Questions posed themselves: for example, do we drink alcohol in 5D, and, if we do, what happens—do we get drunk? the answer depends on what it means to be relaxed. One difference between a 4D life and a 5D life is that in 5D we are always relaxed; we can still suffer, but we are relaxed—our world is secure, and it is perfect. In 4D, our civilization is flawed and corrupt—therefore we are never fully relaxed. Questions constantly arise that would try and improve our state—and make us more relaxed; indeed, total relaxation is what we strive for, even if we cannot ever achieve it without some stimulant, and, even then, because we require a full belly, etc., we are not fully relaxed.
So drugs are bad in 4D because they make it possible for us to pursue questions beyond the point of optimal relaxation—the relaxation levels required to function. We may not, initially, take a drug to pursue a question, but once the drug begins to wear off, questions arise that, if answered, would seem to relax us. We then take drugs to pursue those questions, and, naturally, we pose questions, sometimes, that we cannot answer, and there are always more questions that would offset withdrawals. But most questions, in 5D, are already answered, and the ones that aren’t do not distress us—we cannot become stressed; instead, our minds automatically balance that which would fall out of balance, by setting a thought off to the side to be pursued at a more convenient time, by letting the thought go entirely, or by not asking questions in the first place. Therefore we can use drugs in 5D, but we do not get “high,” and we do not crash. Our bodies don’t allow it. We are already high, and we do not seek to change that. So the reason for taking a drug changes. Instead of taking a drug to get high, or relax, we take a drug to tune into a particular channel; once we’ve collected our messages, and resonance is achieved, we have no desire to continue using. Note, too, that we do not receive more messages than we can handle; the number of messages we receive is proportional to all the other activities we do throughout our day, and the messages that go with those activities, which are equally important. In short, if we used a drug all the time, it would cease to be a channel tuner; it would be, instead, as if we were not using a drug at all, and, because of that, we would stop using it.
So a drug, then, serves as a means to compartmentalize information, the better, perhaps, depending on the person, to focus on that one particular line of reasoning. We don’t get any higher than the resonance we establish when we connect with those that sent us our messages. Love, then, is what determines how high we get, and, because we are already high, we simply resolve to the same high we got the last time we connected, perfectly, with these particular people. In short, we are in love all the time, and the highs we look forward too are simply the different events that take place throughout the day—events that correspond to different electrical combinations in our brain—a variety that always keeps us entertained—high in this section, and then, after a while, high in a different section, such that we are always approaching, and achieving highs—highs that, because they happen in different sectors periodically, are never exhausted.
So yes, some us, at least, probably do drink alcohol in 5D; the difference being, of course, that we do not get drunk; instead, we simply use it to organize some of our thoughts—to distinguish one activity, or one channel, from another, which, for some people, would make it easier to concentrate, people that, for example, like to think some thoughts at certain times, or talk, specifically, on certain frequencies at specific times, as opposed to having the option to talk to anybody at any time. The same reasoning applies to stimulants—or drugs of any kind. The particular drug is a matter of choice—but, because we can only stimulate ourselves or depress ourselves, and no drug gets us any higher than any other drug, our options, in 5D, are simple, and a function of habit, more than anything else.
Next question: what keeps us together in 5D? Why would I feel nostalgia for a previous relationship, and, if i did, what would that mean? Or why would I take an interest in somebody new (however gradually), and, if i did, what would that mean? Why would some people always be together, while others might, from time to time, change partners? The answer is that the people, across time and space, that we are connected, to, the people whose frequencies define us, might have lived variable 4D lives; the imperfections of 4D life might have forced us to project different frequencies at various points in our lives—making some of us a little more “unstable” than others. In order to stay connected, it might be easier, as with drugs, to compartmentalize the different frequencies.
Thus, some of us might change partners to color the different addresses we are trying to communicate with; there may be only a couple of addresses, or there may be several—and, to stay tuned, the means by which we, in our 4D lives, used to stay connected would carry over into 5D. So, if, due to the imperfections of 4D life, i find it easier to compartmentalize (or not), then i am most likely to continue that pattern of behavior in my 5D life, minus the 4D complications. So, to answer the question: we change partners—or we don’t—depending on how stable we, and our loved ones, were in our 4D lives. Those of us that are unstable might find it easier to compartmentalize—as a means of keeping up with our various connections, whereas those of us that are stable might not need to change a thing. But what, fundamentally, you might ask, makes some of us stable and some of us unstable? But what could that be but the conditions surrounding our birth? The genes we inherited, the means that we and our families lived by, and the people that came and possibly went, in and out of our lives, for whatever reasons?
But can i be connected to someone that is unstable, and be stable myself? I would say yes, you can, if the frequencies of the person that is unstable align with the frequencies of the other people that you are connected to such that, indeed, your address need not change. Now, what happens if I, or my partner, should take an interest in someone else? That wouldn’t happen unless the change that would take place advances us to the events that, in the future, would make us the most happy; because, ultimately, as a world, we are going to the same events, those events would make both people the most happy, and, hence, the end of that relationship would be what makes both people the most happy—as happy as they were when events kept them together, and as happy as they were when events got them excited about something new.
Now, is it possible for someone that is unstable to stabilize? I would say yes, if, that is, the sum of frequencies that define us realigned in a different way. A loved one might become unstable that was not, or vice versa, to varying degrees. The superposition is what counts. But is that likely to happen? Over time, why not? But there’s one important caveat: if what we are doing works for us, then why would any of us change? This, again, depends on the circumstances of our 4D lives; if, for example, at some point we stabilized, or vice versa, and the fundamental pitch we emitted became more recognizable than before, then we, in our 5D lives, at some point, might shift to pick up what happened before that, or shift to pick up what happened once that happened. But the bottom line is this: because most of us marry in our 4D lives, and never have the opportunity to become promiscuous in the first place, most of us, generally speaking, stabilize with one person, and, as such, the connections we establish, the connections that define us, depend on that one person, and, therefore, once in 5D, there would be nothing to gain from changing partners—especially since, in 5D, we are all as beautiful as the events that we are going to, events that, in and of themselves, are perfect, and, as such, invite no comparison. That said, there is a hierarchy, but that hierarchy depends on the amount that we suffer—and the fun we have, as lesser beings, makes us look, in the eyes of each other, equally important.