Blog

The Interface: The filter

Guys, I already know that you’re going to be able to use Dirk’s reply to yesterday’s chat to clarify something that gets confused. But I wonder – well, anyway, let’s see.

It is true, this is an opportunity for clarification, but the path from here to clarity may not be smooth. Quite a bit of turbulence first, more likely. You know which sentences we want quoted.

[TGU: The human condition is not nearly rational; it is rationality trying to play catch-up with the results of your ionized air on re-entry, or your relatively smooth laminar flow of water as the canoe moves. In other words, it isn’t all drama but it is always seen through – and only through – the layer of feelings that interprets the inner and outer worlds.

[Me: Did you say just what you meant, there?

[TGU: “ In other words, it isn’t all drama but it is always seen through – and only through – the layer of feelings that interprets the inner and outer worlds”

[Dirk: This I know to be false – at least in my case. In my case life most often is not seen through drama, nor through emotion or feeling, mood or affect. These in most cases come as delayed responses to events, conditions, and reflection.

[If it is passing through that layer, it is doing so with no interaction at all.

[My default and most predominant mode is to experience the word in neutral – sans emotion or feeling of any kind. That is not always true. The more years that have passed, the less predominant it has become.]

I know what you are going to say and I sense that it may not convince.

Not that it won’t convince, so much as that it will seem to miss the point, because what is the problem here is a matter of definitions. Still, clarifications won’t present themselves, so here goes our attempt to present them.

A basic mistake enters because of what we might call linguistic slippage. Words, being imprecise, are often a source of confusion. But words when they don’t quite exist can be even more so. When a concept is needed and does not exist, you use words that sort of mean the same thing, or let’s say that somewhat say it, but not closely enough to add clarity.

In this instance, some word other than mood or feeling or emotion would have conveyed our meaning better, and perhaps would have prevented anyone from mistaking it for something similar but different. We said, human life is always experienced though a layer of feelings. Dirk replied that in his case, “life most often is not seen through drama, nor through emotion or feeling, mood or affect… If it is passing through that layer, it is doing so with no interaction at all.” He spoke of experiencing the world in neutral. You see the slippage here?

I do. You didn’t say nor mean that we do or don’t experience the world in a dramatic fashion, though it looks like what you said. You said, or meant, anyway: The invisible layer that we are comparing to an ionizing layer of air, or to the tranquil interface between water and something being propelled through water, is always between our 3D awareness and the “external” 3D world we experience. Only, that layer isn’t what people mean when they say “emotion” or “feeling.”

Yes. It is always there: There is no possibility in 3D terms of seeing the world directly, without a level of interpretation. We call it feeling to contrast it to thought. We may call it emotion (if it is of a peculiar nature) to contrast it to a sort of mental neutrality. We may call it a mood, or a generator of moods, to stress that it is a long-lasting relatively unvarying attitude coloring one’s view of life.

Nor is Dirk reporting his experience incorrectly, only we intend to show that things aren’t quite as they appear. In his case – as in yours, and as in most people’s who are drawn to this exploratory work – perception comes not only from the 3D but also directly from your non-3D component, which blurs the picture analytically. Let’s see if we can adjust the focus. This is so central to what we are trying to convey, a picture of 3D life as it is lived by people who are very different combinations of elements.

  • You are all projections into 3D of a complex of elements
  • You are each inserted into a different specific time/place moment, with a specific 3D heredity and environment.
  • You experience life as an interaction between “you” and “the world,” and as we have been exploring, this may be redefined as personal and shared subjectivity, what is “external” being actually part of yourself of which you are not conscious.
  • The interaction between the subjectivity you experience as “I” and the subjectivity you experience as “other” is a layer of energy we are comparing to the ionizing layer or the laminar flow between objects and the medium with which they are interacting.
  • That layer is always there. It can’t not be there. it can be defined out of existence, or be not noticed, but it cannot be not there. Something is always going to interpose between object and surrounding medium.
  • This says nothing about how that layer will be experienced by this or that person. Experiences will differ (and in fact the ionizing layer is itself a factor in why experiences differ). Its existence does not imply nor rule out drama.
  • You experience your life through that transparent layer; your view of the world is shaped by the existence of an interpretive layer, an intermediary between what you can sense and what you cannot sense. To a degree, you never see the world as it really is, only as your filters allow you to see it – and those filters are never the product of thought, but of direct experience as it interacts with what your invisible interpretive layer allows you to see of the world.
  • However – and it is a big “however” – you experience your lives not only through this filter-determined 3D lens but also through your non-3D-dependent direct knowing, call it intuition or divine promptings or whatever. Depending upon your construction, the stereoscopic view produced by 3D and non-3D mode of perception will be sharp or blurry, will show more or will show less or will show other.

