This thread is dedicated to exploring all ideas about other possible archetypal minds than the local third density archetypal mind of our logos.
This includes, but is not limited to:
- What our experience would be like within a different archetypal mind
- Additional archetypes could be included in an archetypal mind
- What follows if the natural laws given by the archetypal mind were different
Happy speculating!
Moderator Note: This post and the 18 that follow it are in response to Adonai One's speculation on the possibility of an archetypal mind which is not complex
The mover/moved nature of the Matrix and Potentiator make me think that they would have been available at the inception of this octave, considering that polarity was the harvest of the last octave.
I don't fully grasp the idea of a non-complex archetypical mind composed of multiple aspects, but my guess would be that the three, Matrix, Potentiator, and Significator always have existed simultaneously and could not have been introduced sequentially as we would understand it, though I would understand why the Significator might be seen as being "base" to the Matrix and Potentiator.
The Significator being representative of the essence or nature of the Mind, Body, and Spirit, its existence is automatic, but ultimately without function unless it contains the Matrix and Potentiator aspects.
Preveil, the three were not a "complex," so it might be pointless to even consider them as more than a single functioning system that couldn't have existed separate from each other. We may look at the convoluted system offered to us now and identify the interacting aspects which can be said to have been present at that point but, in my mind, it doesn't make sense that any of them would have existed without the others.
edit: clarification
(01-08-2014, 02:19 AM)Adonai One Wrote: [ -> ]You do mean after The Matrix and The Potentiator? I don't know how any other archetype is possible without conciousness, at minimum, as the base.
No, I mean before matrix and potentiator.
Who knows how many octaves there have been before ours? I suspect that division into mind, body, and spirit was a learning from several octaves ago, and then subdivision into matrix, potentiator, and significator from a later octave, possibly the one immediately previous to ours. But what do I know?
In my belief, The Significator requires some controlling precursor or limitation within a concious experience to be even fathomed. Without even basic unconciousness as a prior veiling, there is nothing to even form the foundations of The Significator. You have nothing to escape, no purpose to attain if you see everything as it "should be."
Without the greatest veiling of the concious mind within either The Potentiator or The Matrix, I don't believe it is possible to form.
I'm a bit unclear as to what you mean. Are you saying you don't think that the Significator could have existed prior to the veiling?
(01-08-2014, 04:08 PM)Bring4th_Austin Wrote: [ -> ]I'm a bit unclear as to what you mean. Are you saying you don't think that the Significator could have existed prior to the veiling?
I'm speaking of any veiling of the unconcious that exists throughout all densities, that exists in the tiniest amount when a Logos decides to have freewill; any lacking of conciousness of absolute unity. This is required for the most basic individuality. Without this sense of individual conciousness, this potentiation, there is no reason for the sense of attainment in The Significator to exist.
The dense third-density veiling is a concept that is congruent here in the sense that the higher densities are defined by a significant unveiling of The Potentiator and The Significator. It could theoretically exist with a minimal veil.
How do you define Significator, and what do you mean by attainment of the Significator?
It is the act of seeking itself: For truth, for material or for wisdom.
Quote:The Significator of each mind, body, and spirit may be seen as a simple and unified concept.
![[Image: tarot12.jpg]](http://www.lawofone.info/images/tarot12.jpg)
The conclusion you've reached is invalid due to conflicting premises. Now what should be said in regards to logic (as people on the internet do enjoy using words they don't know the meaning of) is that "invalid" in the context of logic does not mean "wrong" just that the premises do not definitively lead to the conclusion (deductive) or that the conclusion is drawn from the premises (inductive).
To sum up, your argument doesn't make sense, the individual points that are supposed to support each other and the conclusion just don't.
Within the scope of what we know comprises of the archetypes the proposal contradicts, plain and simple.
Now, I may be a bit incoherent atm as I am breaking down a fair bit of foreign at the moment toxin (bite from a fang, how bout that?) but hopefully this is on track and if not I'll rectify it in a few days.
You are free to spell this contradiction out.
(01-10-2014, 09:18 AM)Fang Wrote: [ -> ]Now, I may be a bit incoherent atm as I am breaking down a fair bit of foreign at the moment toxin (bite from a fang, how bout that?) but hopefully this is on track and if not I'll rectify it in a few days.
