Monday, April 5, 2021
[From Martha D. MacBurnie, 4-4-2021 in response to “TGU — and me — on the virus and warfare analogy”:
[Frank, can you ask the Guys why there’s not a more gentle way to transform society? Warfare, disease, famines, floods, revolutions – so violent! Wouldn’t you think there would be a better way to accomplish similar levels of change? Or some way to have people address causes before they get to the boiling point of catastrophe? The history of humans on this planet seems so unnecessarily destructive, unnecessarily hierarchical, and stupid. Will we fare any better when we’re more in touch with our more-than-3-D parts? It mostly seems to me that whoever is running this show is sociopathic, homicidal, or inept. Or maybe I’m just unclear on the concept. Maybe cliffhangers and disasters are really what people and the more-than-3-Ds like best?]
Martha asks a sincere question, so I ask you for comment, though the answer seems obvious to me. I she has this question, presumably others do too.
Of course. What we have asked of you – of any who read this, we mean, of course – is a fairly radical readjustment in point of view. Until – unless – you make that change, not much that we have to say will make much sense to you.
Yes. She seems still to think it is about society, though you have said often enough that 3D life is about individuals.
This time we’re going to ask that you recalibrate – focus your attention and your energies – not so that you may write clearly but so that you may hear nuance. And we ask this of anyone reading this. There isn’t much point in skimming this, saying “I know all that,” and failing to stop and consider it with your emotional center, rather than merely with your intellectual (rationalizing) center.
“To see takes time,” Georgia O’Keefe said.
Yes, whether that means seeing what a flower looks like or seeing what an emotional connection feels like, or a set of situational connections.
Perhaps the way to emphasize interconnection of argument is to use bullet points, as we would in showing interconnection of fact:
- It isn’t about transforming society as end; it is about transforming society as means.
- Violence is not inherently bad or good. Slow-motion change is not inherently less painful than short, sharp changes.
- In any case, it isn’t about people addressing causes, not in the way this implies. It is not a matter of social engineering.
- History will appear to be a certain way – violent, destructive, stupid, etc. – mostly in response to the filters one applies. A different filter emphasizing non-violence, creation, intelligence, will find plenty of evidence as well.
- “Whoever is running this show” implies an intelligence and will [that are] separate from humanity as a whole. This is and is not an accurate statement, as we shall explore.
- It is not a matter of what people and non-3D parts of people “like best”; it is a matter of what results from a given set of actions (including thought).
- And most important of all, perhaps, the question of how you will fare, and why, when you are living a 3D life in active connection with your non-3D component.
Now, that’s quite a few negative statements. Let us rephrase it all into the positive view that corresponds to this negative space.
“Negative space” in the sense of the space around the object, that defines it even if it itself goes unnoticed.
Yes. We do not mean positive and negative here in the sense of good and bad. As you say, the negative serves to outline what we do not mean, so now it is up to us to state what we do mean.
And I get that the reason you asked us to focus carefully is that he temptation will be strong to resist changing our point of view, in considering all this.
Yes. And if you will not look at matters from a different point of view, you will in effect merely dig in your heels and say, “No, this goes against my principles,” as if you were more moral, more compassionate, more sensitive, than we.
Well, you did say, long ago, that we might find you emotionally chilly by comparison.
Yes, but that doesn’t mean that a hot spot is the only valid measure of what is normal or desirable.
Far be it from me to defend you. Proceed.
We’re smiling too, but you know, in a way it might be said that the only way to defend anyone from any charge is to try on their point of view.
“To understand everything would be to forgive everything.”
Yes, and we suggest that you remember this, in considering society and 3D humanity. If you will begin by really understanding yourselves and being willing however tentatively to forgive yourselves, you can make real progress, because you will gain the ability to really move off your present point of view.
In other words, we will be actively choosing what we want to be, rather than merely drifting with what we already believe and see.
That’s right. Now, the positive-space equivalent of the negative-space bullets:
- We have said repeatedly that “society,” as an abstraction, is not as real as any individual. That doesn’t mean “society” doesn’t exist; it does mean, it isn’t what it appears to be. Like statistics, like scientific laws, it expresses sets of relationships. It itself does not exist without what it is expressing, which is – individuals.