Therefore, some will experience the world in ways very different from the mainstream. (Remembering, of course, that the mainstream itself is different in different situations.)  The variables are many: environment, heredity, decisions on a 3D level; environment, heredity, past decisions on a non-3D level. To some the world will be self-evidently on –

Got a little tangled, there?

Well, you see the problem.

I do. You’re wanting to differentiate between people’s natures (emotional, unemotional; feeling types, thinking types; well-connected to non-3D or connected only unconsciously, etc.) And it’s hard to do that without your point being smothered.

It is. We are juggling so many variables.

Seems to me you’ve been doing all right.

Wait till you see how many conflicting interpretations of what is here said.

And that’s the issue, isn’t it?

Yes, it is. Because everyone experiences the world only indirectly, and because everyone’s experience of filters is different, and because to many the existence of filters has no evidence for it, it is difficult to say anything that can be read only one way. In fact, not difficult; it is impossible. Thus we are continually correcting misinterpretations of what we meant, in words than cannot avoid causing further misinterpretations. That’s why there isn’t only one opinion of the world , one interpretation.

Hmm, indicating that even misinterpretation isn’t necessarily a bad thing.

Good, bad, convenient, inconvenient. We aren’t concerned with judgment but with exposition. We merely point out, life is interpreted.

You aren’t nearly finished with this, I can tell.

Hardly begun, in fact, but this should prove quite productive.

And a word for that ionizing layer that is neither “feeling” nor “emotion” nor “mood”?

Let’s leave it as is for the moment, lest in assigning a label we prematurely imprison it.

TGU: Thoughts on Inauguration Day

Wednesday, January 20, 2021

7:40 a.m. The first inaugural address I ever listened to was John F. Kennedy’s. I was in D.C. for Jimmy Carter’s, in the crowd, listening. Two occasions of hope. All that idealism, all those good intentions, and you can hardly say they came to nothing, but they didn’t, because they couldn’t solve the underlying problems. Joe Biden’s won’t either, not the words, not the intentions, not the actions.

This isn’t being said with any clarity. Guys, help me say the underlying thought.

The 3D manifestation cannot reshape the 3D-and-non-3D situation.

Our actions don’t reshape our world?

Scratching the peel of the apple does not affect the apple’s weight, content, nutrition, ripeness –

Our actions are somewhat superficial, you are saying.

They are not what they appear to be, because the playing field is not what it appears to be, nor is the game, nor the game equipment. The score is not what you think, nor is the combat.

Ah yes. If we are looking at the world as a shared subjectivity rather than as a fixed “thing” with its own independent existence, the psychology of it comes to the fore and the independent “facts” recede.

As usual, not quite, but in that direction.

So then –

Well, whenever you live, however you spend your life, what you experience of the shared subjectivity is only that which has connections to you. That’s merely common sense. A Chinese woman in her mid-40s, a South African man in his teens, a Canadian, a European – they can hardly experience the world just the same way you do.

Clearly.

Yes, you say “clearly,” but think about it. To say that one experiences the “external world” differently because one lives in a different place, different times, different circumstances, etc., is to say one experiences only the share of the overall shared subjectivity that one has resonance to. It is the same statement, the same situation seen differently.

The significance of which is -?

Oh, one or two minor consequences: There can be no meaningless coincidences; all is one; the world is a safe place, just as Seth assured Jane and Rob; your personal choices matter to you, they matter therefore to the world; your real point of application is your work on yourself; reforming someone else is not possible and is often evasion.

Only that?

We’re smiling along with you. No, in fact, not only that, but that’s a beginning. Also: Failings, successes, achievements, are all the same – they are one person’s projections into the shared subjectivity.

Not clear to me; I know it won’t be clear to others.

You don’t know, actually. Some will get it by the usual sparked insight. But a little clarification won’t hurt anything.

You live your lives doing things. From your point of view, it is you interacting with the world. If you build a doghouse, it is you gathering the materials, manipulating and assembling them, and producing something that did not exist until you made it exist. This is true and nothing wrong with seeing it that way, but from our point of view, the 3D doghouse is less real and is certainly less to the point than the process that built it. That is, your decisions weigh more with us than the execution of the decision.