Manifestation? Hahaha
(01-10-2014, 03:01 AM)Adonai One Wrote: [ -> ]It is the act of seeking itself: For truth, for material or for wisdom.
Quote:The Significator of each mind, body, and spirit may be seen as a simple and unified concept.
How did you form this definition for Significator? Did you infer from this quote from Ra?
Hope you don't mind the questions, it is difficult to even discuss the archetypes without having an agreed upon definition and framework of understanding for terminology.
(01-10-2014, 01:48 PM)Bring4th_Austin Wrote: [ -> ] (01-10-2014, 03:01 AM)Adonai One Wrote: [ -> ]It is the act of seeking itself: For truth, for material or for wisdom.
Quote:The Significator of each mind, body, and spirit may be seen as a simple and unified concept.
How did you form this definition for Significator? Did you infer from this quote from Ra?
Hope you don't mind the questions, it is difficult to even discuss the archetypes without having an agreed upon definition and framework of understanding for terminology.
I am wondering this as well. Also, I notice there is no mention of seeking for love, only mental satisfactions.
(01-10-2014, 01:48 PM)Bring4th_Austin Wrote: [ -> ] (01-10-2014, 03:01 AM)Adonai One Wrote: [ -> ]It is the act of seeking itself: For truth, for material or for wisdom.
Quote:The Significator of each mind, body, and spirit may be seen as a simple and unified concept.
How did you form this definition for Significator? Did you infer from this quote from Ra?
Hope you don't mind the questions, it is difficult to even discuss the archetypes without having an agreed upon definition and framework of understanding for terminology.
I encourage questions. I am thankful to have them.
I believe the image I posted of The Significator of the Body communicates the heart of The Significator well. It is inferred from this quote especially:
Quote:79.42 Ra: ...As the Significator of the mind, the Hierophant has the will to know, but what shall it do with its knowledge, and for what reasons does it seek? The potential[s] of a complex significator are manifold.
(01-10-2014, 03:45 PM)Tanner Wrote: [ -> ]I am wondering this as well. Also, I notice there is no mention of seeking for love, only mental satisfactions.
All is mental satisfaction for all originates in the mind, consciousness.
Quote:77.13 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...
Hence, The Archetypal
Mind.
So you equate consciousness with the mind? I thought mind was a creation of consciousness, at least that is how I see it. I also disagree that all is mental satisfaction, because I see the whole complex totality as a tool, including the mind, so there is nothing to satisfy in the mind because the mind has no attachment in its natural state. In my experience the mind is fundamentally empty, clear, like space.
Also, I am aware of a heart-based consciousness that does not include mind, which also adds to my thoughts.
(01-10-2014, 07:09 PM)Tanner Wrote: [ -> ]So you equate consciousness with the mind? I thought mind was a creation of consciousness, at least that is how I see it. I also disagree that all is mental satisfaction, because I see the whole complex totality as a tool, including the mind, so there is nothing to satisfy in the mind because the mind has no attachment in its natural state. In my experience the mind is fundamentally empty, clear, like space.
Also, I am aware of a heart-based consciousness that does not include mind, which also adds to my thoughts.
I see the mind as a tool of consciousness. But what is the 'mind' are brains as far as I am aware are receivers so what is the 'mind'. Does it receive thoughts or create them?
Edit:
Tool could be replaced with sense perhaps?
(01-10-2014, 11:56 AM)Jade Wrote: [ -> ] (01-10-2014, 09:18 AM)Fang Wrote: [ -> ]Now, I may be a bit incoherent atm as I am breaking down a fair bit of foreign at the moment toxin (bite from a fang, how bout that?) but hopefully this is on track and if not I'll rectify it in a few days.
Manifestation? Hahaha
I have a feeling it has more to do with having an infestation of the most venomous spider in the world in my house, your laughter at your own ridiculous proposal is appreciated though.
Quote:You are free to spell this contradiction out.
First of all, you introduce an idea in rough form. It's your style to do that and then gradually explain what you mean in responses in your threads. It would be so much easier for everyone if you just put out everything you meaned and were proposing in the first post so that we are not always discussing ad hoc components contrived to defend an undeveloped idea.
