After yesterday’s session, I wondered, is one of the roots of fanaticism arguing against one’s doubts? That is, could there be a connection between people’s self-division, due to their incorporating (embodying) contradictory beliefs, and the zeal with which they refuse to be open to argument from others? (That is, from the “external” world?)
But you said you were intending to describe how it is our listening to thought rather than feelings that leads us to suppress contradictory data and therefore come to erroneous opinions. At least, that is how I understood what you said.
Because emotions may well up from feelings or from situations, your age thinks that thought is more reliable. It values rationality not realizing that rationality is and must be rooted in non-rational processes. They consider the 3D human to be explainable as a thinking animal when in fact any thinking it does is tacked onto its feeling background.
But let us look at how your so-rational 3D minds process thought and feeling. This amounts to saying, Let us examine how your thinking thinks it makes sense of the world, when in fact, as we have pointed out, it rarely gets within a mile of the world. What it mostly processes is the world your unconscious process allows you to experience. Your unconscious and subconscious processes have produced a simplified version of the world that came at them: That’s all your conscious processes could handle. But if you are thinking about life through processes that have been simplified themselves, and you are considering only the facts that made it through the filters of which you are unconscious, and therefore cannot allow for, what kind of information can you expect to bring back?
It’s surprising we do as well as we do.
Who says you do well? You certainly don’t do well via conscious processing of data brought forth along 3D channels following your unconsciously applied rules of exclusion. If you could not receive input from your non-3D component, your position would be hopeless. And indeed, thinkers who consider the human condition only from a 3D viewpoint are frequently reduced to despair, for 3D evidence shows life to be meaningless, freedom illusory, and therefore anyone’s faith or anyone’s experience of “higher” things to be self-delusion.
We don’t intend to hare off into criticism of literature or philosophy. We merely make the point that you could not live a satisfactory life in 3D if you had to accept only 3D facts, 3D processes, and 3D conclusions about the evidence produced by 3D facts and processes.
Now, to hone in a little:
- Your 3D consciousness must make sense of the world on only indirect and incomplete evidence.
- It has no way to know what facts and aspects of reality are being kept from it by pre-conscious processes.
- Self-analysis will help; analysis with the assistance of a profession psychologist may help. Enough attention on the process as observed may yield insight into one’s biases. Certainly it will (or should, anyway) remove one’s certainty that one sees clearly.
- Thought and feeling alike will reveal self-division, perhaps previously unsuspected. But we suggest that “self-division” is a misleading way to look at it.
- Rather than experience yourselves as self-divided (which assumes one solid self as a default), consider yourselves self-multiplied, though that is not an elegant nor particularly useful term.
No, it isn’t, but I get the idea. We are not one mind, divided, but many minds, cooperating and learning to live together.
That’s the idea, yes. And you see, altering the model alters the expectations.
Sure. If we assume that multiplicity functioning together is the norm, we won’t experience it as if it were a pathological state.
- Now, these cooperating strands to some extent live in different worlds. Or, put it this way, they represent, they originate in, different worlds, and yet there they are for your unconscious and subconscious processes to make sense of. What kind of result can be expected?
- Yet, the incoming lack of cohesion is experienced not so much as contention among thought, as it is alternation or contention of feeling.
- Moment by moment, your minds deal with the world as it comes at them: relentlessly, continuously, without explanation. How does your mind deal with it? How does it experience the changes each new moment may bring? By thought? No, by feeling. By mood, you might say. Different internal weather conditions bring to the fore different strands, and each strand, as it drives the boat, considers itself the only real you, and forgets the others. And you as observer of all these strands tend to forget or downplay the extent to which various strands are handing off to each other.
And as each successive mood takes us, we consider it the obvious rational response to conditions.
Of course you do. And it is only as you learn to distrust that “obvious” assumption that you begin to experience deeper levels of your true self.
I don’t think people have a very good grasp on what Jung meant by Self. I think they assume he meant, merely, that it is us getting into better touch with the same materials we experience as ego.
Self includes all of you, and by our definition extends beyond 3D in two directions: laterally, so to speak, to the sources of your various strands as they live their life in their own living present moment; and in depth, considering the larger being as part of you (or, really, you as part of it). We don’t intend to try to say what Jung meant by Self, but this is what we mean by it.
Now look at what a process of impossible reduction it is, for a 3D mind (an “ego” in the sense of a mind confined to only 3D resources) to try to even comprehend, let alone understand, a Self so much bigger and more aware and more sophisticated than itself. How could that be done by thought?
People will perhaps be inclined to say that’s what you and I are doing here.
That’s a matter of semantics. We are trying to analyze the situation abstractly. That isn’t at all the same thing as trying to drive the boat. The fact is, no one ever has or ever will run a 3D life by thinking. Life is lived by feeling, then by thinking. And this takes us to the subject of moods and how they are generated, and how they act as indicators and buffers as one living moment replaces the previous one. (At least, that’s how time seems, to you. it’s a misleading model, but we aren’t out to explain everything, so we’ll just throw out that thought in passing.)
