Wednesday, December 22, 2021
3:40 a.m. Very well, guys, presumably “The interpenetration of minds (2).” All yours.
Mention your thoughts of Philip etc. for future reference.
I find myself rehashing episodes from The Crown, thinking of Prince Philip, who I always liked, what I imagined I knew of him. Dreams, for instance, replaying scenes from his life as it was dramatized. Things with no obvious relevance to my life, or any connection at all except that I instinctively liked what I read of him, and liked the bit of his personality that would come through when he would josh with reporters, say, (in real life clips, not in dramas). Is this what you wanted on the record?
It is, and why we wanted it will emerge.
Now, we began by sketching the mental world of those with no awareness of any connection beyond the sensory. This is about as much a baseline as one can get. How could anyone live with les awareness than that? You might think, “brain injured,” or comatose, or retarded or mentally handicapped in some way, but this is not so. You may take it as a rule of life that what is taken away is compensated for, in a way similar to a blind person’s heightened sense of hearing, for example. So someone whose physical apparatus interferes with reception of 3D data is very likely to receive enhanced reception on other wave lengths. So, we will take the bottom rung of perceptive awareness to be one that takes for granted that what you see is what you get. Even there, remember, actual connection is far broader and deeper and more exotic than perceived connection.
More goes on than is suspected.
Correct. At the opposite end of the bell-curve of perception would be someone well beyond your ability to imagine. This would be a truly magical being, aware of celestial influences (which include the demonic) and every variation of 3D-level interaction, and everything that stems from connections along all threads, and all natural awareness of non-human forces including the other kingdoms. This is to say, a fully alive 3D human lives in a world so much richer and stranger than yours, it beggars comparison.
Something like shamanic perception?
Reasonably like, except continuous rather than episodic, and natural rather than having to be reached for via ritual or psychoactive substances.
Truly, a superhuman existence.
Au contraire, a truly human existence. What you are living is half-awake; this sketches what it is to be fully awake. It is the opposite extreme from what we sketched first, those who live their lives asleep to most of reality.
But to give a glimpse of the extensive connections that may be discovered is to leave too passive a picture. What is more to the point is that these connections have consequences. They interact with you, and you on your end may be aware of it or may not.
Complicated, I would imagine, by our connection with the non-3D part of ourselves.
Yes, or there would be no avenue of change. If you were in 3D and were on your own, how could you pull yourself up by your bootstraps? The whole point of that saying, “by your bootstraps,” is that it implies no outside influence.
However, you are making the tacit assumption (again) that your non-3D component knows everything, can do everything, etc. It just isn’t so, and by now you should see why it couldn’t be so.
It would be a big discontinuity between us on a 3D level and us on a non-3D level, and how would that arise and what would be the point?
Correct, and bear in mind, that is not an understanding you began with 20 years ago. It shows that you have internalized a certain amount of what we have said because it follows from what was given, but was not itself explicitly set forth.
So now, without trying to sketch various levels between the two extremes (as, we realize, you expected us to do), let us consider your situation, remembering that you are, at one and the same time:
- 3D beings
- Non-3D beings connected to 3D beings
- Individual insofar as a melded community may be considered as individual
- Part of “all-one-thing” because, obviously, “all one thing” implies everything without exception (or how could it be all?)
This being true, you perceive using
- 3D senses
- 3D reasoning (we’ll explain in a minute)
- Non-3D-based intuitions
- Data from every source you are not closed off from. Other lives, resonances, 3D relationships of blood, etc.
Understand this: None of this is one-way flow. Newton’s law about every action producing an equal and opposite reaction is not exactly true here, but is suggestive. You are not alone. But that means more than “you are not an orphan in the universe.” It means, too, you are not without responsibility for your influence on the rest of the noosphere. At the same time, you are not necessarily the source of what seem to you to be your thoughts, ideas, propensities, impulses, etc.
Being part of “all one thing” as you are, how could your somewhat autistic ideas about your situation be accurate? They are a jumping-off place, only, an interim formulation, while you gather experience and wisdom through reflection upon that experience.
Clear once you say it. As so often, not something I’d thought.
Now, reflect on the situation, and see how this affects your understanding of the models we have constructed for you as interim scaffolding. The shared subjectivity v. the personal subjectivity, say, or the consciousness v. the rest of you, with emotions being the laminal layer at the boundary. These are helpful concepts as long as you consider yourselves as individuals existing among others. But when you look at the same situation as part of all one thing, they are less so; may in fact be misleading.
It gets sticky, because either way of seeing ourselves is more or less true. We are individuals; we are part of all one thing.
Precisely. That’s what we said: Models may clarify one aspect of things but they may distort in that very clarifying, if they lead you to think that any one way of seeing it is the only way, or even the best way.
You keep moving the goalposts.
Well, you were never a big fan of football anyway. The fact is that goalposts, rules of the game, composition of teams, etc., is all fluid in the sense that it can all be made to make a coherent picture, but only at the cost of reducing your awareness of other equally valid way of seeing. We told you this when you had us write the ending to Muddy Tracks 20 years ago.
Yes you did, though I didn’t understand it in quite this way then.
How could you have done so?
I’ll cite your last graf or whatever sems appropriate, when I get on the computer.
[From Muddy Tracks:
[We end as we began. There are not two worlds, but one world, not two realities, but one reality containing an infinitude of seeming realities…. You—we, everyone, everything—are part of one indissoluble reality. Thus everything impinges on, colors, everything else. Nothing can exist in isolation, because there is no isolation to exist in! All is one; separations are illusion. Not that it is a magic trick, or a delusion, but that the appearance of separation masks and blurs an underlying connection. Just as space is not separate, just as time is not separate, but each is considered to be made of separate parcels so that they may be apprehended; so reality in the widest possible sense is not separate, but all one thing.
[Live in that knowledge. Know that you overlook any one facet of reality only at the price of to that extent disregarding what is. “I say, ye are gods.” Of course. How could it be otherwise? Ye are also rocks, and sky, as actors in a movie might be said to be individual actors but might be also said to be “part of” that movie. Is either view of things untrue? Is either view the only valid way to see it?
[We say to you, see things as they are. The only way to do that—since neither the one viewpoint nor the other is the only correct way to describe reality—is to alternate from one to the other, or to overlap them (dealing with the slight resultant confusion and fuzziness), or to see one way, while remembering the other way. Then you will be whole.]
You can see, perhaps, that we will need a third conversation, to give you an indication of what flows, now what we have established how it flows.
Too much to enter into at the last moment, I take it.
There isn’t any point in interrupting ourselves after half a dozen words. Next time will do. Today’s is “The interpenetration of minds (2),” of course, and the next will be (3).
And after that?
Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.
Very funny. All right, thanks for all this, and we’ll see you next time.