Brain versus mind

DeMarco, Frank. Rita's World: A View from the Non-Physical (Kindle Location 2329). Rainbow Ridge Books. Kindle Edition.

(Q)  [Rita said she would start a session with this thought rather than trying to tackle it at the end of a session:

[“Human brain tissue contains access points that allow us to access the memory, but those access points are more like local copies of the original than like independent replications.  If you consider the brain tissue that connects to the memory, realize that if it were quite that simple –“]

(A)  ... your memories would be quite as much at risk as if the memory itself was stored there.

(Q)  So we are like local CPU's, accessing the cloud?

(A)  Don't tie your understanding too closely to physical analogies - particularly not to technological analogies - or what will you do when the technology has become replaced by something else?  But in a broad sense, you have the idea of it.  Perhaps you could regard your brain as a temporary local copy of the mind you are constructing safely outside of 3D vicissitudes.

(Q)  I begin to see why you didn't want to start into this at the end of the session.

(A)  Yes.  Any statement needs to be described as to what it means and what it does not mean.  Many times the second part of the process is overlooked or omitted because the need is not seen or the implications are unimportant or mostly obvious.  But when one makes a certain kind of statement - something seemingly familiar but actually a novel spin on old concepts, or an unfamiliar usage of familiar words - it is well to try to reduce potential misunderstanding.

Thus, the paragraph preceding the previous one contains several ideas.

1. The brain a temporary local copy of your mind.

2. Your mind continually being created outside of 3D.

3. Implicitly, your mind already exists outside of 3D and therefore containing the results of your future choices, as well as your present and your former futures, if we may call them that.  And it is this last comment that will require the most thought, as it will be a readjustment for you, Frank, if not necessarily for anyone who may read this.

As to the first statement, which is only sort of true, the important part of it is the thought that your physical existence is not required for the preservation of the active, living, record of your life.  Now, language is a problem here, because as soon as you read "record" - even though the word has been preceded by "active, living", you tend to think of it as something fixed, and dead.  A record of something is itself not living and vital - or so language tempts you to think.  So find a better word than "record", so you don't have to make the continuing effort to remind yourself of the limits of the analogy.

(Q)  How about ghost, or spirit, or shadow?

(A)  That might work if you can remember from usage to usage (i.e., from moment to moment) that it is the physical that is the ghost of the reality, and the nonphysical that is the actual thing being considered.

(Q)  Speaking of making a Copernican Shift -

(A)  Yes, and you might as well begin making a habit of doing so.  When you place the sun in the center of your mental solar system, many relationships clarify.

The second point is also only approximately true.  From the 3D perspective, your mind is being created as you go along and is being created not in the physical, as it usually seems to you, but in the nonphysical where it really is because where you, or the larger part of you, really is.  Remember, we are not talking about physical and nonphysical being separate; we are talking - or trying to, against the silent bias of language - about the physical world being a local area of the whole - 3 dimensions among many.  (And yes, the whole idea of dimensions is itself an approximate term, used for shorthand convenience.)

Not just the record of your life; not just the mental part of your life, but the very physical existence you are aware of, all resides in the full set of dimensions because, as I said, everything has to exist in all dimensions if it exists in any.  So all this talk about physical or nonphysical is not meaningless, but it is not the absolute dichotomy it appears to be because of the language we employ.

And then we come to the third point ...

Uncountable versions

DeMarco, Frank. Rita's World: A View from the Non-Physical (Kindle Location 2385). Rainbow Ridge Books. Kindle Edition.

(A)  Here is the complexity that required a fresh mind.  [A mind fresh to the task]

(Q)  I know what you are intending to relate it to, and if you can clear up the tangle of half-understood concepts that we reported in The Sphere and the Hologram, but couldn't untangle, I'd be very glad.

(A)  Summarize the problem, if you would.

(Q)  Well, the guys told us that the results of every decision constitute an alternate version of reality, but that the idea of the world splitting with each decision was the result of thinking in terms of a past that ceases to exist, a present in which choices are made, and a future that is determined by the present, in contradiction to the view of time as existing - every conceivable variation of every conceivable scenario - from the time the world was created, here using "the world" to mean not Earth but the entire material universe.

It seemed to me this meant that some version of every one of us took every possible path - usually unknown to one another, but not invariably, I gather - which sort of defeats the point of "choosing, choosing, choosing" as the purpose of life, it seems to me.

(A)  Again, put the sun rather than the Earth in the center, and things clarify.  If you stop thinking of a physical life as "real" and start seeing it as a set of projections of nonphysical life, you aren't faced with the question of - oh, where do those uncounted number of alternate worlds exist?  Which version of your life - of your soul - is real?  How can all this make sense in terms of one individual (yes, relatively individual, but you understand what I'm getting at) being shaped and then functioning?

(Q)  I could never get a good handle on it.  I brought it through and had confidence that my translation wasn't very wrong, but I couldn't really make sense of it, though I tried.  I mean, I could sort of wrap my head around it, but I couldn't really connect it to the life I experience myself leading day by day.  And relating it is the point, isn't it?

