So some might think to ask, what is the mechanism by which we will interact with “5D” probability. It’s no folly to want to assume that some new mystical art of ‘creating’ will be required to subsume all prior practice of experiencing “physical/3D”, though it’s untrue. It is a given that the erstwhile “objective environment” construct is characterised, predominately by its sense of completeness such that one might feel, justifiably, it is necessary to go ‘outside’ of those parameters to obtain something new. It isn’t. Most of the readership know it isn’t. Thus we expand on that which you already know; there is a secret story overlaying the central narrative. A world hidden in a world. The world has characters, structures, continuity and commonalities. What we note, here, however, is that the intimation, it occupies a ‘distinct’ dimension, holds little bearing on its accessibility from the ‘dimension’ we are in. What is required, to that end, merely, is the psychological space for processing the information at its intrinsic rate.
Ultimately, this is, a practice, in no way different from the procedure undertaken by the function of ego to determine one’s “position” in a “concrete background world” so that is where we should start, individually, identifying what is our currency for this exchange. Where do we ‘hold alternates’ within the framework that gives us choice among locations? At any stage do you see yourself ‘holding’ more than one possible location for the same entity? When you do that you’re exploiting our means of far far more than simply deciding if Jack is Jill’s brother or just someone who looks like her, this agency advances the same apparatus one would use to navigate through a “5th Dimensional” landscape.
In 5D interaction the energy exchange (currency) shifts away from transposing ‘items of token’ – in 3d interaction, for example, one might look at a painting to appreciate it has beauty, in appreciation we transpose the item of token “beauty’ from concept to identity, this item belongs to a set, the elements of which interact with each other to form their own identity (beauty is to plain etc) – and toward opening parallel fields of cohesion within the drama. These parallel fields are also a set interacting via the same propensity to determine the identity of each other, that is to say, each element expands a limited number of identity spaces and once filled to coherence the whole element holds in contrast to one with the same identity spaces filled alternately. The fastest among us might, now, be wondering if we could have a probability space where the primary interaction was to exchange worlds like compliments. Well, why not? Sounds like fun, right? Actually, we do it every day so we’re really just talking scales of the material exchanged, for the most, in any point of difference.
So with this conception of the currency in exchange, in mind, consider the mechanism. The notion of this level of energy exchange, for items of token, is a one for one correspondence arrangement. This fits our conception of a self as singular among a field over spatial dimensions. Assortment of a discrete amount of available energy into discrete packets characterises our interaction psychology with physical life in “3D”. This psychology is married to the concept of a discrete self among a field in spatial dimensions, it neglects time almost entirely, assigning it to a god of the gaps among its major flaws in being accurately referent to true reality. But by far, the flaw that sticks the camel through the eye of the needle is the “properness” imputed to filling this landscape as though it were, not even so humble as “true reality”, but moreover, necessary and absolute to all beyond it as well, but I have digressed. What is true about reality is that we are not possibly defined by a singular discrete object among a spatial field of things, ever. We might be a stream of images on a kaleidoscoping background of interlinked image streams,, or we might be blips of awareness, randomly intersecting information across an infinite plane of possibilities (see Boltzmann)… but we cannot be singular objects in a spatial field. There is nothing in observation that actually fits that description accurately, least of all us. We have observable self awareness, in our scale of time. We have spent a millenia or so wondering how a singular object is able to look at itself and still no answer…. probably because it can’t. We *can* because we are not singular (in time nor space). This fact, is our mechanism.
Because this post has been long, and awaited, I will expound with a fresh title on the details of our not being singular and just add a brief overview to this one. The fastest straight answer is to revisit the science of brain wave frequencies and how it is we are able to operate on two quite distinct frequencies in waking consciousness. There is a faster cycle of mental interaction and a slower one. The faster cycle is the one which we generally associate with our waking conscious activity. The slower one has all our more mystical seeming propensities attached to it – intuition, imagination, emotion and empathy etc – we don’t seem to know where these things come from, though with a long enough look at the situation it ought to become quite obvious. They’re more than one self, in time and space, working together.