Blog

Saturday, May 3, 2025

7:40 a.m. Not sure how to proceed, so over to you. I think we ought to be continuing something begun or touched upon, but I don’t remember what it is.

Would you like to revisit that experience?

[I knew immediately what they were referring to.]

As a matter of fact, I would. I can’t remember the details around how it happened, though. I’m not sure I could even place it within any given decade, except that of course it had to have been within the past 30 years. Gateway was December, 1992; obviously it was after that.

In general, one remembers the aspect of a thing that is important. Important to the one remembering, that is. There is no other meaningful relationship.

In other words, no one can impose a meaning on anyone else’s memories or experience.

That’s right, and no one can establish any rules about it, either. Just as the same elements in two different dreams may “mean” different things, and even more so the same elements in different people’s dreams – so in the dream you are living. You all necessarily pull your metaphors from your life, and no two people will find the same meaning in a given symbol, nor will the same individual necessarily find the same meaning at different times.

Sometimes we can see things that the person telling us his dream cannot.

Yes, of course, and as we have said, this is one way one’s Upstairs (non-3D) component can assist someone else, by passing on in speech what the other person may not notice or may undervalue when heard only from within. But this is not to say that you know each other’s inner reality. You don’t. You can’t. You get glimpses of certain aspects, and if you are minded to be helpful you can use those glimpses to suggest connections – but even at your most helpful you will be swinging blindly, never knowing if your insight is accurate or helpful. However, this aside is a diversion. Relate your experience as you remember it. Only, do it this way: Note the overall plot, so to speak, then return and fill in texture and detail. You may get a surprise.

Okay. Well, it was an important experience to me. I haven’t forgotten it and I’m not likely to forget it. But what I remember may be hard to set forth.

As we said. Perhaps begin with a one-paragraph summary and then resort to bullet-points.

It was an altered-state experience, perhaps in the context of a Monroe program, but perhaps not. I suddenly appeared in a room that seemed like a council room – a big table, with people around it, all on one side of it, and I on the other side, where “the public” might be. They were surprised to see me appear, but not astonished: Appearances apparently were rare but not unheard of. I spoke to them briefly, then said, “I can’t hold it,” something like that, and dropped back into the reality I was accustomed to, the reality I am writing this from.

Bear in mind the main advantage of resorting to bullets: You need not concern yourself with sequential exposition or logic. You can follow what appears as it appears. This sometimes alters the sequence, and hence the connections made peripherally, hence in effect deepens and alters the context.

All right. So, as they occur to me:

• It was a deliberate act on my part, an exercise of some kind, but I didn’t set out to have that particular experience. How could I have done so? I didn’t know it was possible.
• I think this was a second stage of whatever I was doing. It built my energy somehow, or perhaps tightened my focus. The irruption into that room was entirely unsought at any conscious level. It was a surprise.
• Surprised them, too. It was as if a board of directors were having a meeting and suddenly an outsider popped up from beneath the flooring. Two elements: (a) outsider. (b) suddenly appeared.
• They knew that such things sometimes happened, though whether they or any of them had had such an experience, I have no way to know. They were surprised but not astonished.
• They were curious, too, come to think of it. One of them (if the idea of “one of them” rather than all of them together is appropriate) asked how long I had been in 3D. When I told them X years, however long it was then, they were impressed, apparently considering living in 3D as quite a feat of endurance.
• Did I ask them anything? You’d think I would, but I don’t know, I was entirely unprepared for this, and maybe I didn’t. It was all I could do to hold on.
• Yes, that’s an important part of it. I knew while it was happening that merely maintaining myself in that space was taking all I had. It was a great effort even to do nothing more than remain there.
• And I told them – after not very long – “I can’t hold it, it takes too much,” or something like that, and it was as if I had been doing a chin-up and let myself fall back.
• Then and afterward I had no doubt of what I had so briefly experienced. It was real. Where I had been, was realer than where I am now. I doubt it was people around a table; that was my mind providing a context, I think. But the reality of a space realer than this one was evident, convincing, and left a permanent certainty.
• Could I provide evidence for anybody, or even for myself? Yes, but what it is worth, each will have to decide for himself, The evidence is that the experience changed me, and I stayed changed. What it meant may be entirely different from what I conjecture, but it happened and was not an illusion. Christopher Columbus may have been on Watling Island when he thought he was in the Orient, but even though his interpretation was wrong, his experience was real.