(A)  It is.  Here is one clarification that may bring you far - again, provided that you make the Copernican Shift in your mind.

Start with the idea that the larger being selected this and that combination of elements to be you, inserting you in a certain place and time.  That is well and good as a working statement, but, in fact, describes the situation only approximately and from a 3D-based perspective.  Alter the perspective and you see that reality is actually a projection of inherent possibilities rather than a physical reality.  Therefore, it costs nothing to explore this or that set of possibilities.  One is as real as any other.

(Q)  I do get what you mean, but I don't think you've said it yet in any way that can not be wildly misrepresented.

(A)  Suppose a computer-generated image.  Suppose the image is systematically transformed so that every possible combination is displayed.  Suppose - harder, I realize - that all these possible variations are on display simultaneously and are simultaneously apprehensible.  The possibilities (whatever they may be) were all inherent in the computer program.  If they were not inherent, they could not have manifested, clearly.  There is no need to decide (or rather, arbitrarily choose to regard) which one is uniquely "real" and the others a copy or a theoretical manifestation, only.  Which one is "real" is simple - it is whichever one you are connecting to.

This, minus the sequential-time implications that insert themselves into the analogy, is more or less the situation.

(Q)  But understanding it depends entirely upon making the Copernican Shift.

(A)  If you try to understand it while trying to think of life as physical, sequential, and "real", you can get only a vague and theoretical understanding that will have no application to your life.

(Q)  So - I am sure someone will ask - if all possible worlds exist, meaning that all possible choices are made by some aspect of ourselves, what is the point of choosing, what is the point of working to create ourselves?

(A)  You are walking the possibilities.

(Q)  Oh, that explains it!  Huh?

(A)  We'll start there next time.

Called or not called; and Viewpoint channelled from Carl Jung

Called or not called

DeMarco, Frank. Rita's World: A View from the Non-Physical (Kindle Location 2250). Rainbow Ridge Books. Kindle Edition.

(Q)  …  I must say that as always it is a weird feeling to know more or less what subject you are going to address, and have no idea what’s coming, yet at the same time have confidence that something is coming.

(A)  Notice that I gave you a few seconds to realize that you aren’t making it up.  The worry that you are making it up is, as you well know, an inhibiting factor in developing the ability to receive material.  Note, I said in “developing”, not in “discovering” or in “creating” such an ability.  As you also well know.

(Q)  But maybe we never get fully beyond that worry.

(A)  Maybe you do, maybe you don’t, it is a matter of personality and experiences.  But “called or not called, God will be here”, Carl Jung says.

(Q)  Now that is weird.  I heard that last sentence as loud and clear as if I had spoken it internally myself, so I wrote it even though it did not belong and I doubt it was you, Rita, who said it.  It is utterly unlike anything you would have said in 3D – even to the use of the word God, if memory serves.  So what is going on.

(CJ – Carl Jung)  You know full well what is going on, but you intend something different so you say, “This cannot be, I refuse to acknowledge what I know”.

(Q)  Very well.  Welcome, Dr. Jung.

(CJ)  This is not an either/or situation over here, you know.  You have said and written for many years that separation is a quality of physical life rather than nonphysical life, and yet when that quality manifests, you do not expect it.  You silently assume that we over here follow the rules.  But they are not our rules, and this is not our game, or yours, but, shall we say, a compromise between the two, a translation between worlds.

(Q)  Dammit, I have a bad habit of going wool-gathering if I let myself pause in this process.

(CJ)  Not so much if you let yourself pause; more if you let yourself entertain two trains of thought, or if you worry over what you are receiving.

(Q)  Can you continue where you were going when I lost the connection?

(CJ)  Merely, use alternative explanatory schemes.  Do not allow yourselves to be enmeshed in them.  There is no advantage to changing denominations within the church, save to be more comfortable!  The exchange per se does not bring you closer to the truth, although the experience of it, may.

Viewpoint

(CJ)  However, I entered the discussion to do two things.  One, to make you aware that this process has listeners on the nonphysical side, no less than on the physical side, and two, to say something on the subject of consciousness.

(Q)  Someone on the TMI Explorers list had suggested I ask you, I think.

(CJ)  Called or not called, those you connect to by your nature, your interests, your sympathies, and your tasks will also be there.  But more strongly so if we are called.

(Q)  An example of how we are continuously more connected than we realize we are –

(CJ)  Go back to the beginning of this new series of conversations and see for yourself.  Rita began by saying the communication is without beginning or end, by the nature of things, regardless of whether the interaction is observed consciously, and certainly regardless of whether it is reflected upon by the 3D experiencer.

(Q)  Well, it is an honor to connect with you.  Am I mistaken in believing that where Jung is (at least, in relation to me) Robert Clarke cannot be far behind?

(CJ)  That is correct, and the clustering of souls relative to any given individual might be a subject for you to explore at some point, although perhaps not now.

