Something that's been bugging me lately.
According to Ra, before the veiling process, the archetypal mind consisted of nine archetypes.
Yet Ra describes the veiling process as a declaration that the mind was complex (resulting in a complex body and spirit as well):
Quote:83.19 The mechanism of the veiling between the conscious and unconscious portions of the mind was a declaration that the mind was complex. This, in turn, caused the body and the spirit to become complex.
Ra clearly defines their usage of the term complex:
Quote:79.19 To be complex is to consist of more than one characteristic element or concept.
If the mind already consisted of 3 different parts (matrix, potentiator, significator), then wouldn't it already be complex?
The best I can reckon is that, seen through the lens of a non-complex archetypal mind, these three parts were really simply one unified concept working together. Only through our current understanding of our complex mind/body/spirit would we effectively see the previous setup as complex because these functions are now clearly defined as separate.
I'm not really quite satisfied with my theory. Is there something I'm missing? Anyone have any other thoughts to offer?
Is it possible to have a complex, within a complex, within a complex etc., etc.,?
They are indeed unified. There isn't any separation. Every archetype nests, fractalizes from the one before.
The archetypes are only complex as in a fractal: Each one contains the whole yet there is still a sense of distinction as awareness becomes distinct through creation itself.
The biggest problem most people are having with the archetypes is that they are seeing them as very distinct concepts when, in fact, they blend. They blend very well. They are a process.
A non-complex archetypal system is one with so little contrivation, that there is no illusion of the spirit nor sense of separation from the Source, "the creator."
(08-05-2013, 04:43 PM)rie Wrote: [ -> ]Is it possible to have a complex, within a complex, within a complex etc., etc.,?
Ra does say that each archetype contains its own complex of concepts. Perhaps the real answer is just too convoluted for me to understand
(08-05-2013, 04:50 PM)Adonai One Wrote: [ -> ]They are indeed unified. There isn't any separation. Every archetype nests, fractalizes from the one before.
The archetypes are only complex as in a fractal: Each one contains the whole yet there is still a sense of distinction as awareness becomes distinct through creation itself.
The biggest problem most people are having with the archetypes is that they are seeing them as very distinct concepts when, in fact, they blend. They blend very well. They are a process.
A non-complex archetypal system is one with so little contrivation, that there is no illusion of the spirit nor sense of separation from the Source, "the creator."
What I am interested in exploring here are the archetypes according to Ra. Certainly personal interpretations would be welcome, but do you think that when you say, "The biggest problem most people are having with the archetypes is that they are seeing them as very distinct concepts when, in fact, they blend" is compatible with what Ra says here?
Quote:"Each archetype is a significant ding an sich, or thing in itself, with its own complex of concepts. While it is informative to survey the relationships of one archetype to another it can be said that this line of inquiry is secondary to the discovery of the purest gestalt or vision or melody which each archetype signifies to both the intellectual and intuitive mind."
It seems very clear that Ra is saying that the most fruitful explorations of the archetypes is as viewing them as things in and of themselves rather than "blending" as you signify.
This line of thinking, whether or not the archetypes can (or should) be seen as things in themselves might be key to understanding the issue I'm having with the idea of complexity. Your words might help me grasp them if they didn't seem to directly contradict Ra's.
I am in complete agreement with Ra's view. There is no contradiction except one perceived out of a misunderstanding. Heh.
Indeed, the relationships are secondary for they cannot be made without understanding the concepts themselves.
The concepts are distinct but they are not separate. You will not be able to apply to archetypes to your life viewing them absolutely individualized.
In summary, if you cannot tangibly apply the archetypes to your life and endeavors as a process, you do not have an understanding of them. Why else would Ra say they are useful for the adept?
If such was never the case, then the archetypes are trivial and useless.
(08-05-2013, 05:33 PM)Bring4th_Austin Wrote: [ -> ] (08-05-2013, 04:43 PM)rie Wrote: [ -> ]Is it possible to have a complex, within a complex, within a complex etc., etc.,?
Ra does say that each archetype contains its own complex of concepts. Perhaps the real answer is just too convoluted for me to understand
It's not. It's actually so absurdly simple that most people don't want to hear it.
It should also be said that most of this forum is giving subjective interpretations of Ra's words. Ra purposefully chose to provide ambiguous statements in regards to the archetypes.
It is fairly unfortunate to say there is no objective, primary resource on this matter.