- Therefore, what society looks like as a whole is vastly less important than the opportunities and situations it presents for the individuals it comprises. A society that is chaotic and seemingly a jumbled mess (when seen as if it were a thing) may in its details provide a quite endless series of possibilities each of which is coherent in itself.
That needs expanding, I think. I get that you mean that just as Bob Monroe described the sum total of earth’s mental production as a raucous jumble of noise – M-Band energy, I think he called it – but within that noise were all these meaningful interactions —
We wouldn’t say your paraphrase is much of an improvement.
No. Let me try again. If you had 500 symphony orchestras playing at the same time, each playing a different piece of music, the result would be unendurable. But listening to any one of them might be beautiful.
Yes, better. And focusing on harmony rather than discord will show that there is plenty to focus on.
- The question of social engineering needs to be addressed. Is it anybody’s business to rearrange the world, or rather to judge the world that declines to be rearranged, to suit any one person’s opinions of it? Or any one group’s, large or small? You aren’t here to improve upon the world, but to live in it.
As Thoreau said, long ago.
Many people have said it, and been criticized for it as being unfeeling. Now, three important points, if we can express them:
- “Whoever is running the show.” Yes, there is a sense in which your 3D reality is scripted, but it is easily misunderstood. If you cannot understand the external world as an expression of your shared subjectivity – that is, of all of you (present and past, in 3D terms, but of course all present and alive in non-3D terms) – then you cannot see that whatever is, is because of what you are. We may have to expand upon this another time, if it is not understood.
- Cliffhangers and disasters occur. You can’t say “This is what people want” unless you also say of routine life that “This is what people want,” as well. And, given that both statements are equally true, where is the dysfunction?
Even a very dramatic movie has a basis in normal life. Even normal life has scope for drama.
You can’t have one side of duct tape without having the other side as well. One side is smooth, the other sticky. Which is preferable? Which is even meaningful in the absence of the other?
- And finally, for the moment, the most important question, and we can’t quite see why it isn’t obvious. When 3D players are living with full non-3D awareness (“as well,” not “instead of”!), all motivations will be different. The errors and offenses that take place because of one’s relative isolation will no longer occur. You won’t be the same people, you will be more. Can society fail to change in response? Or, to put it another way, can you name an equally effective way to transform society than to transform those it expresses?
Seems to me you packed a lot of information into our time. Thanks as always.
My favorite photo of Ernest Hemingway
Papa’s Trial, now available in both print and electronic versions. (with my deepest thanks to my friend Chris Nelson of SNN Publishing).
Short link for the print version: https://amzn.to/3uqZNJ0.
For the ebook version: https://amzn.to/3uqZNJ0
For those who came in late, and don’t know what the novel is about:
Reliving that life
July, 1961. Ernest Hemingway, the world’s most famous writer, has just used his shotgun to get himself out of a life that had become insupportable.
Only… apparently death is not the end.
Apparently death and life have rules and possibilities he hadn’t suspected. And here he is on trial, required to examine his life as it looks from the other side, after the fact, not only from his point of view but also from those he interacted with.
His wives. His parents. His friends and adversaries. Everyone he touched in sixty years of intense living. His loves and almost-loves and sometimes-loves. His fellow authors, his publishers, his rivals and his mentors. He will confront them all.
In the course of the trial, he looks more closely at his achievements and failures, in the art he created and the people he touched. Mostly, he is faced with absorbing the impact of a life that stretched so far in so many directions: writer, voracious reader, connoisseur of fine art, fisherman, hunter, raconteur, warrior….
How well did he make use of his opportunities and talents? Who was he, and what did he do? What did it all mean? And how might it all have worked out differently?
No easy job, examining such complexity. But what he learns, how he changes, will determine where he goes from here.
Hemingway was the greatest writer America has yet given to the world. Papa’s Trial tells the story of his life, as it appeared to him and to those around him. Even long-time Hemingway devotees will find themselves looking at him in a new light as they consider what his life was, why it was that way, and what it might have been.
