Friday, October 27, 2017
Free will and predestination
We have a few questions queueing up, but I’m anxious to hear you on predestination and free will.
Very well, it’s very simple – or very complicated, depending upon which end of the stick you pick up.
It doesn’t seem so to us. To us it looks like it ought to be an either/ or.
But, remember what you noticed repeatedly whenever Rita would find a contradiction. The universe contains all contradictions, but does not contradict itself.
But is this a contradiction of fact, or only of opinion?
Free will means, in essence, that in a given set of circumstances – at a given moment in the ever-flowing river of time carrying you along in your 3D life – you seize choices. That is, you have the real, not theoretical, ability to go this way or that way, like the lassie in the old song. You have a real, not a theoretical, choice. You really can choose heads or tails, A or B. You and Rita were told, first thing, that free will is the point of 3D existence, so that you will develop as you will, not as puppets, not as chips floating in rapids.
Predestination means, it’s all well and good to say you have freedom to choose, but your whole history leads you to choose one way rather than another. Not only your past but your future pulls you in a certain direction – or, one might say, holds you as a piece of iron might be held in an overwhelmingly strong magnetic current. That piece of iron won’t even be able to tumble end over end, though it might perhaps rotate on its forward-aft axis. To say that you have choice is to consider yourself as if you were in isolation; to say you are predestined is to see yourself as one tiny element in an overwhelmingly powerful, continuing organizing system; a rapids; a hurricane; a magnetic field. (Organizing systems aren’t necessarily calm or even apparently stable, but they channel immense forces.)
Swedenborg said humans were artificially suspended between equalized forces in order that they might have real, effective, free will. I think that is a fairly accurate summary of what he said.
Let’s set that way of seeing things to one side for the moment. Swedenborg was a great seer; so was Cayce; so were uncounted individuals known to the world and unknown. But nobody else’s experience and thought and conclusions can ever prove anything for anybody else. What they may do is spark a recognition, and of course that is what we are trying to do here, say things that some will recognize and profit by.
Thoreau said something similar once, that nothing was ever true to him because somebody else said it, but only because it whispered itself in his ear.
And that thought in itself appealed to you, you see. It sparked a recognition. That’s why people find favorite authors; their minds run in parallel.
Now, bear in mind, free will and predestination – seeming opposites – both depend upon one way of seeing things, namely that there is one time-stream, one consciousness, one individual will, for each person. When you change those assumptions, everything changes; consequences differ as circumstances differ.
Why is this hard slogging, suddenly?
Because you are nervous, wondering if we are going to make sense.
Yes, I suppose so. Well – onward, then.
In a reality in which the physical world was what it seems to “common sense” people, there would be only one time-stream. The physical world would be solid, substantial (as it appears) and obviously could not be multiplied millions of times every day as all those people made all those decisions. One reality-stream; real and irrevocable consequences.
In such a one-timestream reality, the free will / predestination argument would naturally arise as people seized on this set or that set of unarguable facts that cannot be reconciled, for in such a system, there could be no reconciling them. It would have to be an either / or, and yet the evidence would be too great on either side for the contrary assertion to be sanctioned. Deadlock, you see.
So the clue is that the world is projected thought.
Projected consciousness; formed not so much into thought as into awareness. There is life without thought; there is no life without awareness.
Okay. The world is projected consciousness, and, as we have been told repeatedly, all possible paths exist; all are waiting for us to walk them, and somehow we do walk them all, choosing heads and tails, time after time, with our awareness restricted somehow to only one path, the others remaining only theoretical to us. It often seems only a fanciful idea, even after nearly 20 years.
That is because you have the wrong idea of who “you” are. You are identifying with the Pac-man eating obstacles, rather than with the player playing the game. Or if you don’t like that example, another analogy would be that you are identifying with the character and not the actor, or the movie-goer viewing the final film rather than with the film editor choosing among possible scenes.
We get the idea. Pretty hard not to identify with what we experience every moment, though.
You also experience the other level, when you don’t filter out the evidence as impossible or fantasy or hallucination or merely inexplicable.
