posed by Hitler brought forth a last gasp of real psychological reliance upon God’s help, in the West. But in the postwar era even in the threat of Communism, this emotionally based sense of dependence did not last.

People are going to be accusing me of haring off into history.

Is it you that is speaking, or us? Let’s consider it a joint effort, as always, and proceed.

  • Caesar was considered beloved of the gods. Joan of Arc was an unlettered farm girl whose career was initiated and punctuated either by miracles or by very improbable meaningless coincidences that “just happened” to come time after time when needed. Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain fought four years in the American Civil War (that is, the War of the Rebellion), and saw God’s intervention repeatedly and in detail. It isn’t that non-3D intervention wavers or disappears and reappears throughout history; it is that it is seen, experienced, and interpreted differently.
  • The difficulty here – one difficulty anyway – is that 3D events must be seen in two ways: in and of and for themselves, and as part of the larger whole that has less reference to 3D performances or even constraints.
  • Seen the first way, it shades off into irrelevance and meaninglessness. Seen the other, it shades off into superstition and a different form of irrelevance.
  • However, pathological manifestations do not discredit; they merely show what happens when a given tendency is carried too far.

I appreciate your effort to bring many things into one consideration, and surely the bullet-point format aids this. But can we approach more closely?

We are doing the best we can to get your head faced the right way and get your readers’ heads the same. But we’re swimming against the tide of your times, you know, so it takes a bit of explaining.

We’ll say a few things that maybe will themselves need explaining.

  • “The gods at war” is one way to see vast forces – vast principles, call it, or vast tendencies, one might almost say – contending. There is not a right and wrong about right and left, or up and down, or inside and out, but they lead in contrary directions, and each has its inherent right to expression.
  • Any 3D manifestation is going to be, if not one-sided, at least incomplete, inadequately balanced. This can’t be helped.
  • Imbalance over time in what you call an exterior manifestation, that is in a social environment, will call forth its nemesis.
  • Hence, adjustment via war, or via ebbs and flows of social movements, religions, worldviews, etc. There is no reason to expect reaction to be reasonable.
  • On a personal level, the same forces contend, and an individual life lived in a social context may mesh or clash or do sometimes one and sometimes the other. Washington’s life, Lincoln’s, Lee’s, Marshall’s, all show lives whose strictly personal aspect fitted in with a social necessity. (Bear in mind, the examples that come soonest to mind are those you provide. Plenty of others could be chosen in different fields.)
  • Authors, inventors, reformers, entertainers, “all walks of life,” as it used to be said, live lives personally oriented (that is, they could be seen to have direct reference to the individual’s larger being) and also seen in a social context (that is, they have their effect). Harriett Beecher Stowe, Mark Twain.

There was that woman, too – can’t remember her name, though I will look it up, who wrote The Planter’s Northern Bride. An equally honest counterpoint to Uncle Tom’s Cabin. I don’t know why you are prodding me to mention her. [Caroline Lee Hentz. Interesting novel.]

It is an example of the fact that the gods are to be found on all sides, not just one. In your day you are likely to think of it as a battle of ideals. We would see that as merely a watered-down version of the battle of gods.

Somehow I thought we’d get closer to the center of things.

Righteous persistence brings reward.

Well, I know it is a big job you’re working at. Thanks for all this, and see you next time.


Two great generals

Only three major generals fought the entire revolution from 1775 to 1783. One, you’ve heard of. But the other two, Henry Knox and Nathanael Greene – although famous in their day – have been more or less forgotten over the years. Before we pursue our story backward toward our origins, let’s take a moment to pay them tribute.

1) Bookseller in arms

Henry Knox was not quite 25 in 1775. His father had died when Henry was only nine, and three years later young Henry, as the oldest son, had to leave the Boston Latin School for a job as bookstore clerk to support his mother. Growing up, he became a tough street fighter, and, at age 18, he joined a local artillery company. In 1772 he co-founded the Boston Grenadier Corps and served as its second in command. Meanwhile, in 1771, he opened his own bookshop, the London Book Store, in Boston, and stocked books on military science and always had questions for soldiers who came into his shop.

