DeMarco, Frank. Rita's World: A View from the Non-Physical (Kindle Location's 5409). Rainbow Ridge Books. Kindle Edition
(Q) [John Wolf's question: "I am confused by the apparent mixing of the body (DNA) heritage and the spiritual strand heritage or the implication that the spiritual heritage is affected or even made via the sexual reproduction process. Please clarify. The second part of this paragraph, 'Compound beings, by their nature, are both battleground and reconciling force for opposing forces. They live a battle (and perhaps a reconciling) and they become a potential way forward. In short, they not only complicate the non-3D world by presenting new possibilities, they also help hold it together by sometimes reconciling the polar opposites they may learn to live.' has interesting implications. Does this 'reconciling' within non-3D go on among the parts of the greater being beyond the non-3D extension of ourselves? Does this 'reconciling' in the non-3D show itself as conflict in the 3D world?"]
(A) That should lead to some clarification without requiring a good deal of explanation. Remember that this model stresses the unity of 3D and non-3D, rather than stressing differences. So, it is an invitation to you (plural) to redefine your ideas of life, stressing that you extend into the non-3D (because the non-3D consists of additional dimensions usually unperceived or misperceived by those minds focused on 3D) and, therefore, the non-3D world may be said to extend into you. It is merely a matter of definition.
Well, if you are (whether or not known to yourselves) non-3D beings as well as3D beings, should it surprise you that the affairs of "one side of the veil" and of the other side should not merely overlap but be an extension of each other? It is in the misrepresentation of life beyond the 3D that so much angst and disorientation originates. Once you remember that you have an understandable part in the nature of things - that you are not an accident, not contingent, not a meaningless specator of incomprehensible activities - then you begin again to live without disorientation and anxiety.
To focus specifically on the first part of the question: It is true that physical and spiritual are intricately and necessarily linked, but the process is easily explained yet easily misunderstood.
The sexual reproduction of physical beings is a means of continually producing new mixtures of physical characteristics, so that a new soul may have a new home with new possibilities.
(Q) Probably as well to remind people that you are using 'soul' to mean the specific mind created in any given incarnation, as opposed to 'spirit', which is the underlying unchanging breath of life that animates the soul.
(A) Yes, although the second half of that statement is not quite that simple. But yes, "soul" means a specific incarnation, regardless of the antecedents or afterlife of that soul. The mating of different physical heredities produces continually new combinations of physical heredities for the incarnating spirit, the soul.
Perhaps an analogy will help you to understand the relationship between spiritual heritage and physical heritage. Consider each of these to be one parent.
(Q) Not so new an analogy. The spirit is masculine, matter is feminine. Father God and Mother Earth.
(A) But if older ways of expressing things spoke to modern humans, there wouldn't be any need for new translations, would there? Once the relative polarities became entangled with physical gender, not only did the analogy become confused, but sexual politics entered in and caused needless additional confusion because of all the side issues raised by implication, as if analogy were anatomy.
In any case, consider that the physical confluence of different genetic inheritances is one factor in the new soul's environment. The other factor is what you may call the spiritual heritage but - as I try to express what to me seems very clear and obvious - I see is fraught with more potential misunderstanding than I had realized. The new soul is a new vessel, but what fills it is not created out of nothing, any more than the new body's material substance is created out of nothing. How could it be? It is just that the reassembly of cells into a new organization may look likeit sprang from nothing if the observer concentrates only on the emerging organism forgetting the energy stream that enters and is incorporated.
(Q) May I?
(A) Try, anyway.
(Q) The body begins as sperm and egg, then zygote, then continually dividing and multiplying cells, and as the cells continually multiply, they begin to assume their specialized form and function according to the underlying pattern of their blueprint. If you don't realize that the cells do not come out of nowhere, but are the result of the mother's nutrition and continual feed of new material into the developing fetus, it will look like magic - something out of nothing. (And indeed, the reality is magical enough!) But, once you do remember that the new being has its genesis and maintenance in an already existing being, from which, at the proper point in its development, it separates to begin a separate existence, the magic is in the overall arrangement, not in any hocus-pocus.
(A) Yes, and although the new being's limits and characteristics are not determined by the genetics of its parents, the limits of choice are. That is, you may choose among a vast array of possibilities, but "vast" is not "unlimited".
3D and non-3D
(A) Now, the second part of the question could be answered, simply but probably misleadingly, by reminding you that 3D and non-3D are part of the same thing. Although local weather conditions may vary, they are each part of the same climate, or say, the same ecosystem.
Yes, the non-3D forces battle within 3D. Yes, 3D battles both represent and affect non-3D. If they [that is, 3D and non-3D] are the same thing, how could they not? Just because compound beings may exist without noticeable extension into 3D, that does not mean anything you can feel in 3D exists as well in non-3D, except that the expression of the underlying forces may be different because of terrain. That is, in 3D you may experience isolation and the - desperation, let's call it - of struggle moment by moment to have your values prevail. Outside of 3D, we cannot feel either of those things, for our environment - the relative freedom in non-3D of 3D constraints - prevents us from seeing life in that blinkered focused fashion. Nonetheless, we compound beings have our values, and we do not cease to maintain and represent them. If you are kind in 3D, you will not cease to value kindness beyond the body. If you are iron, you will not soften. And if you are cruel or vindictive, you will not cease to be so. You arewhat you are. You represent and extend what you are made of. The major difference is that within 3D you have greater freedom of choice as to what you will become, and outside of 3D you have greater awareness of your own place in the greater scheme of things.
John Wolf's question does not express the relationship between battles and reconciliation in the way that I would like to express it. Put it this way: every new compound being is a new opportunity for the expression of the potential contained within the larger being. (For the moment, I am concentrating on creation out of any one larger being, but it is not that simple, or you would be back to creation from God, end of story. But, one thing at a time.) The nature of each compound being is a bag of possibilities that each 3D life sorts and chooses among and brings together into an enduring pattern. Thus, by your work at reconciling opposing or anyway diverging forces, you help create new possibilities for reconciliation on the non-3D side as well. By your expression and choice of one or another set of values, you create an exponent of those values on the other side, in the non-3D, among the enduring archetypes, however you wish to say it.
Thus, the forces of heaven are at war and Earth is the battleground. Or, the world is a place of creation in which 3D beings created from non-3D elements create in their turn, thus returning, to the non-3D part of the world, elements of which they were formed, transformed. Or, values precede form as blueprints precede construction, and in the incarnation and interplay of the 3D representation of these values - particularly in that the 3D representatives are inherently mixturesof values, never pure representatives - is the continuous redevelopment and re-creation of logical development of tendencies.