Wednesday, April 7, 2021
6:15 a.m. If I learned anything from the first two parts of the Burns / Novick series on Hemingway, I don’t know what it would be. I have been more aware of what it had to leave out, than of what it said that I hadn’t known. But I am struck by how much he feared being alone. A writer, afraid of being alone, when his very writing life depends upon being alone? But of course, that’s an example of words misleading.
Fear of being alone, fear of death, fear of the dark: three fears you do not understand.
It’s true. Do you, now? And did you, during 3D life?
It depends what you mean by the word “understand.” If you mean understand abstractly, that’s one thing. But if you mean, understand viscerally, that’s another. Intellectually, abstractly, I understood why I was afraid of the dark and afraid of death: I had been killed, in 1918, in the dark, out of nowhere, when that Austrian shell full of scrap metal blew me out of my body. So my body associated darkness with danger – with danger out of nowhere – ever since. But rational knowledge only goes so far. You don’t get rid of a fear like that just because you become aware of it and become aware of where it came from.
No, because that only gets you to the “how” of it rather than to the “why” of it. The fear came as a result of specific events, but the same events on a different person might have, maybe even must have, produced different results.
Yes, but I didn’t really understand that. The cause-and-effect was so plain, I never got to the “why” of it. Why did that cause produce that effect? I stopped at realizing what had happened, not at why what had happened had produced one effect rather than another.
So, now? Can we take them one by one?
No, your initial instinct, to group the three, is better. They reinforced each other.
Okay then, go about it your own way.
You will notice, you began with wondering about my fear of being alone. I went immediately to link fear of death and fear of the dark.
Meaning, you’ve figured it out.
Well, you know, I’ve had enough time! And I’ve chewed it over not only in non-3D, but by interacting with a good number of people in 3D, many of them thinking they were only thinking about me.
Writing that, I got all choked up. So many people loved you. I thought of Morley Callaghan, after he heard that you had killed yourself, thinking about you, remembering you day and night until his wife pointed it out to him and he sat down to write his memoir of your relationship.
Here’s what you people usually don’t realize.
Yeah, I heard that as soon as I said it. I don’t mean it as a slam. I mean, people in 3D who think about the connection between 3D and non-3D and sort of scheme it out in their minds.
People like your mother.
No, people who think about these things, not just feel about them, or accept the opinion of others. You try to understand – and that’s good, of course; what else did I ever try to do, but understand and then express? But in thinking about death and connection you tend to make separations where there aren’t any separations. I don’t mean to imply that I was any different. If anything, my thinking about the subject was more fragmentary and more self-isolated.
Like the thinking you did about the soul, writing in the African night in the early 1950s.
You pointed out, I didn’t have a lot of the concepts that would have made things clearer to me. But there was always my mother in the way of it, you know. I wasn’t going to become like her. [Hemingway’s mother was mystically inclined in a way that he rejected.]
A friend got me her question to Edgar Cayce and Cayce’s answer. But I imagine you and she will have come to terms by now. I mean, she has been dead since 1951, and you since 1961, and the passage of time in the non-3D isn’t the same as it is in 3D, but it isn’t nothing, either.
But that’s what I’m trying to say. “You people” in 3D underestimate the extent to which we in non-3D rely on you, because you can still change, you can still remember us, think about us, interact with us, and it gives us a point of departure.
I think you mean, some place to use as springboard.
You can’t jump if you don’t have anything to jump from. Your remembering us is more a form of interacting with us, though you don’t realize it. It lets us see ourselves from other points of view – points of view that didn’t exist when we did our immediate “past life review.” In other words, it is a continuing process, and helps us.
Kind of a big thought.
Live with it, examine it, see where it takes you. It may rearrange your mental furniture in surprising ways. Almost all of you will never interact with the culture the way Ken Burns and his team are doing; most of the work will be done anonymously. That doesn’t mean it isn’t a real contribution. And like everything, the more consciously you do it, the more useful it is for you.
This would be a diversion (from a diversion) but I am put in mind of prayers for the dead. I wonder if this is the original thought behind that idea, that degenerated into praying to God for mercy upon sinners. But, the thought is a diversion. You were saying that you have linked your three fears, and understand them now.
