He Who Was Not

[βαθμιαίος]

How do intuition and experience correspond to the archetypes of the mind? Does the experience you're talking about, zenmaster, correspond to archetype 4?

[zenmaster]

How do intuition and experience correspond to the archetypes of the mind? Does the experience you're talking about, zenmaster, correspond to archetype 4?

Absolutely, as far as the basic operational principle is concerned (as opposed to a specific 'memory complex'). It's depicted as the king because it's ennobling and is, similarly, that which provides authority. This is something everyone recognizes innately.

---

Some quotes:

The archetypical mind is part of that mind which informs all experience.

The function of intuition is to inform intelligence.

[Shin'Ar]

It seems that individual defintion of the word experience is the problem here right now.

As Zen is applying it to mean experience as in wisdom accrued through experience.

And some are responding to his remarks with an understanding that experience is simple interaction between consciousness and environment. In this context it is not a matter of wisdom but merely interaction.

a field's very first encounter with an event or circumstance can be defined as an experience, whereas in Zen's application of the word a first encounter would not result in experience, but rather it is many interactions and encounters of the same type that experience is gained.

this is actually more wisdom and understanding than mere experience.

A lobster may have experienced getting caught in a trap a dozen times and been thrown back because it was too small. It could be said to have had much experience with traps, and yet it would continue to get caught again and again. Experience in this case does not equate to the experience in the sense that Zen us using it.

Now if you apply that to the more intelligent ability of the fox, which would soon learn to avoid the trap, through experience with it, one would see that it is not experience that causes the avoidance, but higher intelligence.

Experience is nothing more than interaction, and we often use the word to denote wisdom, but that would not be an accurate way to apply the word, and I think this is what Zen has been doing that caused the confusion.

[zenmaster]

Actually, no, I have not been referring to experience as "wisdom". Wisdom would be secondary to experience and refined by circumstances.
I can see your confusion, because, like experience, wisdom is something which is developmental.

Like I said, experience is developed from conscious evaluations - this is how unconscious info (suggested by the intuition) may be processed. (Thus Ra's terminology of intuitive/rational mind.) Psychologically, the info in awareness may be processed from a temporal (inner) or spatial (outer) orientation. This experience is what provides the ability for intuitive info to be accepted in the first place.

[βαθμιαίος]

To continue with Ra's model (as I understand it), then: the unfed conscious mind (Matrix of the Mind/Magician) reaches for the subconscious/intuition (Potentiator of the Mind/High Priestess). The resulting catalyst (Catalyst of the Mind/Empress) is processed by the potentiated consciousness (Experience of the Mind/Emperor).

The Significator then, I guess, decides what has been significant about the experience and the Transformation offers the opportunity to choose how to relate to the subconscious.

So in this model, it does make sense to say that intuition is pre-rational in that it is information that has not yet been processed by the rational mind.

[zenmaster]

That's how I see it. Our interface to the unconscious is via intuitive perception.

What I see a lot of is "handwaving" using unbalanced intuition (combined with some minimal level of rational experience). Sort of like what is explained in this wikipedia article "By extension, handwaving is used in speculative fiction criticism to refer to a plot device (e.g., a scientific discovery, a political development, or rules governing the behavior of a fictional creature) that is left unexplained or sloppily explained because it is convenient to the story, with the implication that the writer is aware of the logical weakness but hopes the reader will not notice or will suspend disbelief."

Because the intuition may be used to broadly point to something legitimately transcendent to current worldview, the readers may often forgive such handwaving if it merely reinforces their suspicions or elevates their vibration or sparks their imagination. But then it is quite open to interpretation and takes on a life of its own, fueled by wishes and fantasy. You gotta love it (and become suspicious) when they say it's "a knowing" and somehow beyond rationality. It's beyond rationality because they never bothered to see what is there, to develop a philosophy to ask questions about it such as "why" or "how".

Yes, as acceptance evolves so does rational evaluation itself, along with experience.

---

How many times has Ra or other non-local entity been stopped from explaining something because we had not yet made something part of our experiential nexus? That same potential free-will infringement from the outside (which it seems we are hungry for, yet strangely unwilling to investigate ourselves) is the savior of 3D from the inside.

And when we keep asking how to evolve, they say the same thing - evaluate your experience in order to make what was previously unconscious, conscious. That same evaluation (i.e. applied to very real pressing 'problems') may be shared by all, leading to 'solutions' or an understanding that may not need to have the problem occur in the first place. The problems, unsurprisingly, do not go away when we are purposely vague in order to be all encompassing or to 'elevate' above something without actually transcending and including that which needs to be addressed.

With the illusion, making something 'real' (Ra's 'sculpture'), the purpose of this density, does indeed always require rational engagement.