You said we would discuss moods, today: how and why they are generated, how they act to smooth out transitions between moments.
In context, remember, of our statement that 3D is lived first in feeling, then only later (even if “later” means fractions of a second) in thought. It is so important that you realize that rationality follows and does not precede feeling, in how you experience life. If you cannot come to accept that as fact (and, in time, accept it as good rather than bad), you cannot come to understand your life from a proper non-3D perspective.
Meaning, I think, that a non-3D perspective allows us to weigh things properly, while a 3D perspective over-values the 3D portion of ourselves.
Yes. It’s simple enough, but many will find it difficult in practice. Until you know that your 3D component is only part of you, you stand no chance of understanding such concepts as Self, afterlife, karma, purpose, shared subjectivity, the innocence of life, the interplay and interdependence of 3D and non-3D. To try to make sense of life – of your life, of anyone’s and everyone’s life – while taking into consideration only the 3D aspect of things is to miss all the interconnections: It is like trying to understand an electric drill without knowing that there is such a thing as electricity.
Or like trying to understand cars while being ignorant of the existence of roads. You could see that the car functioned – the motor ran, the steering wheel controlled turns, etc. – but you could never get the “why” of it.
That’s correct. And the “why” of life is at least as important as the “how” of it; of course in the last analysis the two aren’t really separable.
So, here is how what we are calling moods function as part of your lives: Understand, we could begin from the 3D end or the non-3D end and at first the description would seem to be quite different, but that is so only in the way that the description of a bridge might seem very different when begun from either end, and only when the entire bridge and both abutments had been described would it be obvious that the two descriptions showed the same picture, only begun from different places. Either strategy presents difficulties. Perhaps it will be better to try to represent your lives as you are used to experiencing them.
- Let us start at any given moment in your life. You are awake and functioning. Your attention is focused, probably, upon the world around you. It need not be; we could begin with an introspective moment, but let us postulate that you are focused outward, doing any of the many things that fill your daily existence.
- Something happens.
- It may be something immediate to you: You burn your finger, say. Or it may be something that still concerns you personally, but not quite so closely: Your car gets a flat tire. Or it might be something a little more remote: Work goes badly, or you get into an altercation with someone. Or you may receive bad news that will have major impact upon your life: something material, perhaps, or something affecting status or income or – well, nearly anything that is personal to you. In any of these cases, it seems to you that life and your inner life have, shall we say, collided. You cannot doubt that you are affected; you cannot doubt that even if you had something to do with the situation, you were not the prime mover, and indeed you may have had little or nothing to do with causing it.
- Alternatively, what happens may quite clearly have nothing to do with your input. You watch the Challenger explode. You live among the discordant emotions that surround the decision to invade Iraq. You witness events throughout your life, and witness them at best second-hand, and mostly not even that close. Coal miners get trapped underground in a state you have never visited, and your human sympathies are engaged. You get the idea. Abstract causes engage you emotionally, usually, though equally usually you think you are engaged as a result of rational processes.
- These are two very different-seeming sources of impact on your life. One stream affects your body or your status or your personal relationships. The other may affect none of these, yet be no less important to you.
You don’t need to persuade anyone who lived through the killing of John F. Kennedy, or the destruction of the Challenger, or the destruction of New York’s twin towers. There are some shocks that unite us all, regardless of our opinions or our vested interests. And on the other hand there is falling in love for the first time, and watching your child be born, and attending the funerals of friends and families, and – more tentatively but not any less real – succeeding or failing to find your work in life, or your place in life. And I take your point: Both streams of input are emotional, they are not concerned with thinking. Thinking may be a part of them; it is never the essence.
All right, so if you understand this much, let’s proceed. How do events of either kind affect you? How do you feel them, how do you process them, how do you allow them to change you, or how do you struggle against them changing you?
Doesn’t that lead to a bigger question?
Of course it does.
- At any given moment in your life, you live within a set of beliefs you have created or accepted. Events may change this belief. How?
- Can it be a process of logic? For that matter, can it be a process that is thought-driven? Initially you might be inclined to say yes, but we suggest that closer examination will remind you that thought examines how to do something, not
- Can it be a weighing of possible courses of action against your firmly held structures of beliefs? This is closer, but still over-values thought, per se, as the agent of change. Someone in love, or for that matter in lust, is not necessarily acting rationally even in its consideration of options and of dissonance with what otherwise it might have considered congruent.
- But if neither thought as logic nor thought as argument, then what changes who you are? (Or, it might be easier for you to grasp this if we say, What determines what threads it allows you to put down or pick up?)
I presume you intend to say it is feelings, but that doesn’t address the “how” of it.
No, and that’s a longer discussion than two minutes at the tail end of an hour. But we’re getting there.
Seems like it.
Moods next; you’ll see. As always it is a process of providing helpful context, lest it degenerate to being merely words.
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?
- 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.
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.
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?