In 1774, he married Lucy Flucker, the daughter of Boston Loyalists, and made a happy marriage that survived until his death. The following April, the couple sneaked out of Boston after the battles of Lexington and Concord. In his absence, his bookshop was looted, everything being stolen or destroyed, but it hardly mattered. He joined the militia forces besieging the city, and found his true calling. Serving under General Artemus Ward, he planned and constructed fortifications, and he directed cannon fire at Bunker Hill. When General Washington arrived in July, he approved of the work Knox had done, and the two men developed a mutual liking, and John Adams got the Second Continental Congress to commission him.

Before his commission even arrived, he persuaded Washington to send him to Fort Ticonderoga to bring its cannons to Boston, to bring the siege of Boston to a successful end. He got to Ticonderoga on December 5, put together what became known as the noble train of artillery, and used oxen to haul sleds loaded with 60 tons of cannons and other armaments 300 miles to the siege camps around Boston. This involved not only crossing the Berkshire mountains, but crossing iced-over rivers, which of course meant that often enough cannons broke through the ice and had to be retrieved. The difficulties he and his men surmounted were formidable, but even though it took six weeks to do what he had thought would take only two, every cannon arrived, and once they did, the siege could end only one way.

Almost captured in New York, Knox managed logistics in crossing the Delaware before the battle of Trenton, and was promoted to brigadier general for getting the men and equipment across without loss, and then back across the river with prisoners, supplies and all the boats, again without loss. He improved the Army’s ability to manufacture artillery, raised an additional battalion of artillerymen, and established the Springfield armory in the winter of 1777-78 while the army was in winter quarters. The next winter, he established the Continental Army’s first school for artillery and officer training that is considered to be the precursor to West Point. Knox was particularly commended for his role in collecting and directing artillery at the siege of Yorktown, and was promoted to major general in 1782, becoming the army’s youngest major general. After the war ended, he became Secretary of War under the Confederation Congress, and, a few years later, continued as Washington’s first Secretary of War. It was a long journey for a bookseller with a taste for artillery.

2) Self-taught soldier

Nathanael Greene was 32 when the war began in 1775. Starting out as a private in the militia – below which it is not possible to go! – he fought his way up to major general in the regular army, and proved himself to be a gifted and dependable officer. In the last years of the war, his ingenious campaigns turned the war in the south from a shambles into a complete success, leading, slightly indirectly, to the surrender at Yorktown.

Did he see much action? Just call the roll: the siege of Boston and, much later, of Ninety-Six, and the battles of Harlem Heights, Fort Washington, Trenton, Brandywine, Germantown, Monmouth, Rhode Island, Springfield, Guildford Court House, Hobkirk’s Hill and Eutaw Springs.

Self-educated, with special interest in mathematics and law, Greene in 1770 took charge of the family-owned foundry just prior to his father’s death. In 1774, he married, and he also helped organize a local militia, and he began to learn the art of war from volumes on military tactics that he purchased.

Apparently that study paid off. In May, 1775, he was promoted all the way from private to Major General of the Rhode Island Army of Observation. In June the Continental Congress appointed him a brigadier of the Continental Army. The following Spring, after the British evacuated Boston, Washington assigned him command of the city, and in August, he became one of four new major generals.

I pass over the first years of his military career only because he made so critical a contribution in the final years. Suffice it to say, in those years he never lost Washington’s confidence. He accepted the post of Quartermaster General at Valley Forge (and did a good job in hard circumstances) only on condition that he retain the right to command troops in battle. As noted above, he did. But it was in the south that he made an enduring name.

In October, 1780, he was named to command the southern army, and in December he took command at Charlotte, North Carolina. The summer had seen a succession of disasters, culminating in the virtual destruction of the southern army under Horatio Gates. When Greene took command, it was weak and badly equipped and was opposed by a superior force – so Greene divided his troops!

