Language in the non-3D

DeMarco, Frank. Rita's World: A View from the Non-Physical (Kindle Location 2540). Rainbow Ridge Books. Kindle Edition.

(Q) You said you wanted to begin by disposing of the question about language.

(A)  That sounds like I'm going to toss it aside, but I'm merely going to clear up a point that many may not have considered.  It isn't particularly complicated, but some easy questions are nonetheless worthwhile.

(Q)  In other words, there are no stupid questions, so people shouldn't worry about asking things.

(A)  Yes, but also there isn't any way to tell in advance which question may illuminate something important, and which may not.  So - same conclusion:  People shouldn't worry about something they really want to know about may not be worthwhile.  If we - or you, or I alone - choose not to answer a question for a particular reason, fine, but there isn't any reason for people to hesitate to ask, provided their question is sincere.

(Q)  You saw me decline to ask you a question that would bring us to ideology or politics.

(A)  The real objections is that it would move us from the real work of examining reality from two viewpoints at once (in hopes of seeing it more clearly) and would move people into the easy and unproductive terrain of opinion.  Opinion has its place, and so does agricultural price reporting or news briefs or economic speculation, but this isn't it.

(Q)  In any case, to proceed with the question of language:

[Bob had asked: "When 'Rita' was in 3D, she spoke and thought in English.  She is communicating to us now, through Frank, in English (or does she just stimulate Frank's language so he writes the words in English)?  It's hard for us in 3D to imagine anything without use of whatever language we use on this planet, so how does the use of English, French, Swahili, etc., 'translate' over to the non-3D consciousness?  Do you 'think' and communicate in a language over there, or is there an entirely different way to communicate?"]

(A)  This is one of those questions that sounds complicated but is actually rather easily clarified.

(Q)  I'm remembering the joke about the rural preacher who opposed bilingualism because "if English was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for me."  We don't speak in words at all, do we?

(A)  Well, that depends on which "we" you mean.  Within 3D rules, everything is sequential.  You experience one thing, then the next thing, one at a time like children reciting their ABC's.  And that is what language is, a sequentially processed code.  Written or spoken, it is one word at a time, no matter how quickly the words are said or how simple or complex the words used, or in what language.  That is one reason why Bob [Monroe] stressed the use of NVC (non-verbal communication] - it is in simultaneously "grokked"[1] understandings that 3D-accustomed people - meaning, anybody experiencing themselves as in the body - may ...

(Q) [And it occurs to me, typing this, that some will not know what "grokking" means.  From a Robert Heinlein novel, Stranger in a Strange Land, it describes the instant comprehension of something, rather than the sequential processing of thought.]

Simultaneous versus sequential perceptions

DeMarco, Frank. Rita's World: A View from the Non-Physical (Kindle Location 2583). Rainbow Ridge Books. Kindle Edition.

(A)  If you (anyone, that is, not just you in particular, Frank) practice experiencing communication in non-sequential ways, you get closer to communication as it is in non-3D.  In other words, the way guidance is experienced, the way "psychic" knowing comes in, is always non-sequential, even if it needs to be translated into sequential processing for the individual to accept it.  Thus, if you can pick it up without such translation, it is a sudden knowing - which is why such knowings are the purest form of such communication.  If the information cannot be comfortably processed in that form, it may have to be experienced sequentially, as a vision, or speech, or some variety of dream or dream-like way.

(Q)  That's very interesting, and puts what I already knew in an enlightening context.

(A)  That's the idea here.  That's what teaching mostly is, the reinterpretation of familiar things in a new context.

So the question was, in essence, what language do we speak in non-3D, or to be fairer to the question, it asked the relation between various kinds of speech experienced in 3D and our communication in non-3D.  As you see, you already experience non-3D speech, some of you more often or more consistently than others.  It is in the simultaneously grokking that accompanies the temporary group mind that true communication occurs.  It is in the subsequent "stopping down" of such communication into 3D-sequential speech or thought that communication with minds occurs (and slips).  It is in the spoken or written conveyance of one understanding to another 3D-processing-system connected to another mind that 3D communication occurs, usually with huge slippage and, therefore, distortion.  Clear?

(Q)  To me, yes, but I have the benefit of direct communication, so I am grokking things every so often, as you know.  Whether clear to others, I guess we'll find out from feedback.

(A)  Summarize your understanding?

(Q)  Okay.  In 3D, everything sensory is experienced sequentially - speaking, writing, reading, even watching or hearing or anything sensory, I suppose.  Therefore we communicate by codes that are sequential, a faster version of tapping out Morse Code messages.  Different people speak different languages, but they are all sequential because everything sensory is sequential.

(A)  Or is perceived as sequential, anyway.

(Q)  Yes, that's what I meant.  But in the non-3D, it isn't sequential but simultaneous, though come to think of it, I can't quite imagine it, so non-3D thought is experienced not in sequential systems like language but in bursts, or in -

(A)  Well, that's close enough.  Your summary made clear to you, and thus to others, something you hadn't yet thought about.  It isn't really simultaneous outside of 3D - from the 3D understanding, anyway - but is very, very fast.

(Q) A million times faster.

(A)  Tell them.

(Q)  I read somewhere that the conscious mind perceives 42 (I think it was) bits of information per second, and the non-conscious mind 42 million bits per second.  This million-to-one disparity tells me that the unconscious mind - which I imagine amounts to us outside of 3D, experiencing life directly as opposed to us experiencing it through sequential processing - is probably the same thing as saying "the guys upstairs".  Anyway, anything we experience a million times faster than we can process it is going to appear instant to us.

(A)  Yes.  And although there is more to be said on the subject, if only because everything connects to everything else, that is enough for now.  A delay in saying more will enable people to ponder on just this much, and will give them a firmer ground as we proceed.  Saying more now might tend to slur over certain things.

---

[1] "Grokking" is a simplification of Seth's and Lazaris' "gestalts of awareness".  These gestalts of awareness happen in a moment, but they seem to get absorbed, digested or processed over time in 3D.  Gestalts initially are the knowing that you know something, but you can't initially put the knowing into words.