You have forgotten or never noticed your impression of wood.

That’s true, and I never thought it was important, because I assumed that the shape of what I experienced had been provided by my mind creating an interpretation. But I did experience the room as being paneled in some dark wood. Certainly the floor that I seemed to come through was wood. Does this mean anything?.

Everything in a dream contributes to meaning, you know, and conscious life is not any different, except that one tends to pay less attention to it. [That is, to all the elements in a given situation as contributing to the overall meaning.] And you might give more emphasis to the collegial nature of the meeting.

That’s true, it felt like deliberations conducted in harmony and in a spirit of helpfulness. I seem to remember – now that you remind me of it – that at some point then or later I wondered if this was not a representation of my own guys upstirs, or perhaps my own past lives (as I thought of it then) or some similar council whose task was to guide me. But I never decided, and how could I have done?

Now you wonder – in part of your mind – whether you were experiencing the non-3D as we do. And merely reminding you of the question is enough to indicate the answer.

Yes it is: No. We experience the non-3D every day. It is – as you have maintained repeatedly – integrally related to our 3D life. This was something entirely different in feel. It had to have a connection to me, or how could I have experienced it? But what it was may or may not go on all the time, without my knowing it. All I know for sure is that it is not a level of reality I had ever experienced consciously. And I have yet to experience it again.

Which leaves only the question, Why? You can’t know the “how” of it, but you can at least speculate on why you had this brief, significant, non-repeated glimpse into another layer of the reality of which your – our – common reality is only a subset. Your answer may or may not be correct, but the very asking will be important. So – why?

The answer that comes to mind is, after than I could never be in doubt that reality is more than we commonly think it. I came to all this with great belief, great doubt, great determination. Maybe that glimpse – if planned by anybody – was merely or mainly to reinforce the “great faith” part, against the pull of “great doubt.”

And that is enough for the moment. Call this, “An experience,” perhaps.

Cryptic enough. All right, and thanks as always for this.

 

Thursday, May 1, 2025

7 a.m. My question deferred from yesterday: Don’t large parts of the non-3D exist only in non-3D and not 3D?

That’s looking at it sort of backwards. It is more like, it requires a special orientation to exist in 3D at all. Everything in 3D is necessarily also in non-3D, but not everything in non-3D is in 3D.

An image or analogy would help.

All the burners on your stovetop are part of the stove, but not all the stove is burners.

Not sure that is going to do it.

The 3D is a created space, remember. It is a collection of qualities exaggerated in order to produce certain effects held to be desirable.

I felt we almost had the analogy, but it disappeared between one word and the next, you could say.

Patience. It will emerge when we provide enough negative space.

A created space. You all said that at the beginning, two dozen years ago, but not much since.

The order in which concepts are considered can be as important as the content. The student will be creating tentative structures throughout the process of instruction, and those structures may later assist or hinder greater comprehension. It makes a difference if we teach A, B, C rather than M, N, O, let alone teaching A, C, D and later having to explain why we initially disregarded B. And the order we use in one situation is not the same as we might in a different relationship, for of course the relation of teacher to student is an active factor in what can be conveyed. No one can teach a stubborn materialist in the same way as a flighty scatterbrained idealist, say, or a feet-on-the-ground, intelligently skeptical person, or a convinced intuitive, or any of these with this or that particular intellectual and emotional background. The facts don’t vary, but the presentation must, if there is to be any meeting of minds.

All right.

Let’s try it at a generalized level, and see if the idea comes through. As usual, we expect that some will find the question trivially easy to see, and others may wrack their brain for a bit.

Every generalized condition may have specific variances. In fact, it is very likely to have them, if it is to be complicated enough to provide conditions of much interest.

Nature differentiates into species after differentiating into an animal or plant kingdom. Humans differentiate into races, races into sub-races. Amoebae divide and produce only more amoebae, nothing else. The rest of nature flourishes by experimentation, subdivision, etc.

Any machine is made up of parts. All the parts of a car are part of the car, but the car is not the sum of its parts.

Perhaps not so good an example.

No. Well, let’s try this: A desert is an environment, a specialized combination of elements, All deserts are part of earth, but not all earth is desert. All creatures within the desert are dependent upon it, but the desert is not dependent on their being there.