Yes, I have a few friends who experience alternate realities poking in, every so often.
A more accurate statement would be that you have friends who are occasionally conscious of it, for you all experience it; only they do not always screen out what they experience but may have no framework for.
In any case, when you realize – or even, for the moment, theorize, pretend, envision – yourselves to be the one, single, undivided you that takes all paths, rather than the fragment-you that you customarily experiences as taking one path only (whether or not free to choose), you see that there is no real contradiction at that level. Of course you are free, but not free to take only one path: free to identify with this or that part of yourself. Of course it is all predestined: the paths existed from the moment the world was created; all you could do was fill them, or as it seems to you, walk them.
And all this has ramifications.
Because all paths exist, it is easy to see and even visit the future. (And how could anyone see the future if it was not already pre-formed?) Because you change timelines – reality-streams, if you will – it is easy to cease to have one future and have another. (How else could real seers nevertheless predict futures that “don’t happen,” like Cayce predicting so many physical catastrophes that did not occur, instead of World War II, that did?)
We keep coming back to the same simple (but not necessarily easy) statement: You are not what you think you are; the world you exist in is not what it appears to be.
We do know that. Our questions mostly amount to, “But who are we, then, and what is the world?” And we’re glad for your assistance in orienting us.
Bear in mind, it is a continuing enterprise, because you – and we – may come to a resting-place, a comfortable way of making sense of things, and that’s all well and good, but ultimately there is always more to learn, always a deeper way of seeing things.
So we’ll never be bored, I know.
That isn’t the purpose, but it is the effect, yes.
Saturday, October 28, 2017
I guess we’re ready to proceed.
Then let us proceed to talk about your very interesting speculation.
Yeah, speculation – or maybe a planted idea?
Does it matter?
I don’t know. Okay, here is my journal entry from yesterday. “It occurred to me that our higher self’s choices may be what matter, and our individual choices on each path may somehow sway it. But this may be confused. We’ll see.”
It is, in any case, an interesting change of focus, is it not? Another instance of the productive redirection of thought that may occur when you move your focus of attention from your 3D level to your – higher self, some call it, others use other names. Oversoul, say.
Is that what Emerson meant by the term? Or, for that matter, Jane Roberts?
Don’t concentrate on other people’s formulations. Remember what we said about using the written word as inspiration, as sparks, rather than as logic or textbook.
Okay. In any case –
Well, let’s back up a bit, as usual, to draw context.
In 3D you experience yourself as living one life, making choices as you go. You may believe, abstractly, that the alternative lives formed by other choices exist, but it is hard for you to know it in the absence of sensory evidence. Even those who experience inexplicable changes in memory find it hard.
I think you meant, people who remember things that turn out not to be true, or not anymore, let’s say.
That’s right. Even they will usually have to go through a period of adjustment before they can integrate that evidence with that theoretical construct. After all, your sensory evidence works night and day to persuade you that the world is real, is solid, is one time-stream, and explains away any irreconcilable data. When you arrive at seeing the world as innumerable projected equally sort-of-real versions, your own role in things becomes less clear. Now not only is there conflict between sensory and intuitive, or sensory and intellectual constructs, but also conflict between the logical consequences that seem to follow (on the one hand) and one’s feelings about one’s life.
Yes. It doesn’t feel like our choices don’t matter, even though abstractly we may believe that all choices are made, so it all cancels out.
That is one dilemma that may arise. We will not revisit the free-will / predestination argument, but obviously no matter which of the two choices one finds oneself committed to, the same conflict with feelings ensures. If you are not free, why does it feel like you are? If you are free, but for every heads you choose, another version of you will choose tails, what could be more futile?
So your underlying question of meaning could be restated: What is the point of our choosing? What does our choosing actually affect? If you say, “choosing changes you,” the question remains.
That’s a fair summary. We don’t want to feel useless – Sartre’s “man is a useless passion” – but we can’t just decide that we matter by a sort of force of will to believe, either.
