Compound beings [Seth's Gestalts] and unitary beings

DeMarco, Frank. Rita's World: A View from the Non-Physical (Kindle Location 1844). Rainbow Ridge Books. Kindle Edition.

(Q)  I always told him [Charles], we're in the position of a fish at the bottom of the ocean trying to envision a man at the top of a mountain watching television - to say nothing of trying to imagine the TV show.

(A)  Yes, it is a lot of translation, even for an ascended fish looking over the man's shoulder.

Now, I said that the 3D dimensions are a part of the general reality that includes the higher dimensions.  And I left off last time promising to begin with the function of partially-3D beings such as ourselves in the greater scheme of things.  So here goes.

... I need you to realize actively that the higher dimensions are well populated, and most of the inhabitants have not had the 3D experience.  That is, among various larger beings, some larger beings have, and some have not, had the 3D experience.  But in fact, the only beings to incorporate 3D elements (as far as I know) are what I am calling larger beings.  The others appear more unitary, though in this I may be mistaken.

That is, larger beings appear to be more composites [gestalts] than unitary - more like compounds than like elements, if you will.  As far as appears to me - and to the larger being of which I am a part, and to whose knowledge I have access, you understand - we are communities of individuals which are themselves communities of individuals - ad infinitum, practically.  This is so of necessity because we are units formed (deliberately, and for a purpose) of heterogeneous elements that otherwise never would have fused, because outside of 3D conditions they never could have fused.

So a more correct statement would be (picking up where I was), the higher dimensions are filled with larger beings at least partially shaped by the 3D experience, and by another type (or, probably, types) of being that are unitary in nature because they are not formed by the close association of elements in 3D conditions.

(Q)  So, less Earth School than Earth Blast-Furnace

(A)  Or Earth Smelter, yes.

(Q)  And between the lines, I've been having a struggle that makes me smile.  I keep wanting to write "the heavens" and I keep forcing myself to stick to "the higher dimensions", thinking how it would have grated on you, in life, to have used such an expression with its religious connotations.

(A)  You may use either translation, provided it is understood that "the heavens" does not exactly mean whatever comes to the reader's mind because of an association with the word "heaven".  At the same time, I acknowledge that in turning back on Christian tradition as an indicator of spiritual realities seen and described in the past, I missed something.  The problem is that too much of religion is dead repetition without understanding, as if following rules and forcing what is thought of as belief could lead to any growth of understanding, or any valid experience that which, in turn, might lead to growth of understanding.  However, if that problem can be overcome, there is much value in it.  Whatever your tradition - Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, whatever - delve into its mystical component and you will find very valuable indicators.  Only, don't throw out the baby.  It is of no advantage to swap beliefs in the hope that a new belief system (including one based on what I am telling you) can advance your understanding more rapidly.  The best such a switch could do would be to clear the field of misunderstandings, but perhaps at the expense of allowing the same mental habits that constructed the first misunderstandings to busily start constructing new misunderstandings.

So, to return to the point, the heavens are filled with at least two kinds of beings - those who have been shaped by the 3D experience and those who have not.  We are different, we perceive differently, and in the larger scheme of things, we serve different functions.

I have said, if there are six dimensions (or twelve, or however many; I am not writing a physics textbook, and I cannot say how many, first, because I do not know and second, because I suspect "how many" would turn out to be a matter of interpretation, in the way that different scale of measurement produces different results because of including or excluding different levels of detail) - if there are x number of dimensions, we must be in all.

That is a true statement.  However, it is an equally true statement that one could be not in all, but in none.  Or, more closely, that one could be in a different set of dimensions, that either overlap with those we know, or touch them tangentially, or are entirely separate.  These other beings who have never been in (or should I say were not formed by) 3D appear to me to live in a universe that has overlap with ours (or how could I perceive them?) but does not entirely or even largely overlap ours.  And so, one function of the larger being of which we are a part is that of interpreting 3D to those who have not experienced it and never can.

And where do you suppose the larger beings derive the knowledge they pass along?  Where if not at least partially from us?  And we, of course, are part of them, and so you must see that our function is to be one part of beings that change.  They change continually, by preference but also because that is their nature.

As far as I can tell, beings who have not part of their being in 3D do not and cannot change - which makes our larger beings unique and, thus, uniquely valuable.  I this much clear?

...  In the heavens, there are our larger beings, and there are others, and we are a unique factor among them because of our origins, our nature, and our effect on everything else.  But bear in mind, for all I know, the heavens are filled with other kinds of beings equally unique.  But this is beyond my first-hand knowledge, even drawing on the memory banks (so to speak) of the larger being I am within.

A research project

Our unique function includes successively modifying 3D conditions partly by creating new beings - creating new souls - on a regular basis, and partly by other interventions.  Obviously, if you are going to modify, you are going to monitor.  And such monitoring in a way is a good description of my "daily" life now.

But what does that mean?  Am I continually watching the news, so to speak?  Am I fixated on the 3D world I just left?  Well, as so often - yes and no.

Yes, in that I preserve my awareness of the 3D dimensions (or how could I be interacting with you, even though your mind itself extends to the higher dimensions?), but no, in that I am equally interacting with others here as we share information and thus refine our understanding.

(Q)  Your perpetual research project!

(A)  In a sense, yes.  And our mutual interaction "up here" is not without purpose, any more than my interaction with 3D is without purpose.  But remember, the purpose is not merely whatever I might want it to be.  As any subsystem serves the larger mechanism, and as any organ serves the body it is a part of, so I serve the larger being, and in that is no flavor of subservience or coercion.  I am doing what is natural, and how can that not be comfortable and fitting?  All beings strive to fulfill their nature [Seth's value fulfillment].