Saturday 11/9/2019 9:00 a.m.
[…] If we do have a session today, I’m not sure what it would be on. […] Maybe this: the layers of consciousness, as we progress up the scale, do lower levels constitute higher ones, feed into them, forming them? Is there a hierarchy?
So... are you there?
The Club: We are here – and we feel your nonchalance towards it.
Hmm, maybe so, but what can I say?
No, it’s an issue. You doubt, and have been ambivalent about this process. Again, we remind you to let it flow, and suspend the filters of “active consciousness.”
Ah, I see how this ties into the discussion.
Correct, because as you said, you talk through your subconscious, and if you right away filter this through active consciousness, then you will block it, of course. Your active consciousness, the “top of the iceberg,” will block as this [sort of dialogue] is so counter to anything else.
But all is ultimately received and sent through the subconscious.
Now look, of course lower levels of consciousness flow upwards (like atomic to cell, etc.). But at the same time, higher levels ALSO affect lower levels. Because it is really just one consciousness. So it is not like atomic consciousness is “the building block,” of your active consciousness, but it is one fluent system. As is the same for matter, as well; it all affects each other.
Fine, so the question is, in quantum mechanics, does it take a consciousness to somehow “measure” a system? Does it take a human conscious to bring it all out?
And the obvious answer is, no, “lower levels” will do it also. It does not have to be this “higher level consciousness,” but any will do, as that is what consciousness does: it discerns.* The “organism” [composite entity] senses alternatives, and chooses.
*["discern" is related to “discrete,” with the underlying meaning of “to sieve,” see earlier discussion].
Nice. Then this is what happened during creation, or shortly thereafter, until the advent of “intelligent” lifeforms?
Well, we get what you mean by “intelligent,” but no, by just having low level consciousness in place, the system can evolve. You see, if “the cosmic soup” only split into matter without consciousness, it would be dead! It must churn out consciousness at the same time, so that it CAN advance, iterate as you call it, through choice.
Good, so having said that…
Woah, I just got a whole bunch at once. We need to break this down.
OK. First off: remember that all already exists. It is not change per se, but is only chosen towards. In that way, the organization into molecules, suns, planets, “intelligent beings,” all that which can be thought of as made from matter, already exists. Some might say in potential, but it is in same idea.
So then, the structures for a higher level of consciousness do already exist at the moment at creation. And as the system iterates itself into myriads of variants, of which you are in all but one now, it moves forward, and experiences.
So from one viewpoint it may indeed appear that lower level matter and consciousness “evolve” and build something higher.
From another, it is like it is being pulled into the structure, “guided” by above.
Wow, so here is guidance.
By a higher level structure – not necessarily consciousness.
Now, I get where you're coming from, but am a bit confused. Because consciousness is being churned out [along with matter].
Right. So that it becomes clear “in this moment” as “this consciousness” and “that matter,” as in the total situation. [The following line came to me a few moment later, but it fits here:] And it is not just the 3D consciousness, but the non-3D also comes out with it; all “soul”-level, or spirits, thoughts, together in this moment – it is one consciousness.
However, remember that it is all enfolded together in this “soup.”
We really need to find a better name…
OK, this implicate order, to borrow Dave’s term [David Bohm]. […] But back to this topic. Remember that it is all enfolded together! So, this momentary consciousness/ matter is all already there, enfolded. It is the total system that guides!
Yes. But if it is all there [already], then what again is the purpose of it all?
To experience it. The feeling of, how shall we say, “living it.”
Hmmm. I would say that is part of consciousness itself.
No, it is all there in that choice! You see. The experience of the moment drives the choice. The feeling yourself in the moment, that is, the bringing choice to the moment as experience, is what drives the system.
Hmm, it seems, though, to go from consciousness in moment A to the next one in moment B, it implies it had to make this choice and ‘have already been’ that experience.
Yes, but yet, the experience is different from it. What consciousness stores as information is “I had this experience,” but the experience is different.
Oh, I see this going into a different new direction. Maybe we have to go into “experience”…
… whereby consciousness is just the receptive vehicle, or that which feels the experience, and stores the “have had” of the experience as information.
I used that word, “experience,” before in the Steps of Essence. It was something with ex-, to bring out, let me look it up…
[I do: ] The original meaning is tied to “to try out, to test,” and the word is tied to “expert” and “experiment.” That word “experiment” still holds that original meaning. It went from “putting to the test,” to “observing a phenomenon in order to gain knowledge of it,” to experience, that is “the condition of having undergone a particular event.”
Good! So let that sink in.
It seems then, an experiment is to test something out. So in this context, we perceive alternatives, choose one (with all variants), and thus “test out” that alternative in this variant, and thereby have the experience of having undergone that test, thus the experiment becomes experience, which is stored as information in the record of all.
Very good! So you see, the actual ‘testing out’ is only done by living it. The test immediately goes from experiment to experience.
I had the image of a mathematical derivatives (or differentials) or integration pop into my mind.
Yes, you are dealing with an infinitesimal small gap between perceiving the alternative, doing the test, and going to experience.
Now we have hit upon something. The mathematical derivative of a trajectory is its velocity, which is the tangent at given point [of the trajectory], but the tangent never really touches.
Nor is a point a real object, it is a mathematical abstraction.
It seems like we are skirting here around the real issue, in that the momentary matter and consciousness are “real” in a way, but when we differentiate that moment of space and consciousness to the point of the present, we get “experience,” just like velocity is the differentiation of a path.
Go on, we smile, you almost got it.
It seems like “an experience” is thus to bring the whole of matter and consciousness into the point of the present.
Great… and stated vice versa:
If you take the integral of experience, you would get all of matter and consciousness, for all times.
Hmm, we smile. Something to think about?
I have to say, you have peeked my interest. OK, let’s stop, this has to sink in. Until the next time.
Namaste — I bow to you and the Divine in you.
Copyright © Hanns-Oskar Porr