This forced Cornwallis to divide his, as well, with the result that the more mobile and flexible Americans began outmaneuvering and outfighting them. At King’s Mountain, the entire British force was either killed or captured! At Cowpens, under General Daniel Morgan (who deserves an entry of his own), nearly 90% of the British troops were killed or captured!

Morgan and Greene’s force together numbered only 2,000 men. But Greene used long marches to divide, elude and tire his opponents. He and Morgan retreated north of the Dan River, then crossed back into North Carolina a week later. On March 15, 1781, the battle of Guilford Court House pitted Greene’s army against that of Cornwallis. In this battle, as in every pitched battle Greene fought in the south, the British kept the field. But Cornwallis lost so many men that he withdrew toward Wilmington, North Carolina. Then, when he marched north to Virginia, Greene set out to reconquer the south. This he did. By the end of the war, the British forces in the south held little more than the besieged city of Charleston. Greene had vindicated Washington’s faith.

As Greene put it, “We fight, get beaten, rise, and fight again.”


More on our lives living in the 3D

Saturday, November 9, 2019

6 a.m. All right, to work. You said, as a halfway point, treat the 3D world as “not only” our environment.

Re-read yesterday’s before we begin, to get it fresh in your mind. This will help the process.

Me only, or the reader as well?

You have no control over what anyone does but yourself. And in this case you are the amenuensis and the interlocutor both – you will benefit from the focus.

Yes, I can see that – having just done it – but even now it is hard to hold on to.

Which is why we need symbols, you will remember, and why religions (including science) need dogma, to provide capsule-summary-images to imply a lot in bite-sized bits.

Now you, experiencing yourselves in 3D as 3D, live differently depending upon your awareness of who you really are – which, remember, fluctuates.

  • The 3D world of constraints may be seen as a stage, a stable platform maintained by joint effort of the various kingdoms: vegetable, animal, celestial, mineral.
  • But do not think of this platform as static merely because it is stable. It is dynamic, rather.
  • Do not think of it as one-dimensional, or rather as of uniform texture, say. It contains within itself all possibilities and hence all possible conditions.
  • “Magic” is the manipulation of the prevailing conditions by the will of the individual (bearing in mind that there can be no such thing as a 3D-only individual).
  • “Superstition” is sometimes the deducing of rules governing the appearance of magic outside conscious willing.
  • “Religion” may be, on one end, the extension of consciousness by the use of symbol and dogma, or at the other end a sort of substitute extension, living by rule, as superstition.
  • Bear in mind, aware of it or not, you move from one state of being to another as you live. This is not a one-way progression, so much as a wandering.
  • The 3D world, which you perceive as external, functions, as we said, as a sort of mirror of your state of being. Thus as Thoreau said, don’t curse your life, it isn’t as bad as you are.

And I guess don’t take credit for it either, when things are going well?

Let’s say, an attitude of trustful interest would be appropriate in either case. You didn’t cause your good fortune, you didn’t cause your ill-fortune, and anyway you can’t depend upon your judgment as to which is which.

Now, if you affect your environment, and your environment affects you, that is a very different state of affairs from that which you come to logically if you consider that it is only one way or the other. You are not “only” (nor always) magicians, setting the stage and directing the play. You are not only nor always victims or let’s say recipients, reacting to the latest blows of fate or kisses from the gods. Nor do you move from the one to the other. It only looks like that.

I think of Caesar as I write that.

Caesar you know was considered to be beloved by the gods, which assured his astonishing luck time and again when he needed it. Yet he was diligent, determined, far-sighted, of few illusions, sometimes ruthless and more often merciful, at a time when mercy was often mistaken for weakness. He is a good example of a conscious man operating in good connection with his non-3D component and interacting with what seems an exterior environment to entirely transform his society. Yet his goal and his methods were not primarily aimed at transforming his 3D environment even though he himself thought in those terms.