What is fear of death, when you look at it closely, but a specific form of fear of being alone? If it were only fear of ceasing to exist, well, maybe some people feel that, but obviously any suicide had come to the point of seeing anything – even oblivion, if that’s what had to follow – as preferable to continuing as they were. I think for most people, fear of death is mostly fear that they are going to go through some unknown process and they’re going to have to go through it alone.
Not fear of judgment, and then heaven or hell?
Sure, but they’re afraid of facing that judgment alone.
I’ll have to think about that. Anyway, so –?
In one moment, that 18-year-old boy learned a hell of a lot about life and death. Now, I’m not saying that everything I “learned” in 1918 was true, but it was true for me. It shaped the life I let from there.
Okay, I can see that. And those lessons were that life is fragile and precious, first of all.
I already knew it was precious. I enjoyed life from the time I was born. What I learned, though, was that I wasn’t invulnerable in the way I had assumed. So in a way, it taught me that death is always about a heartbeat away from life (for anything could happen) and at the same time, that micro-second moment of death-and-life was almost even more precious than life itself. It was a glimpse of immortality as a fact of life. Now, bear in mind, I couldn’t have told you this then, nor in 1961. As I said, I’ve had lots of conversations with lots of people, and the seeing myself reflected in so many people’s minds has given me new understandings.
I get it. People have puzzled as to why your fascination with the dealing and receiving of death. I personally was puzzled that somebody who had died and returned could be afraid to die again. But if you were fascinated by something about it that you could feel but not understand, naturally you would do puzzling things, think in ways others would find puzzling.
Puzzling to me, too, when I wasn’t taking it for granted because the feel of it was so general.
I think you mean, because you were taking the mood for granted, because it was your mood; you were inside it.
Writing isn’t any easier when you have to dictate across the static.
I’m smiling. Okay, so – somehow we have written through almost an hour – can you give us your three fears in a nutshell? If not, we can do this again, of course.
It isn’t hard. If you live mostly in your head, but what you live is centered in the world around you, that’s a terrific dependence, you see? Yes, I could go out into the wilderness or onto the sea and concentrate on the physical world around me, but I’m still in the center of this processing machine, this thinking, pondering, analyzing, feeling, absorbing machine. I read all the time, and put together elaborate trips with friends. I studied things, and studied people and studied myself. It was all me interacting with not-me. Not that I would ever have thought about it in these terms, but that’s what it amounted to. Can’t you see that always being in the center like that left me feeling alone, made me want human warmth around me?
You remind me so much of what I have read of the young John F. Kennedy (one of your big fans, as you know), who needed people around him, who devoured the world with his curiosity, although he didn’t seem to be afraid of death, having lived with it as a continuous probability from an early age.
As you know (you would say, “as you suspect,” but in fact you know), he and I share strong bonds, and we felt them in life, although he, young enough to have been my son, naturally felt them stronger than I did. I influenced his youth; he could not have influenced mine.
I guess maybe we will continue this next time? I don’t know if my side-trails prevented us from doing it all at once, but in any case it is always good to connect with you. and it is very satisfying to think that our connecting with our heroes or role models or whatever may help them as well. Not to mention the family we belong to biologically. Thanks, papa. Next time.
Thursday, April 8, 2021
5:45 a.m. It took until now to sink in, Papa, but yesterday you said, “It was all me interacting with not-me.” I heard that at the time in its own context, but just now it strikes me: That’s practically a definition of fear, isn’t it? Me and not-me; separation, not unity.
That is a valid insight easily drawn too far. Both, at once: valid, and easily overdrawn.
Well, I’d love to look at it.
How can anybody look at anything without considering it separate from himself? Yet it is true that if you don’t have it within you, you can’t see it. The second part isn’t as obvious as the first, but they’re both true. How it strikes you is going to depend on
Went wandering, lost it. Sorry. Again?
Let’s talk about what is really on your mind.
Okay. Yesterday I was participating in a group meeting and I asked if anybody had been watching the Ken Burns special on your life, and the only other person who had been watching, of the eight of us, herself a writer, highly intelligent, seemed unable to see you except through a feminist lens, even rearranging the facts to support her bias.