I cannot explain my interpretation of the archetypes completely. To do so would be to indoctrinate and to infringe on the freewill of others -- at least that is what is implied by my guidance. It is the honor/duty of everyone here to come up with their own interpretation that can then be reconciled en masse to a unified understanding.
(01-10-2014, 10:35 PM)Adonai One Wrote: [ -> ]I cannot explain my interpretation of the archetypes completely. To do so would be to indoctrinate and to infringe on the freewill of others -- at least that is what is implied by my guidance. It is the honor/duty of everyone here to come up with their own interpretation that can then be reconciled en masse to a unified understanding.
I understand though I don't really agree. The thing is, while that is a rather noble way of thinking about it, the perceived nobility and honour involved is actually stifling the actualisation of the noble goal, making it a near impossibility. I have withheld views before on here for fear of infringing upon the free will of others due to the perceived potency of muh insights lol, but it was really just a cop out for fear of being wrong. I'm not saying that's the case with you but if it is it's probably worth reflecting on.
People are still going to think for themselves if you present your views in full, you don't have to worry about indoctrinating us.
This must be understood: These concepts were used as training aids to develop magical ability by the Venusians. If these concepts are fully dolled out just like candy, there will be a heavy price to pay. These concepts can lead to development of great power.
It's not just potential indoctrination at hand.
Moderator Note: This post and the 20 that follow it were originally in their own thread, titled, "If We Had the Archetypal Mind"
If our mind was exactly the archetypal mind, how would we act, and be? What kind of person would we be?
Or is everyone's mind already the archetypal mind?
What if our mind was the mind of the Logos? How would we feel and act?
(03-12-2014, 06:25 PM)Gemini Wolf Wrote: [ -> ]If our mind was exactly the archetypal mind, how would we act, and be? What kind of person would we be?
Or is everyone's mind already the archetypal mind?
What if our mind was the mind of the Logos? How would we feel and act?
Hi Gemini Wolf,
It's to my understanding that the archetypal mind is a portion of the mind complex and a refinement of the cosmic mind chosen by the sub-Logos.
The cosmic mind ofcourse being that of the Logos.
Maybe this Ra quote answers some of your questions.
Quote:Ra: I am Ra. In your statement correctness is so plaited up with tendrils of
the most fundamental misunderstanding that correction of your statement
is difficult. We shall make comments and from these comments request that
you allow a possible realignment of conceptualization to occur.
The archetypical mind is a great and fundamental portion of the mind
complex, one of its most basic elements and one of the richest sources of
information for the seeker of the one infinite Creator. To attempt to
condense the archetypes is to make an erroneous attempt. 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.
The Significators of Mind, Body, and Spirit complexes are complex in and
of themselves, and the archetypes of Catalyst, Experience, Transformation,
and the Great Way are most fruitfully viewed as independent complexes
which have their own melodies with which they may inform the mind of its
nature.
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. Rather than continue
beyond the boundaries of your prior statement we would appreciate the
opportunity for your requestioning at this time so that we may answer you
more precisely.
Perhaps the archetypal mind is too simple for a human to possess. Too primal. Thank you for responding.
Yes, Gemini. If your mind was the archetypal mind, you wouldn't be a human being. Or, more accurately, you'd be an incomplete human being.
My belief/understanding:
All things we see are an expression of this Logos' archetypal mind.
"The archetypical mind, when penetrated lucidly, is a blueprint of the builded structure of all energy expenditures and all seeking, without distortion."
That mind provides the mind which we use to understand mind.
Also, that's from where all "mind, body and spirit" distortions are derived. This sub-forum should rather be called "The Archetypal Mind", because that's what Ra constantly referred to when discussing the tarot distortions.
Everything is in 7 cycles, every photon of consciousness is vibrating through the cycles of the mind then expressing itself through abstractions of the body and spirit.
So having the archetypal mind would mean we'd be enlightened.
(03-16-2014, 03:42 PM)Gemini Wolf Wrote: [ -> ]So having the archetypal mind would mean we'd be enlightened.
it's not really a thing you can have so much as a thing you draw from.