A better example, it occurs to me, you gave us long ago: Humans need to breathe air. Air doesn’t need to be breathed by humans.

That is true but not quite to the point here. We may be misleading you by mentioning dependence.

Let’s try it this way. What we are calling the non-3D has as its invisible linguistic counterpart the idea of a “3D” to be the non-3D of. What we call the All-D was to give the idea of 3D and non-3D being parts of the same system, rather than as in any way independent of each other. But in the present case, it is almost a mistake (and is at least confusing) to say that non-3D can exist without being part of 3D. The statement misleads in that two different conditions are being referred to under the same “non-3D” label.

I begin to see that. There is a specific part of non-3D that is bound to 3D – you, for example. And 3D and non-3D together make up this earth life we experience. You are saying there is a form of non-3D that is not bound to 3D and it has different qualities.

Not quite, but you are on the trail. It is more the other way round: The non-3D that is not bound to 3D is vastly larger than the specialized form that is bound to 3D. To return to our stovetop analogy, we could say that all non-3D is metal, but only that part of the non-3D that is integrally connected to 3D is a burner.

Is this worth coining a new term to reduce confusion?

Perhaps. Try.

Well, what if we continue using non-3D as we have been using it, to depict the part of reality that we in 3D can experience – via ILC, for instance, or remote viewing, or unaided intuition or whatever. Then we need invent a word only to mean the non-3D as it exists without this close connection to the 3D implosion.

Yes, that is the idea. And you would call it, what?

Cosmic non-3D?

There are difficulties with that.

Yes, I can feel it. Well – I don’t know, uncoupled non-3D?

Closer but still not yet suitable.

External? Unaffiliated? Natural? Uncompressed? Ah! Uncoupled?

Uncoupled may work, but it will be decipherable only to those who already know what we mean.

I suppose we could say “non-binary,” meaning, not coupled to the 3D condition.

Non-binary is not an improvement over uncoupled. Either may serve.

So then, let’s have your capsule summary using this clarifying phrase.

Most of non-3D is non-binary (uncoupled), in that it has no limitation on it by any close relationship to a 3D condition. However, specialized cases in which non-3D provides one pole and 3D the opposite pole do exist. Non-coupled non-3D is vastly more common than coupled non-3D – but how would you experience it?

That sounds close to a division in reality.

Our rhetorical question has an answer, if you will pause to ponder it.

Oh. Through our own non-3D connection, of course.

Exactly. As you say, there are no absolute divisions in reality. However, remember that there are steps. The higher reality you once briefly experienced is kin to yours, but is not identical to it, as artwork you create is kin to you but not identical to who and what you are.

There’s always more to learn.

Yes, isn’t it good? You never need to be bored, never need to sigh and say, “I’ve seen it all.”

I for one have no criticisms of reality. I did, and for a long time, “but that was in another country, and besides, the wench is dead.”

You like Abraham Lincoln’s quote and he was right, most people are about as happy as they are determined to be. It is a good world, a good life, and those who don’t know it now will know it at some point.

Our thanks for this, as always. What do we call it?

“Clarifying no-3D,” perhaps

Till next time, then.

 

Wednesday, April 30, 2025

6:30 a.m. Shall we resume?

Beginning with the idea of consciousness as being elimination of input quite as much as inclusion of input, let’s look at your lives. A baby needs protection not only because of physical weakness but because it does not yet know how to orient itself in the 3D world.. It doesn’t know where it is, you might say. It can’t predict, can’t very well understand, in short can’t cope. But what it can do, and do very well, is receive psychic input from all directions and build a picture of this new world it is experiencing. That doesn’t mean it builds an accurate picture, but build one it does. It has no choice.

Builds that picture from what elements? Some bullets:

1. Its 3D input through the senses.
2. Its 3D input through the intuitions.
3. Its non-3D input from various threads, in varying importance one to another.
4. Its non-3D input from non-3D sources as well as what flows from its own threads.

That is enough to be going along with. For convenience we could group them as 3D (1 and 2) and non-3D (3 and 4), or as internal (2 and 3) and external (1 and 4). But it is all input.

The ingredients do not change as you live your lives, but of course the proportional importance of each element changes, both moment-to-moment and over time according to preference and circumstance.