So then, to explore the subject let us – always coming back to the very useful reminder, “as above, so below” – look at things from the next higher level. The probability-cloud, you sometimes think of it. Your higher self, your oversoul, the complete set of results from the expedition sent into 3D in your time and place, using your body and mind.
No, not a Sam. The Sam is a higher level out of which you were created. No, this is you in your true complete self. Well, complete except we are going to have to ignore so many integral connections to “past lives,” other people, etc. For the purposes of making a compact coherent statement we have to treat “you” – even at that higher level – as if you were the isolated individual that you are not and never could be.
Okay, I get that. A future subject maybe, after we get a clearer picture?
Perhaps. So –
You have the accurate insight that the purpose of your 3D creation – which in effect means the purpose of your 3D existences – is to choose. But that insight was given to you when you had a much oversimplified idea of who and what you are. You thought you were the 3D version you were identified with. We now invite you to identify with your complete selves, your full probability-clouds. (And we lapse into the plural merely to remind your readers that this is to them, not just to you. It does not mean more than one probability-cloud per 3D individual; just the opposite.)
Now, if you identify with the completed self, what is its experience of your 3D excursion / creation? Remember, it has seen – it has lived (at one remove) – every single possible choice, trivial or momentous and all the way between, from which sweater the schoolboy would wear to – well, name your own significant decision. What does your probability-cloud get out of all that experiencing, all that splitting off this way and that way?
I suppose it gets an exhaustive knowledge of the possibilities of that particular excursion.
Yes. Why? Does it amount to taking a survey?
Am I supposed to volunteer an answer? I don’t know. I can see that panoramic survey of possibilities, but I can’t see any point to it. It is only my own unshakable knowing that this has meaning that keeps me from Sartre’s futile pessimism, I suppose. The answer has to be choice, but – how?
And here we are at the nub of it. Consider this carefully. (It will be easy to become confused).
You have been thinking of 3D life as choosing in the way your friend Ed Carter described life as perpetually voting. You each do your bit to sway the result, whenever and however it is to be tabulated. But that leaves out the intervening factor that will help you make sense of it. Each 3D version, heads or tails, in effect votes by what it becomes, and this at the end of the 3D day is what determines the composition of the higher self.
By that, I get that you mean, determines its values, in much the same way that our individual decisions determine our values.
Not determine, but express. Though, come to think of it, either way of seeing things is right enough. In any case, it is in exactly the same way, only the higher self is in effect tabulating individual 3D decisions, while the 3D versions are tabulating their own pre-existing predilections, including built-in conflicts.
Now, we may say the most likely source of error in your understanding of this is an unconscious assumption that every heads version contradicts its corresponding tails version. Not necessarily so at all. Obviously trivial decisions, like which side of the street you walk down, usually have no effect on your values. But even important choices of conduct do not necessarily imply differences in values. You see?
Clear, once you mention it. You’re right, I was making that unconscious assumption.
What becomes critical are those times when you are the focus of conflicting impulses (that is how you will experience them) and can, and have to, choose which rabbit to follow. Both heads and tails of many, many other decisions may support the same choice. And sometimes, both heads and tails versions have to choose by deciding within themselves what to do, what to be.
But by definition, don’t opposite choices always get made?
Maybe by definition, yes. But in practice not all decisions or deciders are created equal
And we have to stop here, as you no longer have enough mental energy to bring it through clearly, and it would be a pity to muddle what has so far been useful.
Okay. Next time, then. Our thanks as always.
Sunday, October 29, 2017
Important and unimportant
Very well, my friend. Not all deciders or decisions created equal?
Surely it is obvious as soon as broached. It is only common sense, after all.
But if there is one thing this work has taught us to suspect, it is common sense.
Point. Very well, we shall look at it. But it shouldn’t take long. There are decisions that matter and those that don’t. There are people of substance and those of far less substance. You see this every day. The caveat as always is that what you see may not be what you get, but that is a separate point; that merely reminds you that your judgments are apt to be fallible. But the fact that you may misjudge does not mean there are no judgments to be made.
And, I presume, “judgments” in the sense of discernment, not of condemnation.
