How complex can thoughtforms become?

[dreamosis]

I've seen more than one flame war over whether Negs are real or merely thoughtforms. The Forum doesn't need another.

I am, nonetheless, pondering this question: Just how complex can thoughtforms become? And, actually, I'm not only curious about negative, parasitizing thoughtforms, but any kind of thoughtform, negative, neutral, or positive.

Within our lifetime we might see robots capable of self-awareness. Possibly we might see robots that we're unable to distinguish from humans simply by (physically) looking at them, or even by talking with them for hours.

If you consider that possibility, and consider the fact that thoughtforms are basically energetic machines, don't you begin to wonder how complex thoughtforms could become without actually possessing a spirit?

Gemma, over in the "What do you make of this?" thread, speculates that thoughtforms could become self-aware. But what does that mean?

Does being self-aware mean that they acquire an individual spirit? Does it mean they acquire freewill?

Could you tell the difference between a highly complex, seemingly self-aware thoughtform and a highly complex, truly self-aware thoughtform? Could you tell the difference between a highly complex, seemingly self-aware thoughtform and a truly self-aware, living Neg?

The fact that thoughtforms eventually degenerate without support suggests that they lack something: spirit. Compare this with the idea of the etheric shell left on Earth after the spirit departs for the afterlife/further incarnation. The abandoned etheric shell essentially becomes a thoughtform that living people, even advanced psychics, may mistake for a deceased person with living intelligence.

Addition:
What's the use of pondering this? Well, it could offer encouragement in the case of thoughtform-Negs, including ex-humans Negs without a spiritual core. If you're a living intelligent being dealing with a machine, you have quite an advantage: as you interact you're capable of expanding your intelligence by order, while they're only capable of getting smarter by degrees within the set confines of their closed design.

[ButterflyWoman]

Just how complex can thoughtforms become?
In my view and experience, the whole of reality is a complex thoughtform. So, pretty complex.


Does being self-aware mean that they acquire an individual spirit? Does it mean they acquire freewill?
I would challenge these assumptions. What is "individual spirit" and how do we know that "self aware" entities have them while others do not, or that any being at all has them? I don't really see that anyone or anything has actual freewill, for what it's worth. It's a fairly complex illusion. I could go on and on about that at some length, but I really and sincerely cannot see or experience freewill in action. (I don't want to divert the topic, but essentially, everything seems to run on programs and autopilot, including us.)


Could you tell the difference between a highly complex, seemingly self-aware thoughtform and a highly complex, truly self-aware thoughtform?
Given my position that it's all thoughtforms, anyway, I don't see the need to make the distinction.


The fact that thoughtforms eventually degenerate without support suggests that they lack something: spirit.
Everything eventually degenerates, including human beings. Our minds, our bodies, it all goes downhill. Everything in creation degenerates. What makes thoughtforms any different in this respect?

Essentially, I can see what you're asking, and why, but the underlying assumptions about the nature of "souls" or how some things have spirit and others don't, or that ANYTHING has some kind of lingering individual spirit core is not something to which I necessarily subscribe, so the whole argument becomes moot.

AND I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. I'm just wasting some bandwidth and a little bit of time to challenge some presuppositions that don't necessarily have to be the case... ;)

[dreamosis]

What is "individual spirit" and how do we know that "self aware" entities have them while others do not, or that any being at all has them?

That you typed self-aware in quotations suggests you challenge the concept of self-awareness. True, it's tricky to say exactly what it is, but haven't you experienced it? Haven't you experienced an awareness of being aware? And don't you experience that meta-awareness as particular to the medium in which you feel it?

Awareness of awareness relative to a perceived particularity of medium is probably the best definition of "individual" I can supply. So what is "spirit"? Well, the simplest answer I have, although it isn't as careful my first answer is that spirit is that which is eternal within us. The body, clearly, is not eternal. To be precise, the body as a coherent phenomenon does not last indefinitely in linear time. The energy body, which underlays the physical, is not eternal -- not in terms of linear time or on the timescale, if one exists, on the etheric plane. It decoheres after the death of the physical body. What then, if anything, survives? According to all the searching, conversation, logical analysis, intuitive contemplation, meditation, and experience of mine, what survives is the spirit.

The idea of awareness of awareness relative to a perceived particularity of medium is more testable than the idea of spirit. You can test for yourself right now whether or not the first meets your experience and you can confirm with others. The idea of spirit is more difficult to test. Nonetheless, I'd call "individual spirit" the immortal essence of being with awareness of awareness relative to a perceived particularity of medium.