We will spell it out, at the risk of belaboring the obvious. Your polarities in life:

• Internal or external
• Sensory or intuitive
• Self or other
• Understanding or action

Obviously you will experience the entire range of the polarity, rather than merely one or the other side of a polarity. And, the four polarities overlap. We are less concerned with presenting a neat and tidy scheme than with offering you new glimpses into your reality.

So, internal or external. Which source of input do you pay the most attention to? (Again, remember this is a moment-to-moment choice as well as an overall-bias choice.) Is your inner world so brightly lit that you pay as little attention to external affairs as you can get away with? Alternatively, is the evident “realness” of the external world so blinding as to lead you to forget or be unable to perceive your own non-physical connection? These are extremes, but the polarity is real.

Sensory or intuitive. Which do you trust? Which is realer to you?

Self or other? Which is your proper orientation, and which is diversion? Not everybody is meant to concentrate on the state of their soul. Neither is everybody meant to concentrate on the state of the world in which they find themselves. Again, not an either/or. How could it be? But, a matter of proportions.

Finally, understanding or action. (As we say, the themes incorporates overlap.) Put it this way: Which seems like real work to you? Which seems worth doing and which not? Understanding puts together a map of the world – as we are doing right now. Action sets forth to make improvement on what exists – as we are doing right now. You couldn’t really do only one and not the other, but few people – and you are not one of them – can hold the two in balance. Nor is there any particular reward for doing so.

Now put it together:

1. You are 3D and non-3D
2. You receive input from both sources, and each input-strain is made of two elements, and expresses in two dimensions
3. Your mind – which is the only real expression of you, the realest part of your “somewhat-real” existence – forms an on-going system that we once called a habit-pattern. That is, it works in predictable ways that vary, but are nonetheless orderly and distinctive.
4. Nonetheless, whether you realize it or not, remember it or not, you as habit-system are only one node in a greater being that expresses partly as a network of threads. Therefore in reality you cannot exist in isolation.
5. The more you concentrate on the here-and-now, the sensorily obvious, the more prone you are to forget that vastly the larger part of life – even the 3D life you are fashioning – is non-3D, invisible, nearly imperceptible.
6. However, concentrating on the here and now is what you are in 3D to do! Sleepwalking through your life is not, in general, particularly productive. (That doesn’t mean never, but we are setting out generalizations here.)
7. So, there is a built-in contradiction. Should this surprise you? Look to your lives, and see if many of your perplexities do not stem from your disregarding or not realizing the fact that you are suspended between conflicting necessities.
8. Hence, consciousness!

I waited for more, but you seem to think that final bullet is self-evident and self-explanatory.

Is it not?

Not to me.

Consciousness is choice. Life is repeated choice. Choosing is what shapes the gift you give to life (that is, the life you create and hand back as a new habit-system). And what informs choice?

I think I get it. Choice may be well-founded or not, and how well it is founded depends on how well we process input and manage output. The more we get, the better we function, and the better the choices we make.

Jesus said that the more you have, the more you will be given, but if you bury your own talent, you will have wasted the opportunity, and your higher self will not be pleased.

Interesting take on a parable that many people think seems to approve arbitrary and unfair distribution of wealth.

We keep telling you —

Yeah, yeah. You don’t need to persuade me.

This isn’t only for you, though, is it? We say it again: Your spiritual heritage will give you valuable clues if you can once relate them to your present work. (And, by work we mean not any particular process you may be involved in, but the construction of your lives.)

I get that this is not quite finished.

No, one more thing. The nature of consciousness isn’t worth investigating in a vacuum. You will get results of considering it not as a thing but as a condition, as a relation of one thing to another.

That isn’t clear.

Let’s say, consciousness always relates to purpose. A cloud’s consciousness is real, definite, changing – but that may be said of you. What is a cloud’s purpose? It is the same as yours, to relate itself to the world, 3D and non-3D. (We know that sounds counter-intuitive, but if 3D and non-3D shade into each other, how could anything exist in only one and not also the other? And, existing there, how could it not have some form of awareness of that realm?)

I’ll defer consideration of the question until another time, but I want to note to ask, don’t large parts of the non-3D exist only in non-3D and not 3D?