[Shin'Ar]

At what point does this pre-rational, or rational engagement take place during the connection between one field and another with regard to the information being shared?

What you are supposing is that experience of this sort is not to be considered experience unless it is rationally evaluated.

So at what point does a field reach the point of being able to rationally evaluate to the degree that would meet what you define as experience?

Also by your definition, I must ask what you do call the act of attempting to comprehend an experience or connection when they have NOT reached this point of ability that you would deem necessary to make rational evaluation?

It is my understanding that all attempt to comprehend incoming information is both experience and rationalizing.

I do not understand your effort to declare a degree of ability somewhere within this natural effort.

I agree with you that much handwaving takes place and that much attempt at comprehension is not done with rationale, and I do agree that it is only by applying intelligent thought process that one can discern information efficiently, but what I do not understand is where you draw this line, or why you think there even is a line.

we all understand that there are varying levels and degrees of intelligence and comprehensive ability when speaking on the human effort to comprehend its reality, but this process is not one where you can draw a line and say that it is only at this point where actual accurate interpretation can occur.

That is no different than saying that only that which you deem rational should be worthy of consideration.

[βαθμιαίος]

What you are supposing is that experience of this sort is not to be considered experience unless it is rationally evaluated.

I think in Ra's terms it would be considered catalyst rather than experience.

So at what point does a field reach the point of being able to rationally evaluate to the degree that would meet what you define as experience?

When it begins third density, maybe.

I do not understand your effort to declare a degree of ability somewhere within this natural effort.

Ra mentions "the acuity of the processes of catalyst and experience." In fact, maybe the quote would be useful here:

92.34 ...each potentiation which has been reached for by the Matrix is recorded by the Matrix but experienced by the Significator. The experience of the Significator of this potentiated activity is of course dependent upon the acuity of its processes of Catalyst and Experience.

I wonder if some of the disagreement has to do with a confusion about or failure to distinguish between the processes of experience and signification (is that a word?!).

[Shin'Ar]

What you are supposing is that experience of this sort is not to be considered experience unless it is rationally evaluated.

I think in Ra's terms it would be considered catalyst rather than experience.

So at what point does a field reach the point of being able to rationally evaluate to the degree that would meet what you define as experience?

When it begins third density, maybe.

I do not understand your effort to declare a degree of ability somewhere within this natural effort.

Ra mentions "the acuity of the processes of catalyst and experience." In fact, maybe the quote would be useful here:

92.34 ...each potentiation which has been reached for by the Matrix is recorded by the Matrix but experienced by the Significator. The experience of the Significator of this potentiated activity is of course dependent upon the acuity of its processes of Catalyst and Experience.

I wonder if some of the disagreement has to do with a confusion about or failure to distinguish between the processes of experience and signification (is that a word?!).

Thanks Greek,

That did help somewhat.

It probably is more semantic than anything else.

What I am reading here is the matrix is The All, the significator is the fragment. The potentiation cannot be recorded into The All, until experienced by the fragment. The acuity of its processes of catalyst and experience simply means its degree of evolved being.

So basically it is stating that every possibility reached for by/within The All cannot actually be added as stored memory until it is actually experienced by the fragment, OR put another way,

It is the fragmented experience alone which establishes the memory of The All, or that which we would call creation.

This unequivocally acknowledges the necessity of the One to experience creation via the fragment. Which supports what I have been supposing in that the fragment is not the creator, but the process of It.

[Spaced]

What I am reading here is the matrix is The All, the significator is the fragment. The potentiation cannot be recorded into The All, until experienced by the fragment. The acuity of its processes of catalyst and experience simply means its degree of evolved being.

So basically it is stating that every possibility reached for by/within The All cannot actually be added as stored memory until it is actually experienced by the fragment, OR put another way,

It is the fragmented experience alone which establishes the memory of The All, or that which we would call creation.

This unequivocally acknowledges the necessity of the One to experience creation via the fragment. Which supports what I have been supposing in that the fragment is not the creator, but the process of It.

According to my understanding of the archetypes, the Matrix is the framework of ideas, discerned from Experience, that the Significator has collected during it's veiled incarnation. These are the memories which inform the illusion within the illusion that the Significator operates within.

The Significator can use the Experiences it has recorded in the Matrix to Transform and become closer to the Great Way, which represents Intelligent Infinity, the All.

The Matrix, the Significator and the Great Way archetypes are all closely related to one other archetype: No. 0, The Fool.

[zenmaster]

At what point does this pre-rational, or rational engagement take place during the connection between one field and another with regard to the information being shared?

If the information is merely perceived then it's the same as intuition, that is a temporally-oriented view perceiving some common reference (directly interpreted from prior experience). Rational engagement takes place when one's consciousness participates with some evaluation. If you have a memory of the experience, then it was rationally evaluated.