This whole forum is personal interpretation.
Also, Ra clearly calls them cycles.
Quote:77.12 Questioner: That is correct. I am asking with respect to this particular Logos, our sun, in creating the experience of its planetary system and those sub-Logoi of it.
Ra: I am Ra. This query has substance. We shall begin by turning to an observation of a series of concept complexes of which you are familiar as the tarot.
The philosophy was to create a foundation, first of mind, then of body, and then of spiritual complex. Those concept complexes you call the tarot lie then in three groups of seven: the mind cycle, one through seven; the physical complex cycle, eight through fourteen; the spiritual complex cycle, fifteen through twenty-one. The last concept complex may best be termed The Choice.
Upon the foundation of transformation of each complex, with free will guided by the root concepts offered in these cycles, the Logos offered this density the basic architecture of a building and constructing and synthesizing of data culminating in The Choice.
Also, relevant. I don't know how you guys are using these at all, haha.
Quote:77.13 Questioner: Then for me to condense your statement, I see it meaning that there are seven basic philosophical foundations for mental experience, seven for bodily, seven for spiritual, and that these produce the polarization that we experience some time during the third-density cycle. This may be very poorly stated on my part. Am I close to correct?
Ra: I am Ra. You are correct in that you perceive the content of our prior statement with accuracy. You are incorrect in that you have no mention of the, shall we say, location of all of these concept complexes; that is, they exist within the roots of the mind and it is from this resource that their guiding influence and leitmotifs may be traced. You may further note that each foundation is itself not single but a complex of concepts. Furthermore, there are relationships betwixt mind, body, and spirit of the same location in octave, for instance: one, eight, fifteen, and relationships within each octave which are helpful in the pursuit of The Choice by the mind/body/spirit complex. The Logos under which these foundations stand is one of free will. Thusly the foundations may be seen to have unique facets and relationships for each mind/body/spirit complex. Only twenty-two, The Choice, is relatively fixed and single.
if you are wondering why making the mind complex automatically makes the body and spirit complex;
Quote:We ask that you consider that the archetypical mind informs those thoughts which then may have bearing upon the mind, the body, or the spirit. The archetypes do not have a direct linkage to body or spirit. All must be drawn up through the higher levels of the subconscious mind to the conscious mind and thence they may flee whither they have been bidden to go. When used in a controlled way they are most helpful.
though your focus Austin is on how the mind could not be complex if it contains matrix, potentiator and significator prior to the veil, i think it just means that after the veiling, the interactions between these three became complex and needed new archetypes to express the new interactions.
take for example the catalyst of the mind. after the veiling, the spirit (bird) can only interact directly with the subconscious (female/potentiator) and not with the conscious mind (male, matrix) (which is also interesting trying to unlock a bird from its cage in the matrix card, probably without success lol), this means the conscious (male) mind must now court the subconscious (female) mind and choose how to use it, which gives us the transformation of the mind tarot card. The veiling also made the sts path possible where before it wasnt and this is depicted in various ways throughout the tarot cards.
(08-05-2013, 04:50 PM)Adonai One Wrote: [ -> ]They are indeed unified. There isn't any separation. Every archetype nests, fractalizes from the one before.
The archetypes are only complex as in a fractal: Each one contains the whole yet there is still a sense of distinction as awareness becomes distinct through creation itself.
The biggest problem most people are having with the archetypes is that they are seeing them as very distinct concepts when, in fact, they blend. They blend very well. They are a process.
A non-complex archetypal system is one with so little contrivation, that there is no illusion of the spirit nor sense of separation from the Source, "the creator."
Yes, to understand creation one must understand fractals, excellent brother.
(08-05-2013, 07:17 PM)Adonai One Wrote: [ -> ]I am in complete agreement with Ra's view. There is no contradiction except one perceived out of a misunderstanding. Heh.
Indeed, the relationships are secondary for they cannot be made without understanding the concepts themselves.
The concepts are distinct but they are not separate. You will not be able to apply to archetypes to your life viewing them absolutely individualized.
When you say that they are "distinct but not separate," that is the heart of this thread. Of course the archetypal mind is not separate from itself or else it could not function. However, you denied this distinction:
Quote:The biggest problem most people are having with the archetypes is that they are seeing them as very distinct concepts...
Which is what I was responding to.