I wish I could speak to Caesar.

Only you don’t believe yourself worth of his attention.

Well, yes, I guess so, like when I contacted Joseph P. Kennedy expecting to be swatted for my impertinence, and he said there isn’t anybody who is more nobody than a dead man.

The key as always is, what do you have in common? Where is the point of resonance between you? it won’t be culture or language or biographical detail necessarily, but there will be something, or you would not feel the draw. So ask yourself where the resonance is, or rather, feel where it is, and see if anything happens.

And this is not an interruption of your lesson-plan, I take it.

Very funny. Try the experiment. What doesn’t work today may work tomorrow. What does work today will necessarily carry the quality of the moment.

It’s funny, I woke up thinking of my academic friend who believed I was honest, but maintained that my contacts weren’t scientifically valid unless I could somehow prove that I was talking to whomever I thought (or they said) it was. I maintained just the opposite, that the experience precedes the proof, that it is the experience and not the data that must be looked at as of primary importance, for our attribution of source must always be speculative and probably at least partly erroneous.

Enough nervousness. Try.

Yes. Very well, what would be our point of contact, the reason for my fascination with the man Julius Caesar?

We transcend categories. It is that extending beyond bounds that is in common.

Clearly I am not socialite, soldier, statesman. So the transcendence you mean is not of career.

Why do you think Caesar transformed the world, more after his death than before?

You altered the categories for others.

After you have seen more clearly than others, their sight clears as well. This is not your doing as an individual; it is you as servant of the gods. But the gods love those who willingly do their bidding.

It can be hard to remember that you were others before and presumably after you were Caesar.

You will find it easier to see if you think of it not as Caesar but as Caesar’s traits. Many an individual has flowed with this or that bundle of Caesar’s categories, qualities. Napoleon chiefly, as you were given some time ago, but many a one unknown to history. Any life successfully lived adds to the possible patterns.

That last sentence was a shift in feel.

Your attention wavered. Still, there was the true contact you wanted.

  • Think of yourselves as patterns interacting with the external world as also a pattern, but realize that you-as-pattern is itself a somewhat external thing, not you-as-essence.

So what is the over-arching thing you are trying to get across, here?

It is worthwhile to think of yourselves as separate from the 3D world and yet an integral part of the 3D world. Both, not one or the other, because “the 3D world” is itself more of two natures than appears.

As beings who are not of the 3D, you have leverage. As beings who are of the 3D, you have insight, or let’s say a sense of identity. You belong and yet you are more than. The 3D world is environment and yet it is an externalization of you (if only “in effect”).

And that will do for the moment.

Well, thank you for all this, as usual. A particularly unusual experience this morning.

No, a slight stretching of your categories, nothing more.

If you say so. Till next time, then.


Our 3D life and the greater reality

Friday, November 8, 2019

5:50 a.m. All right, next installment of the Perils of Pauline?

We are still wanting to relate your 3D life not so much to life in the greater reality as an abstraction, but to your life in the greater reality.

You mean to keep it practical, I take it.

It isn’t that discussing abstractions isn’t practical. It can be, or it can be evasion. But discussing how you in the 3D really are, rather than how you think you are, is going to be unmistakably practical, and then it is a question of whether you apply what you learn.

No flights of fancy.

Let’s say, no walling it off into nice theory as opposed to integrating it into your self-awareness.

Lay on, Macduff. [Which, speaking of flights of fancy, leads me by mental association to the fact that Macbeth was buried on Iona, and makes me wonder if I could have seen his grave (assuming it is marked after all this time) had I been aware of it when I was there.]

Which led you to accuse yourself of not being very present.

A true bill if I ever presented one.

Let’s use that as springboard:

  • Your lives in 3D are necessarily bounded by time and space and – less obviously – by the amount of things you can be aware of at any one time.
  • Your lives in 3D, however, take place in a larger context that does not suffer the same constraints.
  • Your awareness of the interaction between what we have been calling your 3D component and your non-3D component fluctuates, as of course all 3D consciousness fluctuates.
  • Another way to say this is that sometimes you function (in 3D) as if you were on your own and sometimes as if temporarily connected to a larger being.
  • It is that “as if” that determines the flavor of your lives.