(Q)  Well, I remember being told years ago that anyone who reads a book connects – not metaphorically – to the author and to everybody else who reads or did read or will read that book.

(CJ)  Yes, an approximate statement of the process of clustering.  You shouldn’t carry the statement too far, but it may remind you of the value in choosing good companions.  However, to return to the matter in hand –

Remember, as this process continues, that any discussion of any topic may or may not resonate, may or may not prove productive of new connections, new insights, but will not produce absolute statements that may be accurately taken only one way.  The key to anyone’s understanding is that each mind, each soul, is a point of view.  That is, each 3D-created mind is a particular window not only on the 3D part of the world, but on everything that mind ponders.  The bias incorporated into a more or less permanent habit-system (as you once heard the human mind described) is valued precisely because it is a bias; it is a particular way of seeing things, a particular slant on life.  Far from such nonobjective bias being seen as a detriment, it is recognized as the point of 3D experience.

But – any given viewpoint is just that – one viewpoint.  Even if the viewpoint is itself an incorporation of the habit of always seeing things in many ways, that viewpoint is itself only one way of experiencing things.

(Q)  In other words, we mustn’t expect to receive any final answers, here.

(CJ)  No.  And you – yourself, Frank, as transducer of energies – should rejoice that this is so, as it removes the impossible burden of the need for omniscience or, more, infallibility.  And for the reader it removes the burden of deciding whether to throw over every other system of thought and follow whatever you derive.  Not that anyone would do it anyway, but that they might criticize themselves for being unable to do so.  They should work with this material, not be captured by it.  The same words will seem to mean different things to different people at different times and different contexts.

(Q)  You said you came today to say something on the nature of consciousness.  My hour is nearly gone – can you still get it in?

(CJ)  I am smiling, my friend.  I have said it already.  The point I made is the point I wanted to make.  And now I will let you end with Rita, only now knowing to remember that this conversation is wider on both sides of the veil – I use the older idea purposely, to reassure you that you need not confine yourselves to carefully censored language – and that your own community (that is said for anyone who ever reads this) is more extensive than you usually realize or dare realize.  You are none of you isolated, no matter how it may feel.  You are not orphans, nor are you stranded on desert islands.

Each soul is a point of view

Further to my comments yesterday concerning the selection of one of an infinite set of "basis vectors" (aka perceptions of CU's) ... here's something I just read this morning from the book "Rita's World: A View from the Non-Physical".  It is a comment from Carl Jung who interjected into Frank's conversation with Rita.  In it Carl is talking primarily about 3D incarnations, but it also applies more generally to perceiving "properties" of All That Is:

Each soul is a point of view

The key to anyone’s understanding is that each mind, each soul, is a point of view.  That is, each 3D-created mind is a particular window not only on the 3D part of the world, but on everything that mind ponders.  The bias incorporated into a more or less permanent habit-system (as you once heard the human mind described) is valued precisely because it is a bias; it is a particular way of seeing things, a particular slant on life.  Far from such nonobjective bias being seen as a detriment, it is recognized as the point of 3D experience.

The Inner Self is Formed of CUs

When it comes to describing the foundations of consciousness and realities, it is hard not to take a hierarchical and very linear point of view.  For example, in physics the "Standard Model" has a whole palette of "fundamental particles" which are assumed to form atomic particles, molecules and the material world in a very hierarchical manner  I suspect this is true for entities playing in a lot of dimensional planes.

When Seth speaks of CUs we tend to think along the same lines, as if our entity is like a rigid, hierarchical, well-defined molecular construction.  I don't think that is the case.  I suspect that the concept of CU's only makes sense to beings like us who are immersed in dimensional spaces, particularly in duality ... where we see separation and boundaries between what we think of as identities within a field of oneness.

The best I can come up with as a potential metaphor is the idea that consciousness is like an infinite dimensional abstract mathematical space.  CU's in that hypothetical construct would simply represent a set of basis vectors.  Like any set of basis vectors, it would "span" All That Is but it would not be uniquely defined.  By that I mean the following.  If you look at our simple 3D space, there are an infinite number of potential basis vector sets.  They differ by where they origin is located, by their orientation, and by their shape (e.g. we're used to linear systems, but there are things like spherical coordinates, cylindrical coordinates, etc.).  "We" at any moment of action (in some plane of action, such as Earth) could be viewed as a vector process (function) in that space ... which could be projected as "components" along that infinite set of CU's.  Hence it would be reasonable to say that the Inner Self is formed of CU's ... and to note that this set is not uniquely defined but rather is very specific to your perception.

Have fun with this ... maybe you can comer up with something better!

“Basically, there are no real divisions to the self, but for the sake of explanation we must speak of them in those terms.  First of all, you had the inner self, the creative dreaming self – composed, again, of units of consciousness, awareized energy that forms your identity, and that formed the identities of the earliest earth inhabitants.  These inner selves formed their own dream bodies about them, as previously explained, but the dream bodies did not have to have physical reactions.  They were free of gravity and space, and of time.”

(Dreams, “Evolution” and Value Fulfillment, Session 894)