My intention for creating this thread is to examine the nature of this distinction, the difference between the mind being "complex" rather than not complex, two very different and distinct ways for these archetypes to function. We're examining the the difference between non-complex and complex.
You also pointed out that the archetypes as they are
now are unified, which is contrary to Ra's definition of complex. Something that is unified does not have multiple parts as Ra describes the archetypal mind having, at least not from our perspective. Similarly to how simply stating "all is one" while in 3rd density won't grant us a shortcut back to unity, I don't believe that saying the archetypes are unified is fruitful in examining their complexity. In the beginning, in the end, everything is unified, yet we find ourselves here at a point where the end and the beginning seem to be in front of and behind us.
Quote:In summary, if you cannot tangibly apply the archetypes to your life and endeavors as a process, you do not have an understanding of them. Why else would Ra say they are useful for the adept?
I understand where you are coming from, as it is hard for me to consider the archetypes without considering their processes as well. They work together in our movements of consciousness.
However, I believe it is wrong to say that studying them apart from their process is not useful for the adept. For instance, Ra gives the example of considering the Magician as the
unfed conscious mind. When an adept finds that they are bursting with ideas and contemplation to the point where they cannot do the work they desire, the adept may then "dwell within the archetype of the new and unblemished mind without bias, without polarity, full of the magic of the Logos." In this case, the embodiment of a single archetype as its own concept is rendered useful to the adept without consideration for the process. Ra also mentions how an advanced adept would be able to call upon and embody each archetype (singular) at will. In their words, it is the work of an adept who has "long studied this archetypical system." This study of the archetypal system is what I'm attempting, and while you might believe that "it's so absurdly simple that most people don't want to hear it," I'm going to have to agree with Ra here in thinking that the archetypal system may be examined most fruitfully with in-depth study rather than writing it off as being so simple that we don't need to study it.
(08-06-2013, 06:20 AM)spero Wrote: [ -> ]though your focus Austin is on how the mind could not be complex if it contains matrix, potentiator and significator prior to the veil, i think it just means that after the veiling, the interactions between these three became complex and needed new archetypes to express the new interactions.
I think this is similar to my train of thought. Ra makes a sort of ambiguous statement about the archetypes right after the veiling:
Quote:Questioner: Now we are getting to what I was trying to determine. Then at this point were there still only nine archetypes and the veil had just been drawn between the Matrix and Potentiator?
Ra: I am Ra. There were nine archetypes and many shadows.
I'm sort of at a loss for what these shadows may be, but perhaps they were a this need for new archetypes which was unrealized by the Logoi.
Quote:take for example the catalyst of the mind. after the veiling, the spirit (bird) can only interact directly with the subconscious (female/potentiator) and not with the conscious mind (male, matrix) (which is also interesting trying to unlock a bird from its cage in the matrix card, probably without success lol), this means the conscious (male) mind must now court the subconscious (female) mind and choose how to use it, which gives us the transformation of the mind tarot card. The veiling also made the sts path possible where before it wasnt and this is depicted in various ways throughout the tarot cards.
I wonder then, if the interaction between a complex Matrix and Potentiator can be equated to the male portion of consciousness courting the female, what sort of metaphor could be used for the interaction between a non-complex Matrix and Potentiator?
edit: clarification
A general reaction from me is this:
- Let us take a look at a huge program code. It is complex, right? Well, not by design, only by intention and by will.
When we look at the core itself, program codes boil down to a few very basic patterns. You have declarations, the if/while/for statements, all that jazz - and you start to invent layers of layers of layers of "stuff" from them. Some result in a video game. Some result in an operating system.
BUT it is not a good approximation to the archetypes. I think that when we look at a full spectrum, a full layer of possible interactions, the more difference you make determines the complexity of the interactions, but not only that! It also has a deep implication that for everything that is declared to have a quality, it also have a list of qualities that are lacking!
Which means that archetypes rely on each other, are apart of each other, even when unlisted. One cant study one archetype without studying, acknowledging all of them. It is like having an RGB mode of determining a color: no matter what color you pick, you need to state how much red, blue and green it contains, even if it contains none of it.
Now, complexity is maybe not having RGB but a different system when you have a WYSTRHUJK system. No matter which one you go with, you will still need to look at the full picture, but as more variables are chosen, stuff gets hard to keep track of pretty fast, no matter how similar the underlying principles are in both cases.
I find it curious how I missed that quote from Ra before, and how it pops in now. Without that declaration, things are simple, huh.