I can see that, and so far it isn’t anything new, is it?

That depends upon who is reading it, doesn’t it? Something not previously heard is new, is it not?

  • One implication here is that different levels of consciousness effectively live in different worlds with different rules. This applies not only between lives but within

I understand that one, all right.

Yet you will find that you and in fact nearly everyone else as well commonly think and act as if you and they were constants rather than variables.

  • You don’t live in the same world with the same rules when you change states of consciousness, until you stabilize them.
  • In the absence of a stable platform, how reliable are your observations? How predictable are your reactions? How dependable are your interactions?
  • Stability is not everything – growth may sometimes result from or result in temporary instability – but it is not nothing, either.
  • And remember always that what you experience as “the external world” is a (relatively) stable point of reference! That’s one reason it exists!

Explain that, a little?

You can’t measure one variable by another, Einstein. Something has to be considered a fixed reference point. If you continually (or let’s say, unpredictably) change, and so do those around you (speaking of their internal selves, as yours, rather than theirs or yours as they appear to others), where is any point of stability but an “external” world?

But other people’s appearance is part of the world as we experience it.

It is, and your own appearance is part of the world as other people experience it. To that degree you act as landscape for one another, preserving a continuity of environment. But neither you nor they are as you appear. Your “external” aspect is scenery; you relate primarily internally/externally

And now we need you to be explaining your explanation.

You (all) live as if your world was as it appears, when in fact you know full well it is not.

More carefully said, I think you mean when we know that in our own case it is not so.

That’s a doubtful qualifier. Yes, you know it of yourselves to the degree that you allow that your inner world is as real as the other. You might be surprised if you knew how few people do. And of those who do, some concede that others have a similarly invisible side to their lives, and some do not.

How can anyone not know that they live an internal life as well as an external one? I don’t see that it would be even possible.

Perhaps this is a matter of definition as well as of perception. Again we say, people’s definition of and their perception of their internal life fluctuates in a great range, not only from moment to moment within a given person but from lifetime to lifetime, say. At any given moment, in any given lifetime, the variations in range are limited, but within those limits fluctuation is inevitable and therefore cannot be undesirable.

“Cannot be,” assuming that we assume that All Is Well.

You are perfectly free to assume that All Is Ill, or All Is Often Ill, or that you know better than reality, for that matter, but how useful is any such arrogant assumption?

  • “The world” provides a 3D frame of reference not obviously under your control, not apparently fluctuating as you fluctuate. Hence by implication your reaction to the world provides clues as to how you may have changed snice your last observation.

And as you open our eyes to things, we find “the world” changing?

Hard to give a true response to that statement, it is so packed with true and false implications.

Proceed, then.

  • Greater command over life comes from greater command over your own variables, of course. What else do you have to work with?
  • But as usual, “which you?”
  • That is the reason for all this exploring, all this redefining, all this acquiring of experience and theory and data on life in non-3D.
    It isn’t like the universe needs another reporter (though each report adds another window on the world), but that you need a better handle on who you are if you are to be able to transcend your previous self-definitions.

And it is only in self-transcendence that we make any progress.

Again, your statement is loaded with conscious and unconscious and semi-conscious definitions and meanings, and is not easily addressed.

  • If you will begin to see the 3D world less as your natural environment and more as your independent sounding-board, you will find that your life seems, feels, and becomes entirely different and livelier.

But it is our environment, of course.

It is and it is not. Let’s say, as a halfway point, treat it as not only.

I get that.

But don’t overlook what we just said: It is and it is not your environment. But we haven’t time to go into this today, and what we have said so far makes a unit; good place to stop.

Our thanks as always.