What you are supposing is that experience of this sort is not to be considered experience unless it is rationally evaluated.

It does not become part of experience of the individual, it does not become integrated or owned, and therefore may not be subsequently shared in any capacity whatsoever.

So at what point does a field reach the point of being able to rationally evaluate to the degree that would meet what you define as experience?

Anything subject to perception may be. So that would be 'any point'.

Also by your definition, I must ask what you do call the act of attempting to comprehend an experience or connection when they have NOT reached this point of ability that you would deem necessary to make rational evaluation?

Not sure what you mean here. "Attempting to comprehend" *is* rational evaluation. Just like the term "considering" you'd used earlier.

It is my understanding that all attempt to comprehend incoming information is both experience and rationalizing.

This is my understanding also.

I do not understand your effort to declare a degree of ability somewhere within this natural effort.

The degree of ability is with respect to speaking from comprehension (integrated experience), rather than from the suggestions of intuition still pointing at unconscious things (catalyst).

I agree with you that much handwaving takes place and that much attempt at comprehension is not done with rationale, and I do agree that it is only by applying intelligent thought process that one can discern information efficiently, but what I do not understand is where you draw this line, or why you think there even is a line.

It's very easy to "draw the line", because, for example, what they would like you to look at is inevitably exaggerated or given to inflation. Exaggeration is a form of overcompensation from what has not yet been digested, and is entirely unconscious.

Also, I would re-iterate that rational evaluation is not just analysis (linear/spatial), it does equally involve the feeling (circular/temporal) function.

we all understand that there are varying levels and degrees of intelligence and comprehensive ability when speaking on the human effort to comprehend its reality, but this process is not one where you can draw a line and say that it is only at this point where actual accurate interpretation can occur.

Again, I am in no way talking about accuracy. It's a question of balance between intuitive perception and rationality. That balance provides 'accuracy' on its own.

That is no different than saying that only that which you deem rational should be worthy of consideration.

Consideration *is* rational evaluation. Again, probably for the 3rd time now, the utility of information in the form of unconsidered perceptions is much less than those which have been considered. You can replace "utility" with "value", or "leverage" or "workable".

[Shin'Ar]

The only thing that is unconsidered perception is something that has not been encountered by consciousness. There is no such thing as all has been considered by consciousness at some point.

The very fact that there are degrees of utility of information and consideration of it is evidence that consciousness evolves. And to suggest that only consciousness which has evolved to a particular degree of comprehension can experience facets of creation is wrong in my understanding of awareness.

[zenmaster]

The only thing that is unconsidered perception is something that has not been encountered by consciousness.

I think you're confusing awareness with consideration.
It is prior experience which affords the awareness which then enables consideration.

The prior experience also provides the depth and breadth of awareness which enables all manner of thought (including intuitive perception, empathy, gnosis).

Indeed, when someone suggests one is 'considerate' in some circumstance, it is because the 'considerate' individual had the prior experience necessary to accept and to appreciate (to sympathize) what is involved.

[Patrick]

The only thing that is unconsidered perception is something that has not been encountered by consciousness.

I think you're confusing awareness with consideration.
It is prior experience which affords the awareness which then enables consideration.

The prior experience also provides the depth and breadth of awareness which enables all manner of thought (including intuitive perception, empathy, gnosis).

Indeed, when someone suggests one is 'considerate' in some circumstance, it is because the 'considerate' individual had the prior experience necessary to accept and to appreciate (to sympathize) what is involved.

Then this planet will have made us very 'considerate' towards a great many circumstances.

[Unbound]

"It's a question of balance between intuitive perception and rationality. That balance provides 'accuracy' on its own."

So, what does this balance "get you" exactly?

[Patrick]

"It's a question of balance between intuitive perception and rationality. That balance provides 'accuracy' on its own."

So, what does this balance "get you" exactly?

I would hazard a guess that it's guiding us up the light spiral (evolution).

[AnthroHeart]

I think balance might make more sense in time/space where you can see subtle auras.

[Unbound]

Well, in particular, I'm wondering what signifies such a balance? "Truth"? Accuracy? "Logical"?

If one's intuition becomes harmonized with their rational mind, then what stops the "pre-rational" information from being rationally "fed" to the rational mind?

[Patrick]

...
If one's intuition becomes harmonized with their rational mind, then what stops the "pre-rational" information from being rationally "fed" to the rational mind?

Nothing?

[Shin'Ar]

The only thing that is unconsidered perception is something that has not been encountered by consciousness.

I think you're confusing awareness with consideration.
It is prior experience which affords the awareness which then enables consideration.