Another angle for this: matrix and potentiator. Father and mother. What if we look at this two concepts and imagine them as two halfs for one single item? Now we just reduced complexity, while acknowledging that none of them exist without each other: you cant have a half of a coin without having SOMETHING on the other side. By separating concepts and describing interactions between them, we are not acknowledging that they are different facets of a single "item", that rely on each other, but rather we pretend to forget/ignore that. When you have a dice with 6 sides, and dwell into the probabilities and patterns, somewhere along the line, you might forget that they all are just sides for one single item!
(08-06-2013, 12:47 PM)Bring4th_Austin Wrote: [ -> ]...
Austin, the real question here is do you even know where to begin in applying these archetypes to a magical working? In your life? Beyond veiled definitions of the concious and unconcious mind?
You underestimate my wisdom greatly. I am using these cards daily in my workings and while it is a short time, I have attained more power than most humans will ever attain. I sound arrogant but I take my stand:
You do not understand these cards, my dear friend.
My PM box is open.
Although your understanding of the first two mind cards is greater than most.
(08-06-2013, 01:13 PM)Adonai One Wrote: [ -> ] (08-06-2013, 12:47 PM)Bring4th_Austin Wrote: [ -> ]...
You underestimate my wisdom greatly.
hmm it's almost like a mirror lmao
(08-06-2013, 01:13 PM)Adonai One Wrote: [ -> ] (08-06-2013, 12:47 PM)Bring4th_Austin Wrote: [ -> ]...
Austin, the real question here is do you even know where to begin in applying these archetypes to a magical working? In your life? Beyond veiled definitions of the concious and unconcious mind?
You underestimate my wisdom greatly. I am using these cards daily in my workings and while it is a short time, I have attained more power than most humans will ever attain. I sound arrogant but I take my stand:
You do not understand these cards, my dear friend.
My PM box is open.
Although your understanding of the first two mind cards is greater than most.
As I just stated in my last post, this thread is about examining the difference between the non-complex and complex archetypal mind. It is not about me, my desires for understanding them, how I might apply them to my life. Neither is it about you or how powerful you are, or how much wisdom you believe yourself to have. The "real question here " is in the OP.
I'll gladly consider and discuss your thoughts on stated subject and ask you to keep your other thoughts where they are relevant.
Haha, well I'm simply holding that you do not even have the context to make such a discernment. This thread will bear no fruit as it stands.
As said, the non-complex archetypal mind is one simply without the spirit archetypes.
(08-06-2013, 01:54 PM)Adonai One Wrote: [ -> ]Haha, well I'm simply holding that you do not even have the context to make such a discernment. This thread will bear no fruit as it stands.
As said, the non-complex archetypal mind is one simply without the spirit archetypes.
I'm concerned this is beginning to cross the line of respecting
for others' opinions.
(08-06-2013, 02:09 PM)rie Wrote: [ -> ]I'm concerned this is beginning to cross the line of respecting for others' opinions.
That's the thing: These cards aren't completely subjective at their roots. There is a correct understanding. The problem is this board has descended to a point that everybody thinks it is completely subjective because nobody has objectively theorized and standardized the meaning of the cards.
Without any standard, there is no knowledge. There is nothing to be known here. This is currently a dreamland where people pretend to know.
There is fact, there is knowledge in this realm. This shouldn't be a philosophy of opinion. It can be but there first has to be a foundation. There is no foundation, no fundamentals.
What is known is that there is a mind and there are parts to its functioning. You can only make it so subjective.
It seems when we read someone's opinion and react to it, we could fall to be hooked on the bait. Good luck with creating your chaos.
(08-06-2013, 02:17 PM)michael430 Wrote: [ -> ]You have to understand, man - there is no (none, zero, absolutely not) TRUE definition anywhere on Earth as to what the cards mean. I understand that you believe that there is a true meaning somewhere, but others feel differently.
There is no true definition because the context has yet to be created. If there is no set meaning to these cards, they are utterly useless; They serve no purpose other than as art pieces. Is this an art forum? Is that what this truly is?
(08-06-2013, 02:17 PM)michael430 Wrote: [ -> ]This forum is a place to share ideas.
Therefore, your interpretation will never be more correct than anyone else's in this lifetime. Remember - we will never know everything about 3rd Density. Never ever! 