You mean, I think, our deciding to build the doghouse, and our actions in doing so (mental or physical) are realer to you than the 3D doghouse.

Fast-forward a century or so. Which is more likely to still seem real, the process or the doghouse? How real are the cows Emerson led to and from the Boston Common, or the trees he tended in his orchard, as opposed to what he became as he lived these things?

I thought you were going to say, as opposed to the essays he wrote and the lectures he delivered.

No, that would be comparing one set of works to another. That’s a valid comparison in itself, but not the one we are drawing. Your lives are your life’s work, and not the particular way in which they manifest.

How we do, more than what we do.

Close enough, but what you do is how you do.

However, to revert to my starting-point, you couldn’t say any actions are as good as any other, nor that any decisions are as good as any other. Choices matter, do they not? If they matter for us as individuals, don’t they have to matter to us in society?

Let’s put it this way. How could you or anyone ever experience underserved consequences?

I often wondered why I was made to live in the world in which John F. Kennedy had been murdered.

Of course, or why World War II had happened, or why so many million people were deliberately and systematically slaughtered by Nazis and Communists in the name of building a better world. But where do you end that? Would you live only in a world where everything was to suit your desires? No poverty, no racism, no disease?

I see your point. It’s longing for an impossible perfection.

No. It is longing for you as you are (at whatever time) to fit into an ideal world. But are you an ideal person?

I begin to see it. It takes a bodhisattva to live in a perfect world.

You have the feel of it, but not yet the shape of it. The bodhisattva is specifically suited for an imperfect world. What need would a perfect world have for bodhisattvas? But your underlying glimpse was correct: If the external world is part of you and you are an uncompleted creation, put it that way, what part could you have in an environment that had no place for you?

We use all these words, and I don’t know if it is coming any clearer.

“You do the best you can.”

Choose what you want to be, what values you want to uphold, and live that. And if your choices include greater openness, “life more abundantly,” do what leads in that direction. If you decide to trust life—and we highly recommend that you at least try it! – then do not shrink from what comes just because you may not like it.

It really is that simple.

Well, I can see that I am a very different man because I invested in JFK so totally and then had to live a long life in the shadow of his death. (I started to say, “his unavenged death,” then thought, “What difference would justice have made, he was still dead.”) Not anything I in 3D – especially at 17 – would have chosen, but a life nonetheless.

Probably the people who lived through World War II didn’t like it much either. That doesn’t mean it didn’t serve them.

“And enough for now.”

And enough for now, indeed. Thanks you as always for listening.

And thank you as always for your explanations. Till next time, if there is one.

 

The Interface: System analysis

At some point I suppose we’re going to have to anchor theoreticals with actuals. But that means exposing one’s innards.

It would do, yes.

Specifically, let’s talk about what is it when one runs out of road, emotionally. I could hide behind the lives of others – Hemingway most obviously – but that’s what it would amount to, hiding. When I was a boy I looked forward to life and thought I was going to do great things. As a young man I was bewildered because I couldn’t seem to find any path. After 40, the path seemed to open up in front of me, but in following it, it came to seem less path than self-created illusion. And now at the end of a long life I find mostly weariness of life, uncertainty about future prospects, and even weariness at the thought of further life to live.

What kind of life is that?

That is a better start than you may realize, for in its very one-sidedness, it shows how your feelings express and limit. It shows how you are led to accept the view as accurate that is merely projected through the lens of certain feelings. And it shows how little impact on your lives reason has, next to feeling.

Now, you will be inclined to cringe at putting this out into the world, and some may be inclined to cringe to read it. And why? Because such things are considered “private,” they are not to be shared except with priest or psychologist or soulmate. But in fact none of you is nearly unique. You don’t talk about things; that doesn’t mean you don’t experience them.

Surely you aren’t saying we all experience our lives the same way.

You aren’t subject to the same complex of feelings, no, but you all are subject to some complex of feelings, and that’s what we want to talk about. The human condition is not nearly rational; it is rationality trying to play catch-up with the results of your ionized air on re-entry, or your relatively smooth laminar flow of water as the canoe moves. In other words, it isn’t all drama but it is always seen through – and only through – the layer of feelings that interprets the inner and outer worlds.

