The subject is the lower-self/higher-self duality (and the higher-awareness viewpoint). Since we as the lower-self are, and are not, simultaneously the higher-self then we cannot apply Earth logic (which is only 3D logic).

The paradox is that the lower-self is 'told' that he or she is agreeing to (and creating) the problem ('negative' experience). But this lower-self knows that he or she is not agreeing. Proof is simply to ask the lower-self.

Let us emphasise the importance of this paradox by deliberately, though reluctantly, presenting horrendous experiences (not for the squeamish). The lower-self is just about to be burned at the stake, or be tortured with molten lead poured in the mouth, or eyes cut out! (The paradox element is not changed by karma information or self-punishment explanations, etc.)

The lower-self is about to suffer unimaginable agony, and a voice whispers from somewhere, "By the way, you realise you agreed to this, of course!" (With the implied understanding that it will resolve such and such a spiritual blockage, that is, that it is necessary under the circumstances, and that it is up to the individual.)

There is no way that the lower-self is going to agree to this extreme and insane suffering for this apparent gain of the higher-self and everyone else. Yet we as the higher-self fall into the same 'delusion'. An excellent analogy being that of a wise adult (compare higher-self) watching over a young child (compare lower-self), which let us say, is crying bitterly over some hurt, and the adult possibly even smiling at the triviality of the problem but having no idea what the child feels like, and the adult being quite happy to set a program for the next life involving such experiences---with the intention of creating a positive outcome (which is not the point we are interested in).

A strong contender for an answer might be that we agreed in an unawareness, emotionally disturbed, or unconscious state, and that agreement is acting now, and must be 'found' and changed. However, we know we are not agreeing now and an unconscious agreement is not an agreement of the conscious lower-self personality. This is the point. We (as the lower-self) are not agreeing but we do all the suffering. This simple point is ignored throughout the New-Age movement.

If one states that this is the way it is, that the energy comes out in such a manner that this is the 'isness' of it and there is nothing that can be done, this is possibly acceptable. But not to be told, 'You are agreeing to it'--with the implication nothing can be done (since 'you' are the cause . . . a kind of way out, an excuse . . . avoiding really confronting the issue and giving a proper understanding).

Consequently, and to put it harshly, a particular viewpoint would be that the lower-self is being set up (certainly the lower-self caused it all but it still doesn't justify the horrendous suffering). The lower-self life didn't even exist when the higher-self decided that this future lower-self would or at least may 'have' to suffer in this way. The fact that a lower-self of the higher-self caused these problems is not relevant to this question, nor that there are other possible ways of discharging the karma.

An extensive study of channelling does indicate an unexpected inability of the higher viewpoint to understand and imagine the experience of the lower viewpoint. Human problems are thus not given much attention at the soul level until this higher-self is being (projects) the lower-self, whence the full realisation of what really is to be experienced is registered at the lower self.

One might add that as long as there is evil there must be victims (two poles), and therefore suffering. But this is just advanced physics and the higher levels ought to be able to find another method of solving problems. (Of course, if one cognites on the causes, the problem is cancelled, but this is not easy and may be long after much suffering.)

One could refer to the extreme duality (separateness) which has now formed between lower-self and higher-self, and the lower-self is not perceiving the guidance or ignoring it and thus has to learn by extreme misadventure. But again the point is that the lower-self is clearly not agreeing and has 'set itself up', though unknowingly due to this non-recognition of the lower-self experience from the higher-self. Thus it is useless information stating that we (as the lower self) are agreeing, even though are involved with the causes unknowingly.

Barring no other solution we lower-selves collectively should select (from the countless probabilities at the higher level) another solution while at this level. The process is both 'top down' and 'bottom up' simultaneously (a confusion in current science). The lower-selves probably have tremendous power to select probabilities from the higher levels--a product of design and the impersonal Absolute? (beyond the personalisations).