Not that you or I or anyone else would ever do that.
No, but you know the point I’m getting to. I thought, a few minutes ago, that just as Churchill once said, “There’s no use arguing with a communist,” so there’s no use arguing with a feminist. All you get is a sort of strained sympathy that your views are so warped. Writing this, I see that of course it may be expanded to read something like, “There’s no use arguing with anybody about anything.”
Very true, although hard to live that way.
My arguments with liberals, with conservatives, with anybody who has a fixed set of certainties, really doesn’t ever accomplish anything.
No, and how could it? You are assuming that your own position is correct, and every other position is in error depending upon how different it is from yours. Everybody does it. It’s so easy to see the rigidity of others’ positions, and so hard to see the rigidity of your own.
It makes it hard to believe in the possibilities of working together.
But you do work together. What it makes you think it is impossible is being together, mentally, spiritually.
I’m not talking just to Papa here, am I?
Does it matter? Yes but no.
Well, I can feel things shifting more to a philosophical level, or let’s say a more abstract level.
As if he – as if you – as if anyone – didn’t / doesn’t do it all the time? You all think of your mental lives as more linear than they are. In actual fact, you jump around all over the place, and it’s only in remembering, in reconstructing, that you make it look linear.
Okay, I can see that. So to continue with the point you were making –
Your ambition – whether you realize it consciously or not – is to be a part of a 3D group mind that operates together to bring you all to another level, and to affect the conditions of 3D life in general; that is, to affect the shared subjectivity as well as your personal responsibility.
I started to say, “Isn’t that what everybody wants to do?” then realized, not consciously.
Not consciously but also not necessarily. Life represents all parts of the human psyche, necessarily. That means, automatically it represents the things you hate, the things you don’t notice, the things you can’t be bothered with, no less than the things you love or notice or do bother with (that is, do value). So it isn’t like more consciousness is going to mean, “The universe agrees with you!” It’s more like “The universe is firmly on your side of the argument and also every other side of the argument.” So how is anybody going to convince anybody of anything?
I think of Emerson writing, in a moment of exasperation, “If I knew only Thoreau, I would think the cooperation of good men impossible.”
Gee, what a bum Emerson was, to write “good men” instead of “good persons.”
You’ve got me smiling. I didn’t expect that.
Well, we’re on your side of the argument too, you know. Just because we’re saying it’s broader than you, it doesn’t mean we’re saying you’re wrong.
I suppose you’re merely underlining the fact that we all have to exercise tolerance in our interactions, because we will always see each other’s limitations, certainly easier than our own.
Isn’t that what you’re going to encounter, to the degree that you experience a larger group mind?
I guess we don’t usually think in those terms. We think of greater communication as overcoming differences, more than as revealing them.
But you don’t get one side of the duct tape without the other. But now if you are restless to go do other things, go ahead. You don’t have to do this.
No, it’s just a stray impulse. Let’s keep going. It’s interesting how what started out as a discouraging experience for me has broadened out to a helpful generalization about communication.
That’s what usually happens when you look at something less as how it relates to you as a position and more as how it exists in itself.
That could do with some exposition, I think.
Well, let’s see how to say it. It is a simple thought, but perhaps not so easily put into a vivid metaphor.
That will do, yes. It’s just like what happens when you turn a geocentric view into a heliocentric view – or vice versa. The importance is not “Which view is correct?” but “What do you learn by seeing it this way?” The planets, the stars, the earth itself, are just what they are regardless how you think of them, but thinking of them in different relation changes everything in effect. In the same way, temporarily adopting another point of view won’t change whatever the “real” facts may be, but it will very likely show you things you were previously unable to see, and may reveal that some relationships you had seen as true were in fact less true, or even false, when seen from another viewpoint.
Now, I can imagine people saying, “But there is one view that is true, and others not. The sun is the center of the solar system, and that’s all there is to it.”
And you know how we would answer that.
I do. Geocentrism works better than heliocentrism when you’re drawing horoscopes, for instance. That is, this earth we live on is in the center of our lives, just as our experiences are the center of our world.