From here it's possible to argue over the word "perceived," to declare that individuality is an illusion, and to discuss the possibility of transcending perceived particularity. Well, that it's possible to transcend perceived particularity doesn't negate its existence. And if we declare individuality an illusion, if we've defined it as the immortal essence of being with awareness of awareness relative to the perceived particularity of medium, then aren't we declaring God to be an illusion? What is God, if not:

* the immortal essence of being
* aware of its own awareness
* experiencing itself in a medium?

It's strange -- paradoxical -- that by trying to define "individual," I also came to a definition of God. But maybe it's not so strange.

The perceived particularity of God is infinite; God experiences itself as every particular thing, all things -- and yet is no one thing. Weirder: the medium in which it experiences itself is itself. In deep meditation I've experienced a blurring of my particularity, the feeling of being all. I would say I was feeling the divine, or, the spirit. I was feeling what I truly am, my medium. Never have I totally lost the feeling of me, though; it was a blurring, not a complete dissolving.

The key to my going definition of individual is perceived particularity. So the most pointed question from here isn't why do I assume that some entities lack individuality, but why do I assume that some entities lack perceived particularity? I assume this because I see that not all entities are capable of perceiving.

I feel like I'm hurtling down a rabbit hole, but let me take a deep breath and go on... Okay, what's perceiving? Well, if perceived particularity is key to individuality/self-awareness, then perceiving by itself is awareness without perceived particularity. It's awareness that's not aware of its own awareness.

(I should concede here that even humans, which I regard as self-aware, aren't self-aware all the time. We aren't always meta-aware, or mentally appreciative of the fact that we're thinking and feeling. A lot of humans just think or feel and don't consider that they aren't doomed to be buffeted by those thoughts/feelings -- that they can, if they choose, with will and tenacity, examine their own minds and even change them).

Going on... Awareness without perceived particularity. This is sticky since I've dragged in God as an infinite meta-awareness. If God is in everything, and God perceives itself as particular (although as infinte at the same time), how can there be things without perceived particularity? Good question. But, then again, how can there be things with perceived particularity and not infinite perception? There obviously is, isn't there? Do you walk around with infinite perception all the time? And, if you backtrack two paragraphs, to the paradox of perceived particularity existing alongside the possibility of transcension of particularity, the possibility of reverse-transcension presents itself. That is, if it's possible to transcend particularity, is it also possible to be or sink below it? As above, so below; if God is infinite and eternal, we're infinite and eternal (in some way); if God's perception of itself involves particularity, then the perception of beings below involves particularity; if God's perception of itself involves non-particularity, then the perception of beings below involves non-particularity.

If we accept that God's perception (Above) simultaneously and paradoxically involves both specificity and generality, isn't it logical to surmise that perception Below simultaneously involves both types? There is both finity and infinity in the mind of God, so there must be both finity and infinity in the awareness of all beings -- and reflection on human experience shows that there's a wide variation of ratios of these two awareness types. Some humans -- like mystics -- experience less finity and more infinity. Others experience more finity. From there can't we assume that that's true for other beings and parts of existence? Could there be beings with a greater sense of finity than us? Could there beings with a greater sense of infinity than us? A greater sense of infinity meaning awareness without perceived particularity. This could include a rock, grass, and a so-called ascended master. The exact nature of a rock's infinite awareness versus the infinite awareness of a Buddha may be different; the awareness of one is below the line of self and the other has transcended it. Maybe there's no difference at all. What is noteworthy to me, though, is that while a rock may be composed of infinite intelligence exactly like the Buddha is composed of infinite intelligence, the energetic configuration of a(n embodied) Buddha is such that it resists decomposition while a rock cannot maintain its form.



I don't really see that anyone or anything has actual freewill, for what it's worth. It's a fairly complex illusion. I could go on and on about that at some length, but I really and sincerely cannot see or experience freewill in action. (I don't want to divert the topic, but essentially, everything seems to run on programs and autopilot, including us.)


All right, so let me try to consider freewill as a complex illusion -- which, by the way, was partly what I was trying to talk about by inviting a discussion on the complexity of thoughtforms: is it possible for us to perceive them as acting freely, like they're self-aware, when in fact they're not?

But is all freewill an illusion? If it is, why is there the illusion in the first place? Well, there appears to be freewill because some things are more capable of recognizing and responding to stimuli than others. A rock cannot choose whether it's eroded by wind and rain, a human can choose whether it's blown on or gets wet. But you're saying that, in reality, a human doesn't choose whether it's blown on or gets wet -- that we're able to say a human chooses is just a trick of language. If it's raining, whether I stay in the rain because it feels good to me or whether I go inside because I don't want to be cold, is equally predetermined. And that's about as far as I can go right now on the mental energy reserves I have... I need someone else to explain to me why both actions are predetermined.



