Saturday, December 25, 2021
5:15 a.m. Gentlemen, assuming you are not too tired from having decorated your Christmas trees, shall we resume our discussion? The interpenetration of minds (5)?
If you will set your slide-switches, yes.
FRCP. Interesting, you mentioned that just as I was aware that I was thinking of Prince Philip and his mother on a background channel. Your way of saying “focus,” I realize – but I also have a sense that you might use that as springboard, somehow?
Everything connects to everything, so it is often convenient to comment from wherever you happen to be. A different starting-point wouldn’t necessarily offer any particular advantage. We suggest, BTW, that you all consider this fact in your exploratory endeavors.
Thoreau said the work to be done is always right where we are, we don’t need to go count the cats in Zanzibar.
And that is a part of what he meant, yes. So when you look at your own particular situation, whatever it may be, and you bemoan the fact that you are not somewhere else, in some other condition, facing some other opportunities, bear in mind that you are being ridiculous. If you had come into 3D to be Rembrandt, or Churchill, or Helen Keller, or Wilbur Wright, or Joan of Arc, you wouldn’t have come in as you! You understand?
Sure. There’s no point in trying to live another person’s life. I may admire Emerson or Hemingway or JFK, but I couldn’t live their lives and shouldn’t try. Others may serve as examples, yes, and I think I have benefited from so many different good examples, but they aren’t the new model that is us. How could they be? Why should they be or want to be? Better a live mouse than a dead lion, Thoreau said somewhere.
All this is obvious, but it has implications that are less so. What you are may be considered to be a discrete individual. Yes, you are a seamless part of all-that-is, and it is well to remember that, but mostly you think of yourselves as individuals, and that is the most useful approach. Well, as an individual, you are a combination of wave-lengths.
I don’t know if we are going to be able to pull off this analogy. I don’t know enough about electronics or radio.
Then just state your understanding of what we’re getting at, and we’ll correct if necessary.
I get that you are saying that we are each, in effect, unique transmitters of energy, each with our own combination of frequencies. I suppose every thread within us contributes its bit to the composite signal. Anyway, that’s as far as I can take it: We are each a unique combination of elements, thus are each a separate transmitter, or signature, or something. Maybe that’s what an individual is, a particular composite signal.
Now, there’s no use pursuing an uncomfortable metaphor. One of your technically oriented friends could go far with it, bringing in nuances directly from 3D to non-3D applications, and perhaps one will do so. But you did yet the central image. Each of you (each of us, remember) radiates. You don’t just exist; you don’t just receive. You broadcast.
Instead of “I think, therefore I am,” maybe Descartes should have said, “I exist, therefore I broadcast.”
Actually, though said lightly, that demonstrates a point that is well to hold in mind: In his day, how was he to think in terms of broadcasting, when there was no 3D equivalent? This is one of the ways in which whatever times one lives in – “the times” – expands or limits the mind’s possibilities. In your time, it is easier to think of telepathy and distant influencing and non-3D connection, because so much in your physical surroundings offers analogy. Your grandchildren, growing up in a world in which virtual reality is taken for granted, will have their ideas of what is possible similarly affected by what they take for granted in 3D.
So, we said, you broadcast. Obviously, so does everybody else. Why is not the result chaos?
I think sometimes it is. I wonder if our mental institutions don’t house a lot of people whose radio receivers are picking up incompatible transmissions.
Leave that aside for the moment, though noting in passing that even chaos cannot exist without meaning.
Without significance? Or without cause? Or what?
No, let’s not get sidetracked. For most people, most of the time, mental life is not experienced as chaos. But if everything connects, as it does – why isn’t it experienced as chaos?
I would assume that the mind filters out non-3D input in the same way it filters out 3D input. Faced with a huge volume of potential input, it necessarily filters out the vast majority of it, so that it has only a manageable amount to deal with.
Yes, except that you hurried on through it.
All right, well, what I mean I guess is that our minds must be layer after layer of successive filters, beginning with the grossest and ending with the finest. At one end, potentially everything, at the other end, a finite amount.
So now consider the implications.
Isn’t that your job?
We’ll nudge you to look in a certain direction, if need be, but, if you haven’t noticed, we have been encouraging you to do more of the thinking.
Without a pay raise, I notice.
That is your pay raise. But in any case, proceed. Think of some of the implications of the model you just sketched.
Well, let’s see. Maybe I’ll try bullets.
- We’re each broadcasting at different wave lengths. Maybe it is easier
No, this isn’t working.
Just noodle.
All right. Yes, I see. The bullet-point approach works when you already have a list of elements but don’t necessarily know how they relate, or at least don’t necessarily know how to explain the relationships. But finding the elements is a different process.
That’s right. One way to discover relationships is to wander through your thoughts as they arise, and you can see why.
I do as you bring it up, yes. They arise because they become freed from the below-consciousness filters somehow.
By association. But – think out loud.
Okay, let’s see. Our 3D minds still connect to our non-3D components, so it isn’t as if we are on our own. We are open to suggestion, so to speak. That’s what these conversations are, after all. But we are open to some kinds of suggestion more than others, just by what we are, what we have made ourselves. A lifetime’s habits are going to count for something, in terms of what we do or don’t easily accept.
I’m thinking about those grossest filters. I suspect it would be easier to start from this end and work outward.
You are finding this difficult. Ask yourself why.
I know why. It is much easier to be receptive than to be proactive. For me, anyway.
That is more of a “how” than a “why,” but all right. A paraphrase would be, you find it easier to understand our thought than to generate the thought. But that deserves more careful consideration, for what is the difference, really?
There is one, though.
Of course. But what is it?
I suppose being in non-3D makes it easier to see gestalts, so of course relationships would be more obvious to you than to us.
True as far as it goes, but who is “you” and “us”? We are not only non-3D; you are not only 3D. In fact, at some levels of closeness you and we are the ame thing, as we keep reminding you. So why can’t “you” see what “we” can?
We do, sometimes.
Correct. And life more abundantly involves greater ability to do so at will.
In a way, that’s saying, it involves learning to reprogram our filters.
Clumsily expressed, but the nub is there, yes. To a large extent, what you can’t perceive is what would be chaos to you. As you improve your ability to make sense of things, your perceptive ability grows correspondingly. It isn’t that the mainsprings of the world are being hidden from you, it is that you are unable to see. As your vision clears – well, you see it happening in your lives, do you not?
Seems like it. Okay, thanks for all this. I’m not sure we got very far, but somewhere, anyway. See you next time.