Wednesday, March 30, 2022
6 a.m. After I fed the cat, I was sitting in the recliner for a few moments before heading back upstairs, and in that brief time I had a realization, but it fleeted away. Can you remind me? It had to do with a systems approach to how we transduce energies, though it did not come in those terms.
You were realizing that the various social and behavioral sciences have done a lot of work, gained a lot of insight, and all of that would be valuable once it was seen through more accurate filters. That is, once the world view that is their context changed to recognize realities presently not understood or accounted for. All that work is not lost effort, all the knowledge is not so many wrong directions, it only needs to be reoriented.
The music needs to change, so that the iron filings on the drumhead will rearrange into new patterns.
That’s what it amounts to. And of course while anyone may contribute to this work of reorientation, no one and no collection of people will do any more than a small part of the work. This is how it should be: You are shipmates on a long cruise, not paying passengers to be pampered and tended to in idleness.
Nice analogy.
Well, you know, people forget conceptually (though they usually remember, in practice), that work is a great blessing and amusement and gymnasium. Meaningful work has nothing in common with drudgery performed not for its own sake but for the sake of keeping body and soul together, as they say.
I used to say that if every job paid the same and had the same prestige, there would instantly be such a huge reshuffling, as people ceased to do what they felt they had to do, and instead began to do what they really wanted to do. Lawyers becoming railroad engineers, for instance, or shopkeepers becoming artists, or vice versa.
The argument extends well beyond things people do for a living. Your day’s work includes what you do, what you think and feel, how you create and re-create yourself moment by moment. Just as a lifetime of meaningless leisure may sound enticing to the overworked, but in practice would sate and then cloy, so a life in which one’s needs were met in one realm but not in another would remain unsatisfactory because unsatisfied.
You mean, I think, because until all parts of us are satisfied, we’re going to experience a hunger.
Yes, only that need not be a bad thing. Dissatisfaction leads to a desire to change. Hunger is a guide toward what is lacking. There is no reason to expect your life to be complete before it has been completed! That is, life is movement, and movement stems from a desire to get somewhere else, or a desire to not stay where one is. Positive and negative, you see.
Sometimes it is a desire to stay where we are, when things are changing around us.
Yes, same effect. All we are saying is, there’s nothing wrong with it. Many of people’s criticisms of life are unwarranted because they come from a pretense to be able to judge the whole by the standards of a vey small part.
I can understand that. Now, while we were writing this – about two paragraphs back – another thing flitted by that I didn’t interrupt us to mention, and of course promptly forgot. It isn’t the first time I have had this thought, either. What was it?
Look back and reread where you were when it connected. That is not a failsafe procedure, but it does work sometimes.
Well, it doesn’t work at the moment. Why not just give it to me?
Can you always remember what you want to remember?
Obviously not, but I’d think you could.
Isn’t time and your mind the common denominator here?
You mean, the limitations in 3D of us connecting to a given thought in non-3D.
It’s a little more complicated than you might think. We have to go back 20 years or so to when we told you about your mind as switching system.
I haven’t thought about that in years. I remember Rita Warren and Skip Atwater quizzing you on it in a black-box session in 2004 sometime. It had to do with how our mind maintains continuity with a body that is continually moving from time-slice to time-slice.
That’s right. You will remember that we said that for us in non-3D to find you in any moment of 3D could be a bit of a problem.
You compared us to worms, if I remember right. You said any segment of the worm corresponded to a moment of 3D, and we extended from the moment of birth to the moment of death, but our mind was in a different place at each moment.
Well, not exactly. “Place” isn’t right. But your mind as a whole has a different locus, seen at any given time. You will remember, we were explicating the difference between your contacting another life at a given moment in that life, as opposed to the different life as a whole.
Yes. In-process lives as opposed to completed lives, I think you called them.
Bertram in 1242, April 8th, is not exactly Bertram in 1223, April 8th. Abraham Lincoln in 1832 or 1842 or 1852 or 1862 is the same man, and is not the same man, depending upon how you look at him. And Abraham Lincoln 1809-1865 is and is not the same as any of the time-slices of his life that you might contact. Frank is not the same person in 2005 as in 1985 or 1965. And after all, isn’t that the point? Isn’t life about each moment and also about the third-tier result? Not one or the other, but both.
Nothing is lost.
Neither is it embedded in amber. Life is much more dynamic – more alive – than schemes of understanding tend to see it.
So to hark back to my question of why you can’t remember things that I can’t remember.
Obviously, sometimes we can. We just showed you that. And sometimes we can’t. We showed you that, too. The difference is not in us but in the interface between us and you.
I don’t understand that. It sounds like you are describing static in the transmission between us, but I don’t think that’s what you mean.
No, it isn’t an interruption in the link between us, it is more an attenuation of our connection to the material you are trying unsuccessfully to remember. You are the focusing device. All the music suffuses the universal awareness; only the tuner can decide what we will distinguish among it all.
But you are not implying that without 3D consciousnesses – tuners – you exist in a chaos of competing symphonies? Awkward metaphor, but let’s use it until a better one suggests itself.
You forget – or underrate the importance of the fact – that we in non-3D by virtue of our very connection to a 3D individual are in effect limited. You might say, we focus on you, and therefore your focus becomes our focus, and to some degree your limitations constrict us as well.
It’s hard to remember. I still tend to think that non-3D beings know everything and can access anything.
True and not true, because it is not really possible for you to intuit our condition here. Even the word “here” is to some extent a misnomer; yet in another sense not. We are not in 3D, yet our connection is to a time-slice in which you are contacting us. So are we “in” 3D or not? We would argue yes, and no.
So then – hard to hold this argument – something in the nature of time itself gets in the way of memories?
Not time itself, but your relation to time. This is a long subject in itself, but you, internally, have to maintain diplomatic relations (so to speak) with all the other time-slices you exist in. Here’s something for you to chew on: What makes you think it is any different, “remembering” yourself at age 10, than communicating with Bertram, or Joseph, or anybody else you connect to? “You” in a different moment of time are no longer in 3D from your present perspective, and yet “you” in the present are continually changing as you move to the next time-slice. You see? You are not a stationary platform, and you don’t stand on a stationary platform. Should it be a surprise that there is slippage?
You’re right about that being a new thought! I have had inklings, but never so clear as now.
At some point we hope to obtain your sympathy for the difficulty we experience in translating the simplest realities, against so many incorrect assumptions.
You’re joking, but I do see it. You are trying to explain the movement of planets to people whose astronomy still assumes that the Earth is the unmoving center of the universe.
Yes, good analogy. And not an entirely wrong astronomy, at that, for in important ways not only the earth but each of you is the center of the universe, only, so is everyone else, each to himself, or herself.
I had had this thought before, but this puts another light on it: Some theologian says God is a circle whose center is everywhere and nowhere. Something like that. And I take it that we, as divine beings in human form, are also the center and not the center, as you just said.
Another time, we’ll look at the effects of slippage as you move from time-slice to time-slice.
Today’s theme?
You might call it, “Continuity.” Or “Continuity among times.”
I’ll think about it. Okay, thanks. I notice I’m getting more words per hour recently. Is that a sign that our connection is smoother? That I’m more confident? That the information flows easier?
Think about it, and if you wish, we can discuss it. Only, don’t come back today.
No. Again, thanks.