This would be a diversion at this moment, so yes, let’s look at it another time. Our point here is that consciousness stretches between your self-awareness and some seemingly external object or event. But words tangle this up.

They certainly do. Self-awareness and consciousness sound like the same thing.

A baby is aware of itself, but has no concepts; hence it is aware but not conscious that it is aware. It has no basis for self-reflection.

Hmm, you tie consciousness to concepts.

Think of “clicking out” in the Monroe world. You perceive something for which you have no concept, no experience, no way to connect it to your accustomed world – and so you return from a real experience but you have no idea what happened. If later you experience the same thing again, or if for other reasons you are able to build a bridge to what happened, perhaps what had been clicked out becomes perceptible. You have extended your range of consciousness. You can “make sense” of something that previously you couldn’t even bring to mind.

I can see the confusion that language makes, given that we all use “awareness” and consciousness” and such terms loosely and interchangeably.

It is a problem, but not an insuperable one, provided that you are conscious of it! We smile.

A very interesting session. What shall we call it?

“More on consciousness” would do.

Our thanks as always.

 

Tuesday, April 29, 2025

3:40 a.m. We were talking about consciousness, but that was a couple of mornings ago, and I have since completed that journal book and don’t have it right here. I suppose you can remember where we were. Jon? Dr. Jung?

The central concept is that consciousness of the 3D world of time-slices is not additive but subtractive. To live in the world, you must concentrate on one time, one place. Centering, though, may be looked at equally rightly as blocking out the periphery. Let’s see if we can come up with an image or analogy that will provide a gestalt recognition, rather than attempting only a sequential – logical – understanding.

• All reality is emanated from a higher-order reality of which we know little.
• Everything in this reality (non-3D as well as 3D) shares the properties of the higher-order reality of which it was made.
• Let’s use the concept of densification in an unusual context, see if that clarifies our view. In this scheme, our level of reality proceeds from the least concentrated to the most concentrated.
• Hence: Undifferentiated aether (the essence of everything at this level) -> separation into 3D and non-3D -> 3D continuing the process: -> gas -> liquid -> solid.
• But remember, every physical (3D) substance includes a non-physical (non-3D) component, and thus we see a progression by kingdom, as in the old scheme, only, in effect, reversed for our purposes. That is, the mineral kingdom’s concentration is less than the plant kingdom’s, which is less than the animal’s, which is less than the human.
• The human level begins the return from the densest, most concentrated, upward toward the whole again; hence, the next step up from human concentrated consciousness is the angelic kingdom, which, like the human, is a mixture of elements.
• By this densification scheme you can see that increased concentration is – like most things – a two-edged sword. One gains and loses.
• Looking more closely, this shows that states of consciousness differ by kingdoms, as we have always said. The mineral kingdom’s consciousness is not individual but is not non-existent either, and as you go up or down the chain of being, you see progressions.
• Even within human consciousness, you see the same thing. Everyone, even babies who are unaware that they are in any way separated from their surroundings, enjoys a basic flow of energy. As one grows, the awareness of being one with the world decreases; awareness of being individual increases.
• Special states (autism, for one) provide special experiences of life, some readily communicable, many not. Deliberately achieved states of meditation or awareness of oneness also provide special experience, this time voluntarily. But even states of bliss are not unmixed blessings except in that they are seen as such, because desired. Every increase in concentration – even if it is concentration on awareness – is a step farther from the original universal (relatively unconscious) awareness.
• That seems paradoxical, but again, movement in any one direction is necessarily movement away from other directions.

You don’t think of yogis as striving to attain the same view of the world as mountains have, say, or oceans or clouds.

Nor is it the same. There is every difference between simplicity that has never changed and simplicity that has been achieved by incorporating and overcoming complexity.

I can’t understand how it can have taken us 50 minutes to go only this far. It has flowed smoothly.

Doesn’t matter. This is a beginning. Call it “densification,” perhaps. It is necessary that people begin to understand that “consciousness” and “altered states of consciousness” are not what they tend to think they are.

I have an impression of having gone over this many years ago, though not so clearly.

Reiteration is a valid technique. Every time you step into the river, it is a different you, a different river, although equally it is the same you, the same river. Retracing your steps is not lost motion.

All right, well, our thanks as always.