Of course. Condemnation implies a value judgment, a measuring of how far a given person or action or situation differs from the judging person’s norm or ideal. Discernment is exactly the opposite. It is a clear seeing of what is. Ideally, perfect discernment would precede and inform condemnation; that is, no one would condemn until he or she really, thoroughly, entirely understood what was being judged.
At which point, “To understand all would be to forgive everything.”
In a certain sense, yes. Once one understands, the heat tends to ebb from the condemning impulse. But perhaps the saying is too absolute to be entirely true.
In any case, in practice one knows the difference between important and unimportant decisions in general, if not always in careful specific. To walk down this or that side of a street, to wear blue instead of green, to drive this kind of car instead of another – usually these are trivial decisions and of no great consequence. Yes, once in a while they might be given greater weight by a specific circumstance, but in general, they do not produce decision-points that matter, because they are not decision-points that matter.
I had to think about that sentence for a second. I guess you mean, being themselves trivial in nature, they are unlikely to lead to more consequential choice-points.
Correct. Occasionally, trivial points are decisive, and you call the result coincidence, or chance, or “for want of a nail a kingdom was lost,” but mostly, no, and we want to pursue the usual here, not the exception.
Then there are levels of decision that are in themselves significant but may or may not lead to important choice-points. To stick to externals for the moment, the choice of a career, for instance. For some people, their career may shape their whole lives; all their primary energies may flow into it. For others, it may be of much less importance in that their world centers on other things.
A career as mother, for instance, could be as much a real center of interest as anything else. The much-derided “homemaker.”
Very much so, and for that matter, father. It varies from person to person, but many a person’s life centers in the family they emerge from and the family they create, and these, by the way, are often very centered, oriented people.
Something else floated by, but I forget what it was.
That a person’s consuming interest in life might have nothing at all to do with making a living, or conducting a career, or raising a family – might indeed be entirely invisible to the world, and yet might be just as important. And this is true, but tends more toward the point about being careful in judging the lives of others.
Then – still moving toward matters of greater significance – there are two types of very significant decisions, that may be one-time or, more usually, continuing. These may be decisions as to what to do, or decisions what to be. (And, as always in analyzing, we are somewhat downplaying ambiguities so as to present distinctions more clearly.) These are the defining moments, or – we might equally say – the defining trends, in a lifetime.
What to do. Either a momentous one-time choice or, as we say, an equally momentous but less dramatic continuing choice. A definition of action.
This is going to be a little more complicated than at first appeared, isn’t it?
Possibly. We shall see. The point here is that in choosing anything that is a true either / or, one in a sense alters the path, in a way that is not done by trivial or reversible decisions. Anything that, if done (or, alternately, undone) will have irrevocable consequences, is of prime importance. However, the importance may not be noticed at first – nor even perhaps ever assessed at its true value, either by the person or by others.
Such questions of doing may involve a choice of schools or jobs or physical relocations that result in unanticipated consequences, such as the people and other opportunities that arise [as a result]. The life one leads because of a move to Cincinnati may differ greatly from the life one leads if, instead, one remains in Detroit. That decision, to do or not do, may not be made out of a conscious intent to bring this or that result, but the result will nonetheless follow.
People make significant decisions not consciously knowing what will ride on them. And here, you see, decisions of doing and decisions of being are much alike. Both flow as much from what one is as from what one decides.
You mean by that, I think, that what we are (known to ourselves or not) may have more to say about our decisions than we consciously realize. Our decisions may seem to us to be supported by this and that very logical, very rational reason, whereas in fact those reasons are closer to being rationalizations than causes.
And it is those occasions when your unconscious motivations tend to balance out that present your real choice-points. This is when you affect your larger being, your probability-cloud.
So, free will v. predestination, then? Mostly our decisions could have been predicted by anybody who knew us well enough, but sometimes we can surprise them, and maybe ourselves?
You could put it that way. Mostly you are on a smooth glide-path, but sometimes you have to seize control, for only a minute perhaps, or perhaps for a long stretch, and choose what you want to do, what you want to be.
You have not yet addressed differences in substance among people.