That’s right. And you could generalize farther and say, every system of measurement skews the data.
Skews the data, or skews our reading of the data?
That’s less of a distinction than you might think. Data you can’t see or can’t properly appreciate is non-existent to you, even if it is non-existent “merely” because your own psychology won’t let you see it.
To finish our analogy: When you look at something as it relates to you, it presents certain aspects. When you look at it as it relates to itself, or (more usually) as it relates to the person exemplifying that view, it presents other aspects. Not, usually, entirely different; more usually, partly different. And that is a portrait of a 3D life in miniature, isn’t it? A partial view, determined mostly by where you stand.
Okay. Well, given that I don’t have to run upstairs and type this up (having no internet connection, so being unable to email or post it), let’s return to the initial question, me and not-me.
More like “me and not-me, but also me as not-me.”
Absorbing the world into yourself, to express it.
That’s one way to look at it. Or you could say, “Absorbing the world into yourself, to become it, or to identify with it.” It goes on all the time.
Leave it, for the moment. You can always come back to it.
Okay. Thanks for all this.
TGU on our connection with non-3D
Friday, April 9, 2021
6:50 a.m. Any need to comment on Jane Coleman’s read on your response of April 5 to Martha MacBurnie’s question?
[From Jane Coleman, 4-6-2021:
[Seems to me that TGU cleared the shrubbery but didn’t yet get to Martha’s deeper question: why do we have to have painful or catastrophic experiences to affect change? I checked in with my guidance for more. We don’t have to have these kinds of experiences to change. What we have right now is the results of disconnected living — not living with full non-3D awareness or sleep walking. We have taken the challenge to live in full awareness and support each other in the process. As we continue to do that, we ripple that way of living outwards. As we have a strong preference for change via uplifting experiences, we create the method of change that we want. It also occurs to me that as we live more connected, we will begin to see “negative experiences” differently. We will trust life and take on the challenge in a different way, not resisting, but looking for the blessing.]
No, as you know, we are in full agreement with her take on the situation. It is, in fact, what we have been saying as we went along: Many of what are considered to be humanity’s failings are the result of stumbling around in 3D without being in connection with the non-3D that has better perspective on things. But that doesn’t mean that the present situation was an accident, nor an experiment, nor a necessary step in an evolutionary process.
Seems to me, that exhausts the list of possibilities.
Sometimes things “just happen,” so to speak, the results of many choices. If humans ate of the fruit of the tree of seeing things as good and evil, was that an accident? An experiment? A necessary step? It was a choice, and choice is a necessary adjunct to free will, which is a necessary adjunct to full participation.
So are you connecting that choice with lack of continuous access?
Reason it out.
Well, let me think. [Recalibrating] I suppose that if we start to see things as good and evil, we lose the faculty of acceptance to the degree that we gain in the habit of judging. (I don’t mean “gain” as a good thing.) And if we start judging everything – I mean, as we get into the habit of judging things – we progressively condemn more and more of what we see.
And what you don’t see.
Yes, that’s where I was going. We no longer accept, so we begin to shut out, to let some things in and leave other things out.
You sunder the world.
There is a vital connection between the two things that is just beyond my connecting them.
It is simple enough, conceptually. When you cease to accept the 3D world, you cease to accept the non-3D world. To the degree that you get into the habit of judging (that is, of choosing to accept or reject), it is a short step to rejecting what is unpleasant, what is painful, and once you begin to do that, you start to lose your way, because you are crippling your innate guidance system.
So you wind up like Hemingway in his old age, losing his connection to what really is going on because he has told himself so many lies about what he has done that he can no longer trace cause and effect.
Hardly Hemingway alone, of course. He is merely an historical example you know. But you and everyone you know or ever will know do the same thing, to greater or lesser degree, and that’s what’s ailing you.
I feel the truth of what you are saying, but still don’t quite have the connecting mechanism between judgment as a habit and losing connection with our non-3D component.