I'm challenging the latter as I speak. There are many that have transcended this realm in the flesh, albeit few, and they did it by understanding the archetypal system.
This is indeed a forum to share ideas and I am sharing mine in this fashion, albeit contentious:
Quote:Ra: I am Ra. This is basically incorrect.
(08-06-2013, 01:54 PM)Adonai One Wrote: [ -> ]As said, the non-complex archetypal mind is one simply without the spirit archetypes.
I interpret your words "without the spirit archetypes" as not having spirit archetypes (not sure how else to interpret it), in which case, is incompatible with Ra's explanations.
Quote:Questioner: Nine archetypes, I will guess that those nine were three of mind, three of body, and three of spirit. Is this correct?
Ra: I am Ra. This is correct.
Is that what you mean?
(08-06-2013, 02:21 PM)Bring4th_Austin Wrote: [ -> ] (08-06-2013, 01:54 PM)Adonai One Wrote: [ -> ]As said, the non-complex archetypal mind is one simply without the spirit archetypes.
I interpret your words "without the spirit archetypes" as not having spirit archetypes (not sure how else to interpret it), in which case, is incompatible with Ra's explanations.
Quote:Questioner: Nine archetypes, I will guess that those nine were three of mind, three of body, and three of spirit. Is this correct?
Ra: I am Ra. This is correct.
Is that what you mean?
Yes, I should say without the entirety of them. Although I concede my understanding has been very incorrect in this regard in one respect.
Anyways, I offer my apologies. I have no real excuse for my lack of respect except in the regard that I am impassioned by this subject.
You have my love even though it is not clear. Thank you for everything you do, Austin.
(08-06-2013, 06:20 AM)spero Wrote: [ -> ]take for example the catalyst of the mind. after the veiling, the spirit (bird) can only interact directly with the subconscious (female/potentiator) and not with the conscious mind (male, matrix) (which is also interesting trying to unlock a bird from its cage in the matrix card, probably without success lol), this means the conscious (male) mind must now court the subconscious (female) mind and choose how to use it, which gives us the transformation of the mind tarot card. The veiling also made the sts path possible where before it wasnt and this is depicted in various ways throughout the tarot cards.
I'm always fascinated about the differenes before and after the veiling. I guess I should be grateful for the veil. It makes me seek that much harder. If I was in constant bliss, I would have no desire to seek or change much. Your philosophy there is intriguing. The part about making the sts path possible is also interesting.
About your standardisation process adonai;
Quote: It is well said that archetypes are portions of the One Infinite Creator or aspects of its face. It is, however, far better to realize that the archetypes, while constant in the complex of generative energies offered, do not give the same yield of these complexes to any two seekers. Each seeker will experience each archetype in the characteristics within the complex of the archetype which are most important to it.
Im fairly certain your interpretation of the archetypes is unique to your personality. You got out of your study precisley what you sought from them i.e. an expedient means of gaining wisdom and power. This is something i feel you've always been attracted to and sought out specifically in your study. Your study was rewarded with a concise practical understanding that as you have said in another thread has given you "more power than most humans will ever attain".
There is nothing wrong with your interpretation and yes the archetypes are objective to the extent they represent unalterable facets of the OiC, but when any one seeker examines them, they get back a unique vision specific to their personality and desires.
The archetypes are brought into my attention when one has meaning to me at that time. As for some standardized knowledge I'm not fussed. My personal goal in this life is to forget the wisdom of 6th density and live a life here on earth full of love and abundance. Perhaps you could learn more Adonai from taking a step back from all the knowledge? of course it is your choice.
The context of my comment was actually pertaining to the nuances made around someone's opinion being weak or lacking on another thread. Not really meant to say anything about how people understand archetypes, but you are free to post my quote out of context
rie Wrote: (08-06-2013, 01:54 PM)Adonai One Wrote: [ -> ]Haha, well I'm simply holding that you do not even have the context to make such a discernment. This thread will bear no fruit as it stands.
As said, the non-complex archetypal mind is one simply without the spirit archetypes.
I'm concerned this is beginning to cross the line of respecting for others' opinions.
(08-06-2013, 05:29 PM)spero Wrote: [ -> ]About your standardisation process adonai;
Quote: It is well said that archetypes are portions of the One Infinite Creator or aspects of its face. It is, however, far better to realize that the archetypes, while constant in the complex of generative energies offered, do not give the same yield of these complexes to any two seekers. Each seeker will experience each archetype in the characteristics within the complex of the archetype which are most important to it.