So you as a boy have certain expectations of your life. You aren’t remembering – until we speak it, just now – but you spent those early years wondering what the rules really were. What habits should you form? Whose testimony about life could you trust? It wasn’t as conscious as it can be made to sound after the fact, but it was more conscious than people would have suspected, viewing the boy from outside.

The searching for an attitude was itself an attitude. Looking for some authority to follow was in itself a choice, though largely an unconscious one. You were being you: What determined the “you-ness” you were living?

Brought in from another life, I would have thought.

Well, tendencies may be, even habits. But they are brought into a life that is not what had been lived previously. There is the “you” who entered this 3D life, and the “external” conditions that had to be accommodated to. The interface between the two – the ionizing layer – was the feelings that became habitual in you, interpreting the world (interpreting life) to your relatively helpless or let’s say defenseless psyche. Long before you become able to think, you respond.

I see that.

And it keeps changing as your stages of life change you and as they bring you to new “external” circumstances. Understand, here, we aren’t telling you anything but what everybody knows from experience, but we’re trying to help you see it from a different angle, or how are you to understand our view on feelings and emotions and thought?

When sexual impulses awaken, or we should say during the course of their awakening, for it is a process rather than an event, again you face major adjustments. You as primary observer don’t seem to change, but the “external” world, in this case including your body and all its reactions, does seem to change. You have to readjust all over again, and the revolution may require months or years or decades.

When you enter the world beyond your family, again you perceive the change mostly as change of circumstance. The changes within yourself that you notice may seem to you to be, “obviously,” the result of adjustment to circumstance. Superficially considered, that is true. Looked at more closely, the distinction breaks down as to who is causing what.

As your life progresses and you find your place in it, you experience yourself as stable, usually, amid an environment that changes slowly or quickly, predictably or otherwise.

And when, looking back, it mostly looks unsatisfactory, or looks highly satisfactory, or – usually – some of each, again you are usually experiencing yourself-as-observer as a relatively stable, reliable platform.

Now, notice. You expressed your feelings about your life. We recast it as thought, as analysis. Which had to come first?

You can’t analyze what you haven’t had the experience of.

No. and that is how life in 3D proceeds. You-as-observer are thrown into a situation that continually changes. You (inner self) change; you (outer self; shared subjectivity; “external world”) change. Continually. (Even a continuance of situation may amount to a change, but we won’t pursue this.)

All your lives are you in reentry, minus the life-and-death drama of the analogy. You never live without the ionized layer of feelings between you-as-observer, or let’s say you-as-experiencer, and “what happens.” It couldn’t be done.

A confusion in thought may arise if you think the feelings or emotions must be connected with drama. They may be, but just as often, they are part of the invisible framework connecting you to the world. We are speaking in system terms, here. The system is:

  • You as pre-existing elements formed as a soul in a specific 3D time and place
  • The “external” world as the shared subjectivity of which you are a tiny part
  • The ionizing layer, the laminal flow, connecting the two, which is feeling

Just because you don’t know that you experience the world first through feelings, doesn’t mean it isn’t true. And just because you may have certain ideas of what feelings “feel like,” how they manifest, doesn’t mean that’s true either.

But here’s the thing: Feelings, moods, even emotions, are often transparent to you! They seem to be merely “the way it is.” You lose sight of the difference between “the way it is” and “the way you see it.”

Shall we extend the analogy? Reentering spacecraft would routinely lose communication with earth as the ionizing layer was formed by the heat of the interaction between spacecraft and atmosphere. We lose our sense of being connected too, it seems to me, and one of the reasons we do is the noise and chaos and sheer pervasiveness of the outside world.

Analogies are useful until stretched out of true. Hold this one loosely, and it will serve.

Now look. Your initial angst about your life, which amounts to a persistent suspicion that you largely wasted it. Our view of your life as an example of process. Do the two necessarily contradict each other, or are they complementary, neither being right or wrong, each shedding light on the other?

The thing we can’t say often enough is that all the work on your end and our end and on the part of anyone reading this is for the purpose of making a difference in your life, not merely of playing with ideas. We can’t say what you should do with all this – and wouldn’t if we could say – but we say, take it seriously or not at all.

The Interface: Emotions as interface

We ought to take care to get feedback, to see what people make of your explanations. I’m not quite sure why you need me to tell you what I would have assumed you know directly – mind to mind with them – but I gather that you do.