It hurts too much to see yourselves as you really are, because there is too much you condemn! So you stop listening, and you rewrite your biography, and you proceed on your own as best you can. Of course this is not a conscious process. If it were, it could be overcome. Or rather, we should say, “Once it becomes conscious, you can learn to overcome it.”
Which is what you are helping us to do.
Scarcely us alone, of course. Help is at hand for everyone, always, but there must be openness to it. It is to create a space for openness that so many messages in so many forms have gone forth. It is more than 2,000 years since Jesus came that you might have life more abundantly, and he was not the first nor the last. Just as the message has had to be delivered in so many different ways, so there have been many different messengers. Some devote their lives to it, some live their lives in such a way as to offer broad hints, some study and practice in isolation, and work not by affecting another individual – maybe not even one flesh and blood individual! – but by affecting the shared subjectivity.
Hear this: Any and all of you will carry the message, or resist it, or contradict it, or live oblivious to it, but it is how you choose to live in relation to this one question that will determine your life.
I think you are saying, insofar as we open ourselves to our non-3D guidance, our lives will overcome the truncation that follows attempting to live by judging everything.
Provided that you do not succumb to psychic inflation, yes. If you were to say, “I listen to my guys upstairs, I’m pretty special, I’m an advanced being,” – or, worse, “I am a guru and a role model,” well, it is a short step to madness. Being closely connected to your individual non-3D component is very desirable, but it is not a panacea.
Sketch the downside for us, then, because at first glance this seems to contradict what you said previously.
Remember, life doesn’t contradict itself, but it does contain all contradictions. Another way to say the same thing would be to say, “Any valid course is between extremes that are undesirable.” If you want to go East, there is some range that will get you there, and some going-too-far that won’t. Even if you head due North or due South, you have some chance of nearing East, though that is not an efficient way to proceed. But if you are heading Northwest, say, even slightly, how are you ever going to go East? And of course it is far preferable to confine your range between ENE and ESE, say. This does not judge whether going East is a “good” or a “bad” thing; it says, if that’s where you want to go, there will be a range of courses that will move you in that direction. Anything outside that range will not.
I think this is somehow connected – can’t quite see how – with the idea that it is not desirable to follow our non-3D blindly, even though it is desirable to follow it consciously.
Good. But better would be to say, not “follow it consciously,” but “cooperate with it consciously, ”consult with it consciously.” You are in the body. It is your choice, always. That’s what you’re there for, to choose. Abandoning that requirement to choose would be as bad, on the one side, as refusing to listen to it is, on the other side. Your proper course lies between the two extremes.
I get, too, that our non-3D component isn’t perfect. It isn’t automatically benign. No, that isn’t quite right, but you know what I mean, you say it.
All values are represented in the world, and you won’t approve of all of them. Some cut against others. Some you cannot live if you want to live other, contradictory, values. You must choose. So, the non-3D component of someone living values that are repugnant to you still has its rights in this life. What is not right for you may be right for another.
More than that, you are, as Emerson said, “the child of many sires.” You comprise many strands, some of them perhaps at odds with one another. How are you to live by choosing chaos? You will live by some and will choose not to live by others, and there is nothing wrong with this. But this means, it is not safe for you to automatically follow every impulse, or go down every road that tempts you. You know all this; you live it every day, but it may not have occurred to you in this context.
This is clear, but you didn’t sketch the connection to psychic inflation. At least, if it is implied in what you said, I missed it.
Inflation leads you out of discernment and into automatism. You cease to be human and fallible and uncertain, and you see yourself as divine and infallible and all-knowing. It doesn’t happen all at once, but it is a terribly strong tendency once it gets a toehold.
Yes, I see. Nietzsche as opposed to Jung.
Hemingway in the grip of his myth of himself as opposed to Hemingway searching for his wholeness in the middle of the night. Yourselves in your moments of arrogant certainty as opposed to yourselves when you are conscious, humble, and kind.
So, stay connected to your non-3D (your conscience, in a sense, only without the overtones of something always grading your scorecard), but never forget that it is your guide, your protector – your friend – but not your master or your superior or your boss. Within that range of being is your range of possibilities, your best course to become what you want to become.
And enough for the moment.
You so often surprise me. Thanks for this, as always.