 

Sunday, April 27, 2025

3:50 a.m. Let’s try for a session. I got a brief thought, Friday, that what we call consciousness is the result of a process of subtraction, rather than of addition.

And you have glimpsed this truth before, but you have forgotten.

I almost remember, but not really.

Let us distance our thought from the word “consciousness,” which is so laden with contradictory implications. To grasp the basic concept here, we will need to use the simplest terms and make the simplest arguments.

Let us begin thus:

• All this level of reality – which is all we can know – is alive and is all one thing.
• What we experience as matter and spirit, as alive or dead, as substance or thought, is all one thing under the 3D conditions of time and space.
• Thus, before we exist, before the world as we experience it exists, there is a “something” whose qualities give rise to all the qualities we experience as part of life.
• That primitive substance that is the world prior to our perception is alive – because nothing can be constructed out of dead material, if there could be such a thing as dead material.
• Being alive, this substance must have within it all the qualities that it gives rise to in our experience. In development, something cannot come out of nothing, nor can lesser produce greater.
• However, the categories through which we view things may mislead us, and in the case of “consciousness,” the concept is backwards. We tend to think that what we call consciousness is a construction, a development, an increase, and it is none of these things.

The reality that emanates from a higher level begins as an undivided unity. As such, it is aware of itself in the way that any unity is aware of itself before it becomes aware of the existence (or even the concept) of “other.” If you did not know that others existed, how could you feel any need (or ability) to communicate?

So, becoming aware of the existence of other things is not an increase in consciousness?

It is a matter of viewpoint – and the very word “viewpoint” implies separation. If you are everywhere, how can you have a viewpoint? If you are everything, what can there be to see? If your awareness is universal and undifferentiated, how can you channel it into senses? So, yes, the conventional view of things is somewhat true – from one point of view – but the view of consciousness as being a state of subtraction (and its result) is at least equally true. And, as usual, considering a thing from more than one point of view adds understanding.

Now, the nature of 3D is separation in time, separation in space. You are here, now, in bodily placement and sensory awareness. But if 3D were all there is, life would be impossibly fragmented. How could there be continuity of awareness, continuity of effort? So, intrinsically connected to 3D conditions is the other end of the polarity, that you call non-3D. In non-3D you have the glue that holds together your lives. Time, space, being, becoming, all require non-3D to exist equally with 3D.

As has been said many times, non-3D is the home of mentality, 3D the home of the adaptation of mentality to physical conditions of separation.

I don’t think you ever put it quite that way.

Perhaps not, but we have said the equivalent. The mind is in non-3D, the brain is in 3D, and it is a matter of translation. To exist in 3D, then, one must also exist in non-3D, while the reciprocal is not so. Thus, non-3D is closer to the initial creation.

I’m not sure we could prove that, or even state it more convincingly.

There is not time enough to try to prove anything. We state it, and people can work it out for themselves, or, usually, can intuit their way to accepting or not accepting it. For the moment, accept the corollary: Non-3D is the superior state, 3D the subsidiary.

What you are accustomed to think of as progression up the scale is at least equally truly a descent. Not either/or, but both.

“What we gain in the swings, we lose on the roundabouts,” the English say.

The very distinction between yourself and “the English” (or anybody) is an example of the state of separation of concepts that you take for granted as life.

Now, try not to let yourself slip into categories of good and bad, or even better or worse. just follow our description of what is.

Yes, I get it.

Just for this discussion, we may need to make up some words, just to clarify. But we do not intend to create a jargon if we can avoid it.

Probably we can’t avoid it, and who cares? We’ve created enough clarifying distinctions over the past 25 years.

Yes, but simpler is better.

• The initial state of this level of reality when created. Prior to any form of separation, call it peaceful floating.

Call it the waters before God divided them.

Yes, very good. Undifferentiated creation from a higher order which our ancestors called God or the gods or whatever. So rather than unity, let’s call it “undivided creation.”

• Separation, the descent into polarities beginning with the separation by time and space. No longer a timeless universal unity, now a multiplicity of moments, a multiplicity of places. Does that first-order separation have consciousness?

We didn’t establish that the first-order condition had consciousness.

We did; we reminded you, nothing can proceed from less, only from more.

So you did. Well, I suppose you’d guess that whatever was separated might experience a lack where there had been whatever it was separated from. And it might experience that lack as the existence of other things, at the same time.