That is a remnant of your thinking that “The other side knows everything.”

We remind you that even where all is connected and where all is one, there remain differences and distinctions, and some things are nearer and some farther away. That’s just life.

“We aren’t jello over here,” you said once.

The simplest way for you to think of it is the idea of resonance. People respond easiest to those who are closest to them in vibration, and yet all products of 3D environment are mixtures of more than one note. That’s what it means, to be a compound being: We are the creatures of more than one strand of heredity, compounds far more complex than could arise outside of 3D conditions. Therefore some people who are very close in some ways will find great gaps between them in other ways.

So receiving feedback via 3D may have its advantages to you. Yes, I see that. It’s funny, I get your meaning and I get the import, but I’m pretty sure I didn’t get the statement of fact right.

That often happens, as a matter of fact, and as you will notice, it matters less than you might suppose. In this as in the rest of your life, you are following an emotional trail, not a thinking trail, so logic has less ability to steer you wrong.

People are going to find that a funny way of looking at things.

No doubt. But any way of living has advantages and disadvantages, and every trait is useful in some conditions and harmful in others. Logic would have been of no use to you in perceiving your way into unknown worlds. It comes of use when you attempt to describe what you have found, or perhaps where you are perplexed.

So as we proceed with our description of emotion as interface between personal and impersonal subjectivity, the more clearly we see where people are getting lost, the easier it will be to adjust our explanation. Everyone’s opinion of anything is the result of their previously prepared condition interacting with whatever new the new moment brings.

That’s a striking way of putting it. As striking as the ionized-air analogy.

It is the same analogy.

Well, that’s interesting. I wouldn’t have thought that.

The heat-shield/ionized layer/resisting atmosphere analogy is striking, dramatic, pictorial. But it doesn’t say anything more than is said when we point out that any new moment in a 3D life consists of the 3D individual mind encountering the “external” world. Bear in mind, a new moment is not always a re-entering spacecraft. It may be a campfire, a trusting infant, a walk with a dog, a spat – anything life provides. But the nature of the moment is always a (relatively) closed-in 3D consciousness encountering a seemingly external world that in fact is always reflecting to that consciousness sparks of itself. This has to be so, by definition, for you can only perceive that for which you have receptors, whether you are aware of having those receptors or not.

So now we invite you to consider emotions to be neither internal to you nor external, but, instead, the interface between the part of you that you know and the vastly larger part of you that you don’t know. And we remind you that several people working together have a much better chance of keeping this discussion practical than would any of you working alone.

This is a sort of step up to a new way of working, isn’t it?

Not new to the world, but new to you as a group, yes. At some point any group of sincere pioneers (searchers, you often call yourselves) moves from being many to being many-as-part-of-one. It is a natural stage of growth, and is, for instance, the unseen life at the heart of religious communities until deadness enters the core, which may be soon or not for many generations. Sooner or later the individual realizes that proceeding individually leads it to impassible boundaries that may be overcome, and pretty easily, by two or more working together. This is not a matter of mutual encouragement (though that may enter into it) but of, shall we say, an increase in leverage, an attainment of a broader understanding because attained from a platform broader than any one individual can provide. Carl Jung, as broad and as deep as he was, could not have probed as deeply nor as widely as he did, without so many people working with him.

And I get, between the lines, that neither he nor they necessarily understood the interactions in the way that a broader perspective might.

To them it may have looked like physician, patient; teacher, student; paterfamilias, dependents; colleagues; relatives; friends and townsmen; professional associates. And none of these appearances was wrong, only superficial next to what is really going on. You never really know  who you’re dealing with, or what they bring to the mix. Nor need you know, other than in a general way of appreciating everyone for what they bring.

This session seems like (feels like) a series of digressions.

Notice that it usually feels like that when you are expecting a certain direction and instead you get context or seemingly irrelevant or peripheral information.

True.

Sometimes it is more important to slow down than to speed up.

Why?

Because speed is a temptation to simplify, to omit, to streamline, to cut corners in many ways. Not the least damaging aspect is that if you don’t sometimes slow down to smell the flowers, you won’t understand flowers very fully. You’ll understand an idea of flowers.

I get the analogy of how bones grow in children; First added length, then a pause while width is added, then more length. Your prompting here, I take it.