Heredity and choice

Thursday, August 19, 2010

7 AM. Awake again. Haven’t transcribed the above yet – but offering you another bite of the apple now, if you want it.

Better to send it out and then see how you feel. You may not have the energy to do this.

Then why not do this first?

Well, we are dubious, but we can try. Glance over what we just gave you.

All right, did. I’d say let’s try.

We can at least bring up the question of heredity. This is one potential limitation of possibilities. If nowhere in your genetic structure was there any of the traits needed to be a successful Mozart, you wouldn’t need to worry about becoming one. And this bears explaining, in that we have said that each of your parents’ contributions to your physical heredity goes back to the beginnings of humanity. That is true in a way, and essentially not true in another way.

For all practical purposes, your hereditary traits go back only so far (the “seven generations” article you were led to notice a while ago), because any trait by itself (i.e., not reinforced by other contributors of the same trait) must be lost.

May I rephrase what I think you just said? I can see it as a matter of numbers and competition, but it isn’t quite as simple as “it has half a chance the first generation –“

We see the difficulty. Try it this way. One half of each parent’s characteristics are passed on in each child. Not necessarily the same half, of course, but half. One quarter of each grandparents’, and one eighth of each grandparents’ parents’. Contributions to your physical skill-sets are 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128. Seven generations winnow 128 sets of contributions down to one. But that is not the end, for each generation is itself a sifting process. That is, how you live determines to a degree which members of your person-group will be passed on enhanced, and which enfeebled or unchanged.

It should be obvious that here we deal with more than the composition of the parents at the time of conception of the child. Their subsequent life affects the child’s heredity in effect, by, as it were, participating in the on-going debate, or jockeying for position, among the child’s person-group.

Nature versus nurture.

Yes, but quite a bit differently seen than what you are used to. We are not saying some qualities are innate from birth – determined by genetics – and others are the expression of a person’s experiences thereafter, the results of their life in family and society. But we can’t go off on this topic yet. Let us remain at genetics.

In any given life, there are some things fixed – time and place of birth, birth order within family, etc. – and some things fluid, and some things that might be called something between fixed and fluid. This too is a topic apart, but notice: Your life – as we have emphasized from the beginning – is shaped by your choices, and is created specifically to allow and express those choices, and then to present further choices from those you already made. Until today we have emphasized choice in relation to the mind you are creating on an on-going basis, and that mind’s function on the other side – the non-physical side – after death. (Before, too, but that is yet another topic. We are getting the hang of spinning off side-trails and sticking to one thought. It is a skill like any other.)

Now we present another aspect. Your choices also help shape possibilities in time, for the time line downwind of you, so to speak.

That makes it sound like we don’t bathe regularly. I think you mean downstream.

We smile. Yes, downstream. But who is the wordsmith responsible, after all?

Your choices in life determine what further choices will become available to you; they also determine what choices will become available to your genetic and your contemporary posterity. And yes, of course that will take some explaining. And perhaps it would be as correct to say they determine which choices will be foreclosed, or prevented, or pre-empted. In that sense, choice could be looked at as a continuing winnowing, a non-stop process of attrition from the stock remaining – a process of attrition compensated for by the continual presentation of new possibilities. But surely it can be seen that the winnowing process tends to limit the quality of what new elements are received. If you keep discarding artistic expression, let’s say, then fewer such possibilities will be presented as viable options. You don’t get to Carnegie Hall without practicing, and at some point – perhaps quite an early point – it becomes too late to overcome the gap between what you need to have done and what you have done. When you are 30, you can’t be retroactively different at 20, in any given time-line.

So we have begun on the intricate subject, and we are going to stop here for the day however alluring you find the work. As Hemingway would say, stop while you’re still going good and know what’s coming next.

But I don’t know what’s coming next.

No, but we do. Invite your readers to question or object to this material, as it will help us to judge what is or isn’t coming through.

Okay, but be careful what you ask for!

What do we care? It’s you who have to deal with the e-mail. We smile.

Me too. Okay, see you next time. I’m very interested in this.