Yes, it is all in how you look at it. You might say that the primordial material lost its sense of completion and gained a sense of a more particular sense of itself as part of many. And on and on, as division followed division.

I may have to reread the first part of Genesis in this light. No point in going to other scriptures that I am less familiar with, but I’ll bet they will give the same kind of insights when reassessed this way. When I get to the computer, I’ll see if I can find a few verses worth looking at. Probably more than I will be able to add to this session, though.

We will do well to finish this initial thought. Consciousness looks higher if you examine the individual components, and looks lesser if you look at it comparing it to the initial unity. Thus:

Unity

Time and space

Land and water

Sentient and non-sentient

Rooted and mobile

Generalized species

Individuals

The Bible and other scriptures may not put it just this way, but perhaps you can see that his list represents a successive descent into particular from general, and ascent from unawareness to greater awareness.

Culminating in man being told to name the beasts.

Yes, and all this before the descent into better or worse, symbolized by eating from the tree of the perceiving things as good or evil. Before that, remember, God looked at all the polarities and said it was good.

That’s a pretty different way of reading it than we usually see.

Remember, we said the new civilization will have to consider scriptures among other things presently being neglected – but in considering them, it will see them differently and in turn they will help shape how it sees.

I get that. A place to pause?

Yes. Perhaps call this “Subtractive consciousness,” though that really may mislead.

How aout, “In the beginning….”?

Perhaps “The roots of consciousness.”

What happened to avoiding the word?

Well, you’ll think of something.

Our thanks for all this, as always.

& & &

Chapter 1 Genesis,  [Not the King James version, to make it easier to grasp anew, and verse numbers removed for the same reason. https://www.vatican.va/archive/bible/genesis/documents/bible_genesis_en.html]

In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth, the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters. Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. And God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.

And God said, “Let there be a dome in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.” So God made the dome and separated the waters that were under the dome from the waters that were above the dome. And it was so. God called the dome Sky. And there was evening and there was morning, the second day.

And God said, “Let the waters under the sky be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear.” And it was so. God called the dry land Earth, and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas. And God saw that it was good. Then God said, “Let the earth put forth vegetation: plants yielding seed, and fruit trees of every kind on earth that bear fruit with the seed in it.” And it was so. The earth brought forth vegetation: plants yielding seed of every kind, and trees of every kind bearing fruit with the seed in it. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening and there was morning, the third day.
And God said, “Let there be lights in the dome of the sky to separate the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years, and let them be lights in the dome of the sky to give light upon the earth.” And it was so. God made the two great lights – the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night – and the stars. God set them in the dome of the sky to give light upon the earth, to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening and there was morning, the fourth day.

And God said, “Let the waters bring forth swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the dome of the sky.” So God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, of every kind, with which the waters swarm, and every winged bird of every kind. And God saw that it was good. God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.” And there was evening and there was morning, the fifth day.

And God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures of every kind: cattle and creeping things and wild animals of the earth of every kind.” And it was so. God made the wild animals of the earth of every kind, and the cattle of every kind, and everything that creeps upon the ground of every kind. And God saw that it was good. Then God said, “Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the wild animals of the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.” So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them. God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth.”

God said, “See, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit; you shall have them for food. And to every beast of the earth, and to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food.” And it was so.  God saw everything that he had made, and indeed, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.

 

Friday, April 25, 2025

5:20 a.m. Yesterday’s insight asked how – if consciousness is universal – anything could appear to not share it. This, rather the opposite of the traditional question of how consciousness can come into being. I don’t know who to consult or what to ask, so I’ll leave both questions open and ask for whichever intelligence may be interested and able to communicate.

We have not yet finished our particular approach.

Welcome, Dr. Jung.

If you will reread our last conversation, it will align your mind for more.

Okay. [Did.]

We shall now begin again, with a different metaphor. Each change of metaphor or image assists in the process of realigning your mental habits, and although this may seem to slow down the process, in actuality it provides a firmer footing for a new understanding, by broadening the base it ultimately stands on.

I get that, and I am not impatient. I am all too aware of how little I am ready to understand the things I will need to learn.

Let us think of all of what you call All-D reality: the 3D world and its non-3D extension. (Or, of course, equally the non-3D world and its 3D extension. It will help if you remind yourselves that you are a viewpoint, not a universal view.)