It is a good image to keep in mind, in two ways. One, the extending and then the strengthening of the understanding you are acquiring. Two, the extending and then the strengthening of the skills you are acquiring. Of the two, the acquisition of skills is easily the more important, for yesterday’s understandings become merely a phase you went through (so to speak), while yesterday’s acquisition of skill becomes today’s firmly available resource.

The Interface: Interface, not object

Emotions are not things, so naming them is misleading if nonetheless necessary for the purpose of discussing them. And anything we say about emotions, we can pretty much say of feelings, too. The reason there is so much confusion about the difference between the two is that the distinctions are largely arbitrary. To name something is to accept that it is in some way a “thing,” a separately existing something. But naming a something doesn’t make it a something.

The old distinction between nominalism and realism.

Let’s not go off on a tangent. Our point here is that trying to carve up emotions or feelings as if they could be displayed on a rack is misleading and a waste of time. It is like trying to treat the evanescent colors of a flame as if each color were a separate, distinct, solid something.

In considering emotions and feelings as they manifest in your lives, forget about labeling except as a rough – a very rough – orienting device. The fact is, any emotion you will ever feel will be in the context of two forces, one of which will never be the same as in any other instance, and the other of which usually won’t be quite the same.

I hear that. Every time we deal with the shared subjectivity (the “external” world), it is different from what it was before or will be next time. And we ourselves, though we may be the same, usually are different too.

Yes, so the jealousy, or anger, or insecurity, or satisfaction or elation. Anything, everything. They will be experienced as the interface between inner and outer subjectivity, or you might say between 3D and non-3D (though that is less accurate), or between you now and you the previous times you experienced them. The air between the returning spacecraft and its descent path is never the same twice. The canoe paddler never dips into the same water twice. You know the analogies, no need to spell them out. At least, we hope not.

As is true for any given feeling or emotion, so is true even more for any combination of them felt in the same circumstances. You know the terms “mixed feelings.” What is that, but an expression of the fact that one’s circumstances may evoke many emotions at the same time – even contradictory ones.

But those emotions don’t come off the shelf! You don’t hold them in inventory! They are sparked from the interface. The space program didn’t stockpile ionized atmosphere, it manufactured it anew, each descent. We know this is a different way of thinking about emotions, but doesn’t it bring new clarity?

It does for me, anyway.

 

The Interface: The ionizing layer

After yesterday’s fiasco, I don’t know where we are or how you want to proceed.

We wouldn’t call it a fiasco. Interesting to watch you redefine things as you go. Your reaction may serve to illustrate, in fact.

We were proceeding smoothly. We hit a speed bump. We had to stop and reconsider our path. You and we, thinking together. But then after the session your life continued, and you drifted from calm interest and quiet anticipation of whatever would come next, to an uneasy sense of failure, and a disturbing wondering if in fact what we were doing couldn’t be done. The lapse of a few hours loosened your grasp of what had been said, and in the absence of a secure ledge to grasp, you felt like you were floating nowhere. All of this might look like thought; we point out, it is emotion.

Emotion.

Certainly. Emotions and feelings don’t have to come with sirens and horns and galloping drama. In fact, they do that only in a minority of time and events. You couldn’t stand it if that were the norm. Everybody knows at least one relatively hysterical person, probably: Consider if your life were to be lived at that level of ill-controlled intensity, all the time. You’d burn out your fuses.

No, emotions and feelings are more typically your interface with what seem to be “external” events. Nothing more, nothing less. They color your lives, but not arbitrarily and not because they have their own nature or their own necessities. They color your lives in the way that a returning space capsule would be lit up by the friction of re-entry.

I know what you mean, but you haven’t said it. You mean, the friction of reentry at 18,000 mph, or whatever it was, caused heat so hot that it ionized the atmosphere around it, sort of creating an envelope of fire between the air and the heat shield. You are comparing emotions to the ionization layer, I think.

Not a bad analogy in some ways, you see. That ionization layer was not a thing in itself that interposed itself. It was created, and briefly functioned, and then dissipated as the conditions causing it ceased. That is emotion in your lives.

That is a pretty vivid analogy.

Fire and things associated with fire are in many ways analogous to your lives in general and to particular aspects of your lives. Fire requires heat, fuel, and oxygen, and does not function without all three. The three may exist without manifesting fire, but fire will not exist in the absence of any of the three factors. In the absence of its actual physical manifestation, though, fire is only a concept! Or, let’s say, only a potential. It isn’t like fire continues to exist, unmanifested. No, it comes into existence and it goes out of existence in specific instances, therefore at specific times and in specific places. It doesn’t exist on a shelf somewhere, waiting to be activated. Similarly, emotions.