This is conceptually simple, but is ringed with mine-fields, in that people’s perpetual temptation to judge – to condemn – comes easily into play.
Some people are weighty and some are not, you know that. Some are one-pointed, all of a piece; some are self-contradictory. Some are content to skim the surface of life, living the externals; others may scarcely notice the externals in their inward-dwelling life.
I would say you are working toward a distinction in gravitas, and these preliminary distinctions may tend merely to confuse the subject. Regardless of what we concentrate on, or how we appear to others, the difference you want to emphasize is a difference in seriousness, in character, in – well, gravitas, the way I experienced it in dealing with Carl Jung.
It is difficult to make the point, for lack of jointly understood examples. The externals of anyone’s life may be evident; the internals must always be inferred, which is a tricky business, rich with ambiguity and prone to error.
Let us put it this way. In any trade (to use a more understandable, external, example) you have master craftsmen, journeymen, apprentices, tyros. Right? In any discipline, be it scholastic or religious or philosophical or whatever, you have the same gradations. And in any sense of endeavor, the same. Well, no one who discerned clearly would put equal weight on the opinion or judgment or output of any two stages, especially including those being considered.
That sentence got away from me. I know you meant, even those being judged wouldn’t dream of setting different levels of experience and skill on a par.
That is correct. And it is exactly thus when we consider a given soul’s gravitas. Some are more weighty than others, as is only what you would expect if previous experiences and decisions are to mean anything at all. Now this doesn’t mean these differences may be fairly and safely judged; but they do exist, and they do matter.
Wednesday, November 1, 2017
The roots of emotion and drama
Let’s talk about emotion, and drama, and the “why” of it.
Something I do occasionally wonder about. There sure seems to be a lot of excess drama all the time. Drama, or boredom. Never much quiet excitement or interesting tranquility. Why shouldn’t there be?
Let’s back up – yet again – and remind you that a human being is a complicated set of reactions, connections, associations, through which the divine winds of the universe play. If you can keep that image in mind, if only in the background, it will help keep many a relationship [among various facts] clear, or anyway clearer.
Also, because you are so intertwined in so many ways, sharing and dividing threads in your being, you are all part of one thing; and because your consciousness is usually in a divided state, mostly because of 3D conditions and the unnoticed conclusions they lead you to, you are also in effect, at the same level of inquiry, many individuals. You are both one, and many. Then, remember, you are also one, or many, depending if you are looking down the scale or up. You are (each) one compared to the many elements you comprise. You are (each) many compared to the greater being of which you are only one cell.
Okay, I think by now we have all that, even if we don’t always remember it.
When you incarnate into the earth, you become a note in a symphony, for what you are, how you react, what you suffer or enjoy, the suffering and enjoyment you may cause others – none of this is anything but unique, even though each note is in its own way similar to all other notes. Do you have that?
I think so. Musical notes are all the same few types, but in combination they create hugely different effects.
Yes, and what they produce depends upon where they are placed, how long or short the note, what its predecessors or successors are, and so forth. But although every note is unique in placement, no note ever stands alone. No note has meaning unless considered in connection with the notes surrounding it.
That makes sense to me, though it may be disappointing to any raging individualists in the crowd.
Individualists are a note in the symphony like any others, and, like any other, they derive their meaning from the overall music, not from someone playing a single note and then setting down the instrument.
So what does this have to do with your lives? Understand, if you were not living in 3D conditions which deliberately over-emphasize separation and distinctions, everything would be different. And, since your non-3D awareness knows all this, many of you live a contradiction between conscious awareness and beliefs and unconscious contradictory knowledge. That is, even the most rabid individualist nonetheless has his or her mind in non-3D conditions, and that mind knows better. In fact, in some people the contradiction is so uncomfortable as to produce fanaticism, as the conscious mind strives to overcome its own doubt.
So why do they have a vested interest in believing what they half-know isn’t so?
There could be millions of slightly different answers to that question. A better question would be, what effect does the conflict produce?
Consider the question asked.
Consider the answer to be – emotion and drama.