The All-D as you have been thinking about it is all of one level of reality. You might say it is one state of mind within the vast cosmic mind. Just as one might define any given day or moment as one state out of the entirety of days or moments, so the reality in which we live (in body or not) is one specific. It is not everything, it is one thing. Even realizing that much, some people find impossible and most people find possible only sporadically. You can learn more about this reality; so can I: We cannot know everything about everything. If you cannot come to feel this fact, to accept it with due realistic humility, you will never be able to go beyond very elementary understandings, because your mental context will warp them to agree with your below-conscious strait jackets.

Yes, I understand that, even if I may not always keep the fact front and center.

Then, to our metaphor, not of cable cars and taxicabs, not of electricity and wiring, certainly not of objects and mechanisms. Let us see life as a dream from another level of reality, as one state of that larger reality’s mind.

I return to that native saying “There is a dream dreaming us,” and at different times I feel I understand it or don’t.

Think of it said this way: Something that we can experience only intuitively, and only in a vague and ethereal state, is responsible for our existence. Is that not what the man said?

When you put it that way, it is transparently clear, but I keep losing the sense of the reality of the perspective.

Sometimes we cannot hold our sense of a thing’s reality, but must cling to the memory of that time when we sensed it. If you can remember that you once understood it, you can prevent its slipping back beneath the level of your consciousness.

Now, that perception was very pointed, very much common sense from the native’s accustomed mental framework. Convey it as description of reality into yours.

Well, I think you just did that.

But, you do it, using your own words, because the nuances will be different when fashioned within 2025.

But you just did it: Isn’t that part of 2025?

Then let’s say, within a mind fashioned in 1946 instead of one fashioned in 1875. And we may come back to this, but, rephrase.

I guess I would say, the 3D/non-3D system we live in emanates from a deeper, higher, level of reality that we cannot fathom but can intuit. Maybe it is what some call God. Maybe it is like a laboratory and us an experiment. In any case, we are central to ourselves – our physical and mental reality is what we can know – but in a larger sense, we are only a product of a greater system of which we know little or nothing but some of its effects on us.

You see, as you turned it over in your mind, different aspects came to light.

Yes, I do.

So then, life as a dream. Always remembering that we explore by use of analogy, what kind of consciousness may fill dreams?

Is that the way to put it, or did I lose something at the end?

It would be better to say, “What is your experience of consciousness within dreams?” This subtly shifts the emphasis from some objectively existing “external” element in the dream and returns your mind to its central importance.

We come into life not conscious of the 3D world in any way we would recognize later. Someone – Ken Wilbur, I think – defined various kinds of consciousness. He discerned a hierarchy. It all centered on how an individual perceives the world. If he took into account changed in reality outside the individual, I don’t remember it.

But does the world depend upon how you see it?

It does as far as we are concerned. Our mental structures determine pretty much what we can experience.

That is not nearly as true as you think. But, accepting it for the moment, if you see it differently, for whatever reason, does it actually change?

How would we know?

Correct. How would we know? And this fact tells you what?

Tells me to be a little skeptical of people who think they know what the world is.

Yes, but does it tell you something about consciousness?

This isn’t a logical development, but I am getting the sense that what we experience as consciousness is shaped by our existence in a 3D-brain-influenced environment, and that even after death that influence persists.

And after all, this is one purpose of life, is it not, to shape an individual habit-system?

Hmm. So you are saying it isn’t only a disadvantage, being shaped by 3D forces, but also an advantage.

Certainly.

And, I guess, by extrapolation we’d have to say therefore the mind in that unknown greater reality isn’t like us, or there’d be no point in creating the conditions that shape us.

Or, equally, you could say it suggests that the unknown mind is like us, and in fact is probably the same substance at a different level of reality.

Realer than this level.

You experienced it yourself.

For about five seconds. Yes.

Still, five seconds is significantly more evidential than no seconds. Even though you forget about that brief experience from one year to the next, still it helped shape you. It is one reason you can do this work.

Have we even begun with your new metaphor of a dream dreaming us?

Painting the negative space is as important as working in the foreground. It will emerge.

Our thanks for your efforts on our behalf, both in 3D and since.

Call this, “A dream dreaming us.”

All right. Till next time, then.