And to continue with the analogy, fire doesn’t have to be a wildfire. It may be a cheering campfire. Drama is not necessarily its accompaniment, you see.

Now if you get the idea of the emotions and feelings as interface between your circumscribed 3D life (as experienced from within 3D, we mean), and the external shared subjectivity it exists in, perhaps what we are getting at will be clearer.

It gives me an image of us always in reentry.

Let’s adjust the analogy, then. Consider emotions and feelings to be like the laminar flow between a moving object and the medium it is moving through.

That’s an interesting image.

Surfaces may be streamlined or not, slippery or not, aerodynamically efficient or not. In any case, they still have to accomplish the same basic task; they are the interface between internal subjectivity and shared subjectivity. Or rather, the surface is the base for the interface.

Yes, I see that. Our psychological makeup will determine the general pattern of our interactions. It is the hull, or the aircraft’s skin. The interaction between our way of responding to the world and the world itself is the active interface, the ionization layer or the ripples of air or water caused by our passage.

And in the nature of things, you tend to identify with that ionization layer, when you ought to be identifying with the skin composition. They are not your emotions; they are the phenomena that appear in certain situations. They appear personal to you because they reflect your signature, but they are not “yours” any more than the molecules of atmosphere being ionized by a reentering spacecraft are the property of the spacecraft.

So this ought to clear up the questions around definition of feelings and emotions. It is more a question of context than of substances. Is fire from a campfire objectively different from a fiery reentry from space or from the wildly destructive open fires in forest land? You could say “Yes,” in examining things closely enough, or you could say “No” in concentrating on what characteristics they share. But except for the purpose of analysis, it’s pretty academic. It doesn’t help you live your lives. The analogy of an ionizing layer of air, though, may.

All I can say is that at least at this moment, while I’m actively linked, it seems clear and extremely vivid. More so than I can remember any description of emotion being.

You can see that fire, being considered as an abstract, has so many potential forms of manifestation that the commonality may be all but lost among the variations. Well, that’s emotions in your lives. Emotions may be calm, stormy, destructively rending. They may elate, depress, disorient, fulfill.

Or rather, they may register such states?

No, not exactly. We know it can look like that.

The key thing to take away from this, along with that vivid image of the ionizing layer protecting the reentering spacecraft from the effects of its interaction with a relatively unvarying environment (relatively unvarying in relation to it, we mean), is that that layer is generated by the interaction of two different things. That’s the important thing here.

Taking our 3D lives to be the reentering spacecraft and the shared subjectivity, the “external” world, to be the relatively incompressible atmosphere.

Yes, only don’t confine it to that one dramatic example. Remember, emotion is the interface between your personal subjectivity and the shared subjectivity, so it is the smoothness or roughness of the canoe’s skin as it makes its way in the water. It is the comforting light and warmth of the campfire, interacting with the darkness and coolness it interrupts. It is the holding hands while strolling, or the cuddling one’s baby, or the fist-fight in the schoolyard. It is the inner lightbulb going on when a new concept suddenly gels, and the satisfaction when one gets wording just right, or completes a painting without ruining it.

Clear enough, at least at the moment.

Just hold that concept (only, hold it lightly!) of emotion as the interface between you as you experience yourselves and the “external” world as you experience it. We can build on that.

Perhaps not so much a fiasco?

Touché.

 

The Interface: Sound barrier

I believe you proposed to continue by discussing how we change our beliefs.

Less how you change them than how they change. That is, you are less active in the process than might be assumed.

Our beliefs change themselves?

Well –

  • Remember, we are considering your life not as if the 3D were lived in the isolation it is usually considered to be lived in, but in its connections conscious and unconscious, 3D and non-3D, present and (in effect) past and future.
  • Seen in this larger, wider, deeper, context, changes in who you experience yourselves to be are naturally seen to involve relationships between conscious and impersonal forces; that is, between personal and impersonal forces.
  • The rules of 3D existence mandate that everything be experienced sequentially – that is, in time-slices. That doesn’t mean though that they actually take place in time-slice increments.

We experience things as “past” or “future” because that’s how a 3D mind makes sense of things, but in fact every moment of time is in the present in its own frame of reference.