Im fairly certain your interpretation of the archetypes is unique to your personality. You got out of your study precisley what you sought from them i.e. an expedient means of gaining wisdom and power. This is something i feel you've always been attracted to and sought out specifically in your study. Your study was rewarded with a concise practical understanding that as you have said in another thread has given you "more power than most humans will ever attain".
There is nothing wrong with your interpretation and yes the archetypes are objective to the extent they represent unalterable facets of the OiC, but when any one seeker examines them, they get back a unique vision specific to their personality and desires.
"It is, however, far better to realize that the archetypes, while constant in the complex of generative energies offered, do not give the same yield of these complexes to any two seekers. Each seeker will experience each archetype in the characteristics within the complex of the archetype which are most important to it"
This to me means each person constantly gets access to the major archetypes, what sub characteristics they will need to balance within that archetype is different for everyone.
For example everyone feels the warrior archetype, the marshal energy of acting upon your will and being a force of discipline and action. However some people are over active expressing there warrior side, this could be represented as the sadist, then on the other end of the pole is the masochist. With people starting out all over the spectrum each with a different combination of the poles working there way back to the center back to the balanced whole expression of the warrior.
So each person gets a unique experience but still I do agree with Adonai that it can be objectified and has been to some degree just under different labels and classification in psychology. Understanding of the archetypes can allow you to predict behaviour, I feel Adonai is trying to express this that you can control it to a degree and you can use it for sto or sts.
(08-06-2013, 12:47 PM)Bring4th_Austin Wrote: [ -> ]Spero Wrote:take for example the catalyst of the mind. after the veiling, the spirit (bird) can only interact directly with the subconscious (female/potentiator) and not with the conscious mind (male, matrix) (which is also interesting trying to unlock a bird from its cage in the matrix card, probably without success lol), this means the conscious (male) mind must now court the subconscious (female) mind and choose how to use it, which gives us the transformation of the mind tarot card. The veiling also made the sts path possible where before it wasnt and this is depicted in various ways throughout the tarot cards.
I wonder then, if the interaction between a complex Matrix and Potentiator can be equated to the male portion of consciousness courting the female, what sort of metaphor could be used for the interaction between a non-complex Matrix and Potentiator?
I was thinking about this courtship metaphor and it made me consider Ra's description of how a literal type of "courtship" differs before and after the veil.
In sessions 94 and 95, Ra offers contrasting situations of veiled versus unveiled sexual attraction between two entities. The veiled entities are bemused and dance around their sexual attraction awkwardly before they address it. The unveiled entities address and satisfy the sexual attraction without any avoidance or dance, without even exchanging names.
Perhaps this could be telling of what makes the difference between a complex and non complex matrix and potentiator. Ra says that the fact that this situation is so simple yet made so complex by the two veiled entities is indicative of how effectively the veil is able to amplify catalyst. Same as how the two entities pre-veil were still two separate entities yet with simpler interaction, the pre-veil matrix and potentiator could also have been identified as separate yet simple and unified in their interaction. The "bemusing" of these male and female portions of the mind possibly amplified the experience of catalyst so effectively that there were "many shadows" before there were proper archetypes put in place in order to effectively use this catalytic experience for polarization.
It makes me bend my mind to consider an amplified veiled illusion without the proper archetypes in place for the Catalyst, Experience, and Transformation. "Shadows" doesn't necessarily sound pleasant.
So before the veil, indigo and violet ray exchanges were common then? Always seeing the sacramental nature of all things?
But catalyst was not too intense. And I wonder how long the veil took to implement. Was it within one generation?
It is not the archetypical mind that needs to become complex; it is the significator. Prior to the veling, the natures of mind, body and spirit were simple, having no parts that functioned separately from each other. Now, there are two distinct portions which operate independently of each other in many ways.
The non-complex mind is similar to your access to google. When you have a question, you ask it and the answer comes to you instantly without any hitches on the way. Experiences flows smoothly and uninterupted from the potentiator, through the significator, to be stored in the matrix.
While the mind itself (prior to veiling) is not complex, it is dynamic, which is why there are three interacting portions. It may help to think of them as analogous to past (matrix), present (significator) and future (potentiator).
As a corollary, the matrix and potentiator were already complex prior to the veiling. It was the only significator which was simple.