I suppose that means that the same universal winds, blowing through the non-3D minds, produce very different effects than when they blow through 3D.
But you must try to remember: one world, one reality. The non-3D isn’t elsewhere, it is a part of your accustomed 3D world. So it isn’t a matter of winds blowing here and then there, or here now and there another time. It is a matter of the same universal winds animating this All-D character that experiences itself as partly 3D, partly non-3D – and experiences itself as separate even as it experiences itself as integrally part of one undivided reality.
The result, as usual, looks different from different points of view. From the All-D perspective, it is a symphony. From within 3D, often enough it seems chaos. Painful, meaningless chaos. But that is only one perspective, and from the less real – the only somewhat real – point of existence. And, within that only-somewhat-real level of experience, still it need not be experienced as painful chaos. You can learn to hear the symphony.
Give up fear, and belief in meaningless coincidence, and perceiving things as good and evil.
Yes, but that final statement isn’t quite what it seems. It isn’t so much that you cease to perceive duality – you are still immersed in it, after all – as that you cease to take it at face value. You acquire a little healthy skepticism about not only your emotions and reactions, but the reality of what your senses and extended senses report.
“Nothing is good or bad, but that thinking makes it so”?
It is always a difficulty, in discussing reality that involves the pain of others, to speak accurately and yet be heard by those whose hearts already incline them to suspect indifference.
In other words, you’re prepared to be called callous or unfeeling.
It won’t astonish us if it happens, let’s put it that way. It’s natural, because the insight is a slippery and tenuous one, hard for you in 3D to hold. The way to get it and hold it is to tune in not to your reasoning and your 3D reactions, but to your own internal knowing, which of course proceeds from your non-3D essence, or perhaps we should say from your total All-D essence.
Sure, I get that.
At its own level, evil is evil. There would be no denying it even if there were need to do so. No matter (in this context) that at a higher level of reality you are performing improv: Within your reality, real is real. You can’t talk away cruelty, hatred, pain, separation, anxiety, want, any of it. The seven deadly sins are no less destructive in 3D for all that they are not what they appear, and do not manifest beyond 3D as they do within it. So, it is true what you quoted, but it isn’t end of story. It is also true that “What a man thinks in his mind, so he is.” Your thoughts are things, and have weight. Your decisions as to what to be, what qualities to encourage and which to struggle against, make a difference not only within the context of 3D improv, but much more importantly at realer levels of existence of which you can know little or nothing.
Life in 3D is not merely a stroll in the park, as you may have noticed. It is often difficult or painful, even if it is often exuberant or deeply satisfying. The reason for the depth and strength and variety of emotions filling your lives – even boredom, when that is encountered – is that the winds of the universe – the vast impersonal forces – are playing the instrument that is you, and at best you can finger the stops or sway to the music, or tap-dance to keep your balance. That doesn’t make it an ordeal or a tragedy (though some do see it that way, of course); it makes it a vivid experience, and your judgments are merely tacked on, after the fact.
Fascinating as usual, and as usual I’m going to have to re-read it to see if it makes sense. No offence – so far it always has! Till next time.
Thursday November 2, 2017
My friends, I got the idea yesterday that today’s discussion might be called something like “geography and the spirit,” or “alien life in 3D and otherwise,” or something similar.
Until now we have been describing All-D life as localized – as indeed it is. As your “guys upstairs” told you, there is a non-physical Canada, corresponding to the physical Canada you know of. In your newer understanding, this meant, the non-3D is a part of the same more comprehensive reality as is the 3D, so of course it describes the same physical space. So, if we’re talking about life on Earth in 3D, we are also, therefore, talking about life on the same Earth in non-3D. How else could it be? Indeed, one reason for adopting the terms 3D and non-3D, rather than physical and spiritual, was to emphasize that it isn’t a matter of one realm being here and another realm being somewhere else, and also, isn’t exactly a matter of the non-3D being “nowhere.” Understood?
Yes. I have gotten that fundamental strategy of realigning our way of thinking about things. That’s also the reason for the term All-D, to describe the over-arching reality of which 3D and non-3D are each a part.