Yes. And this form of relativity is far more important than the application of relativity merely to space while trying to treat time distortion as a sort of interesting parlor trick. But of course we aren’t here to discuss such things; that kind of discussion will be best confined to the minds that find it natural to think in such ways.

  • Given the above, perhaps you can see that what you are – which threads you pick up and which ones you lay down at any given moment – cannot be caused in the way 3D conditions lead you to assume.

The connection isn’t quite clear to me.

“Choosing” is a more interactive process, it involves more factors even disregarding “external” events, than 3D rules make it seem.

Ah! It isn’t just cause-and-effect, and isn’t cause-and-effect involving only the factors active in any given moment.

That’s closer. But it is hellishly difficult to translate a simultaneous process into a sequential narrative, just as it is difficult to describe events involving many dimensions as if it involved only one.

I seem to feel you ready to throw up your non-existent hands in the face of the impossible complexity of the task.

Candidly, yes, we do feel that way, a little. It isn’t merely a matter of many things to do, nor of a task requiring greater bandwidth and RAM than is at your disposal. Nor is it that your attitude toward the material is a problem; it isn’t. But how to explain everything at once. That’s the problem.

Why more so now than heretofore?

Because many times, processes that are simultaneous and interactive can be described sequentially and in isolated detail, and then re-assembled, so to speak. But there comes a level of complexity that makes this impossible. That’s why it is usually abandoned as inexpressible, or is warped into something that will be at least a little bit true, but is mostly misleading.

Which is why we see so many mutually contradictory philosophies and religions and cosmologies, I take it. With the best will to truth, they grasp only a part of it, not only because of people’s peculiarities of thought but also because it is all too vast to be grasped as it really is, rather than “sort of like this.”

In addition, any explanation will be more understandable, or less, depending upon the audience.

So what are you going to do, quit?

We smile. No, we’re just kvetching, as you might say.

Feels like you’re also stalling for time while you think about it.

That too.

I had the feeling, coming into this session, that you knew what you wanted to say and knew how you were going to approach saying it.

Look back. Can you see how we got derailed because your question/comment showed us that we weren’t getting it across?

After the fourth bullet-point, you mean?

Yes. And that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t have interrupted, it means that made it clear that less was being conveyed than we hoped, and needed.

Let’s put it another way. Maybe if we list the frameworks, each of which must be considered as if separate, but all of which (and others unmentioned, for sheer lack of bandwidth) must be considered together which is a very different thing than considering them separately.

  • Your consciousness, in reality affected by all

Still too big?

Too unwieldy, anyway.

Can’t you break it down farther?

It’s hard to see how.

Could you just continue sketching one piece at a time? Isn’t that what you had planned to do in discussing feelings and thought?

We have about reached the limit of what can be usefully discussed sequentially and separately.

[Pause]

From the beginning, our strategy has been to describe your lives beginning as they appear to you. It looks like we will have to continue on that path, but we caution you, in some ways our explanations can only become successively more misleading unless translated beyond 3D concepts. And to do that requires much more of you, because in effect you will need to be continually holding in mind all the caveats and “so to speaks” that we will not be able to furnish if we are to get anything said. You see the difficulty? And the opportunity?

The analogy that comes to mind is Jesus bringing his disciples along. At some point he needed them to bring more understanding to their listening. And not just Jesus, I imagine, but the Buddha and anyone reaching this barrier.

Yes, it is a form of sound barrier.

So what can we as listeners do to better absorb what you need to tell us?

Isn’t it obvious?

It is now. It wasn’t when I asked. We need to understand more by using our higher awareness, or non-3D component’s ability to make connections that are beyond our 3D minds’ abilities to do.

You do that already, of course, but yes, you will need to do that even more actively and more successively as we proceed. This is why learning to communicate with your non-3D components is crucial to the process of understanding life. You literally can’t understand anything about life if you cannot achieve a viewpoint – a standing-point – independent of a 3D-only understanding. And you cannot achieve that broader viewpoint using only 3D tools, using only logic and thought. They must be assisted and directed by a higher understanding than 3D-only, and this whether recognized by the 3D mind or (usually) not.

I get that this almost means you will need to speak to us even more cryptically.

Others have used that strategy. We prefer to try to continue to explain, explain, explain, even at the cost of tedium. We may need to back up and try from a different angle.

Well, all I can say is, Seth never ran himself into cul de sacs.

Like you’d know?

Touché.