The prior experience also provides the depth and breadth of awareness which enables all manner of thought (including intuitive perception, empathy, gnosis).

Indeed, when someone suggests one is 'considerate' in some circumstance, it is because the 'considerate' individual had the prior experience necessary to accept and to appreciate (to sympathize) what is involved.

Actually I think either you are confusing awareness with wisdom as you are with experience,OR everyone hear is having a great laugh at my expense because they all know that you just pullin my chain now.

And if that was the case, Good One!

I'll conclude by saying that during one's first fart encounter, it is safe to say that they will know something is amiss and not exactly appetizing, even though they may have no previous informative experience of what a fart is.

I assure you the experiencing of it will bolster awareness.

Without any consideration,understanding or even warning, no matter how much evolved, no matter your ability to rationalize, you will have that experience.

From then on it would be safe to say that I agree with you.

Once bitten , twice shy old friend. WINK WINK

[zenmaster]

"It's a question of balance between intuitive perception and rationality. That balance provides 'accuracy' on its own."

So, what does this balance "get you" exactly?

It becomes 'seated' after evaluated, then from that standpoint, you have that much more opportunity to attract catalyst.

---

Well, in particular, I'm wondering what signifies such a balance? "Truth"? Accuracy? "Logical"?

What signifies any relative balance or imbalance between the conscious and unconscious mind? "Blockages" and "over activation" of "energy centers" that we talk about all the time are examples.

---

If one's intuition becomes harmonized with their rational mind, then what stops the "pre-rational" information from being rationally "fed" to the rational mind?

I assume by "harmonized", you mean where the space/time and time/space orientations of rational evaluation are now themselves seated within one's own time/space (thus transcending the conventional ego-self). Then the integration of experience indeed changes to "trans-rational" which has that instantaneous quality (like the info from "raw" intuition itself or the evaluations of the feeling function).

[Unbound]

What you are saying seems to be in line with what I learned about about nourishments of the organism. As food, breath and impressions are broken down in to the system, there are conscious processes which must be done to further refine the raw energies, signified by an isotope of hydrogen. The first shock of consciousness is self-examination, which is consistent to me with how you say "evaluation" allows an experience to be "seated" in the mind, which also seems to be to be an interesting reference to information being processed from the Root to the Crown where the "Throne" is.

The second shock of consciousness is Ego-death, keeping in mind that there are many, many egos. I take the concept of death as being transformational, and a transmutation. This allows us to feed our consciousness directly. This feels to me that the concept of an "evaluation" or observation, is a raising of an experience to the height of ego, completely amplified, and then to allow it to once again drop way in to the unconscious pool of memory as a now "dead" ego, but if properly transmutated, also now has a new form as perhaps a guide, or elemental or creature which will now seek to assist you. In this way, we reveal demons for the fallen Angels they are, and with forgiveness, free them from themselves, and help return them to grace.

It's up to us to see the Universe of Light.

[Shin'Ar]

What you are saying seems to be in line with what I learned about about nourishments of the organism. As food, breath and impressions are broken down in to the system, there are conscious processes which must be done to further refine the raw energies, signified by an isotope of hydrogen. The first shock of consciousness is self-examination, which is consistent to me with how you say "evaluation" allows an experience to be "seated" in the mind, which also seems to be to be an interesting reference to information being processed from the Root to the Crown where the "Throne" is.

The second shock of consciousness is Ego-death, keeping in mind that there are many, many egos. I take the concept of death as being transformational, and a transmutation. This allows us to feed our consciousness directly. This feels to me that the concept of an "evaluation" or observation, is a raising of an experience to the height of ego, completely amplified, and then to allow it to once again drop way in to the unconscious pool of memory as a now "dead" ego, but if properly transmutated, also now has a new form as perhaps a guide, or elemental or creature which will now seek to assist you. In this way, we reveal demons for the fallen Angels they are, and with forgiveness, free them from themselves, and help return them to grace.

It's up to us to see the Universe of Light.

Such powerful wisdom, and yet, such a greater power to hold onto that last bit of darkness.

[Unbound]

Oh yes, ever corrupt we are.

[Shin'Ar]

Oh yes, ever corrupt we are.

Not passing judgement, simply observing what you reveal and manifest.

[Unbound]

Guess I'm just not learning!

[Shin'Ar]

Guess I'm just not learning!

We`re all learning constantly. Some are just deliberate about being slower. It`s not a sin, just a setback.

[Lycen]

[Oldern]

Guess I'm just not learning!

We`re all learning constantly. Some are just deliberate about being slower. It`s not a sin, just a setback.

How can there be setbacks if there is no time?

[Shin'Ar]

Is that to represent the cycle of darkness, otherwise known as walking in circlesÉ

Or is that you sitting at the podiumÉ