As Bob Monroe said, “there” is “here.”
Yes, that made a great and convincing impression on me when I read it in Far Journeys.
But of course, if “there is here” in terms of non-3D being in the same space as 3D, in a very different sense “there” is also necessarily “there and not here.”
But that is a different sense. And I take it you want me to explain what you mean. In the second sense, you mean that just as the 3D world we experience is defined by geography, so necessarily is the non-3D world, only there are different conditions of movement.
You may have to move slower to say things clearly.
Yes. All right, let me center. [Pause] It’s interesting, I seem to have learned a new technique. Okay, trying again.
Let us for the moment disregard the fact that mind has no physical barriers. If the 3D conditions of perceived separation by distance applied to the mind, we would see that a mind anchored to one place – Cleveland, say – would have to travel to visit another place. It doesn’t; we know that. But what I am trying to clarify is that our minds are anchored by their attachment to a 3D-oriented body.
Whew. This isn’t going to be easy.
No, but you will find, a little at a time gets it done.
I guess. So, my non-3D mind is anchored in Virginia at the moment, because that is where its 3D body lives. Yet that mind also connects to other physical locations where other lives were lived – is that correct? So, Egypt, England, other parts of the U.S., places I don’t even suspect? Anywhere a strand lives there is a connection? I don’t have it quite right, I can feel it.
No, but you advanced the argument a bit. The links to other places through other lifetimes is really that those lives are linked to their former 3D existence because, remember, times past don’t cease to exist.
Okay. So, my mind is tethered to Virginia because my 3D body is here. It is also tethered to England and other places because David Poynter lived there. And so on. Does this imply that in the absence of such connections my mind could not travel elsewhere?
It implies that in the absence of such connections it would have to travel, it would not be equally at home, in such elsewheres.
So when we move in 3D, that is why we seem to fit better some places than others? Why some places are recognized as familiar and comfortable, perhaps as exhilarating, and others are not?
You’ve experienced it yourself, moving from your original home through several states until coming to Virginia, and within Virginia moving from one place to another on the tidewater until you came again to John Cotton’s old home.
That I felt even in 1958, passing nearby on Route 29 at age 12.
All right. So that’s the mechanism. And now we take the leap.
Alien? Terran? People talk about extra-terrestrial visitors, and they think in terms of UFOs carrying aliens to Earth. It doesn’t occur to them maybe that many people who are 100% Terran (Earthian?) nonetheless have strands, even dominant strands, that tie them to far star systems.
Perhaps you had better let us try it. For this once, it may be easier.
Consider it a thought-experiment, both for the sake of clarity and in order to lower the threshold of acceptability. In other words, we don’t ask you to believe or dis-believe, only consider.
A mind from the Pleiades arrives at Earth and wishes to explore. How does that mind “arrive at Earth”? How does it – how do you – extend your mental world to places where you are not and have never been? You ride your 3D body there. you explore between planets in the same way you explore within planets, by going there.
You live there. Having once lived there, you find yourself in a web of connecting relationships formed during that life. It isn’t only – as Bob Monroe implied – that you get increasingly fascinated, although there is that. You are also progressively “hooked” by issues that arise, relationships that form, possibilities that seem to be uniquely associated with that bit of terrain.
Then, you die. Now who are you? Are you still a being from KT95, as Bob put it? Are you not equally a person of Earth? And does not any one of your lifetimes connect with all those other lifetimes here, there, and elsewhere, many of them literally unimaginable?
That’s how the universe stays knitted together.
Of course. We keep telling you, in widening contexts, that there are no hard and fast divisions in reality. True, until now we haven’t mentioned that interplanetary lives are part of that rule, but you can only say one thing at a time, and build, and hope for the best.
“You do the best you can.”
So now, who are the aliens here on Earth? And for that matter who are the aliens elsewhere? How can you hedge reality with meaningful boundaries when you realize that (a) geography matters in All-D no less than in 3D, yet (b) it is an absolute barrier no more in All-D than in 3D alone. It matters; it is not an absolute.