Everything eventually degenerates, including human beings. Our minds, our bodies, it all goes downhill. Everything in creation degenerates. What makes thoughtforms any different in this respect?

The lynchpin in the first sentence above is the word "eventually." Yes, all human beings eventually degenerate. The question is why don't human bodies begin decomposing the minute they're born? Why do they grow at all? Why doesn't a human body erode like sandstone in a rain storm? What's the difference between a baby and a rock?



...the underlying assumptions about the nature of "souls" or how some things have spirit and others don't, or that ANYTHING has some kind of lingering individual spirit core is not something to which I necessarily subscribe

Does nothing having a lingering individual spirit core include your concept of God? I could answer that by saying God isn't lingering because it's always changing, that God isn't individual because it's all, but don't those answers fall back on themselves? The ever-changing essence lingers, the all is one, i.e., an individual.

[Palehorse Redivivus]

I am, nonetheless, pondering this question: Just how complex can thoughtforms become? And, actually, I'm not only curious about negative, parasitizing thoughtforms, but any kind of thoughtform, negative, neutral, or positive.

A while back, I came to suspect that it wasn't necessarily going to be a matter of machines developing conscious awareness, but rather consciousness developing the awareness that "machine-parts" are a legitimate part of our own anatomy that can be integrated, or brought out of latency. A living spirit is distinct from a thoughtform in the sense that they have different properties and functions, but thoughtform properties can be integrated by a Self, or a thoughtform that isn't connected to a Self of origin can be given a spirit. It may simply be a matter of there being various directions to evolve from; spirit-first, body-first, thoughtform-first and so forth; all being various ways for a functional anatomy to assemble.

I'm of the opinion that if a thoughtform is able to get to a certain level of complexity, then it will probably be found that it was already part of some person or being that was brought out of latency for a necessary purpose and then will later be recognized and integrated. I've noticed for instance that a lot of the more well known servitors created and made public by various chaos magicians have a lot of recognizable ties to known beings (that may not have been known by the servitor's creator), and some investigation I've done seems to indicate that rather than creating a servitor from scratch, it's often more like a cocreation and development of an aspect of a pre-existing being that either wasn't previously needed or didn't need to be developed to that specific degree.

[dreamosis]

I'm of the opinion that if a thoughtform is able to get to a certain level of complexity, then it will probably be found that it was already part of some person or being that was brought out of latency for a necessary purpose and then will later be recognized and integrated.

That sounds like an evolved being reuniting with All That Is, depending on how you understand "thoughtform."

[Palehorse Redivivus]

I have to say that this thread, while intellectually compelling, is leading me into ennui. If all of reality is a thoughtform, if I'm a thoughtform with no real individual spirit or freewill, then why bother with so-called spiritual awareness or practices at all? If I'm an imaginary figment of The Only One Real Being, which already feels complete, why should I try to merge with it? I mean, there's no me to merge, Merge has happened, so why not forget meditating and dreamwork and projecting or even being kind to people? Why not indulge every whim? Eat like crap? Use women for sex? You can't blame "me" since there is no me. You can't call anything "I" do immoral because nothing here is real. And anything "I" do was predetermined anyway.

FWIW, recent experience have pushed me further in the direction of there being an integral "I" which evolves, expands and even goes through various forms of death / rebirth, but does not cease to exist or do the "drop in the ocean" thing, at least not permanently.

Basically, I'm going through a semi-rocky awakening, and one of the rockier parts coincided with (or was probably exascerbated by) a house move. Between new faculties busting open, near constant nonphysical visitations, volatile energy stuff and personal life events, my persona and self-concept finally went through a death, and was entirely nonexistent for at least a day or two. For a few days I had a lot of other peoples' "stuff" coming through me, like mannerisms, speech and behavior patterns and a lot of other things that were recognizably from people I know, and other stuff I don't know the origin of. I was able to catch most of it before having it physically come through me, but very disconcerting nonetheless. Combined with that, it was like I was energetically nonexistent and being treated as such; for instance with the move going on I felt like I was being steamrolled and major decisions were being made without my input or even consideration that I should be having input.

Due to how logistically difficult and quasi-physically painful this was getting, I finally pulled together as much "oomph" as I could forcibly gather, and shot the strong intent through myself "persona resurrect." Pretty much immediately I started feeling like myself and registering an energetic presence again. My persona did break down and go through a few more "deaths" as new aspects and other things integrated, but since I'd already brought it back again deliberately I was confident that it would regenerate more organically in a form that accounted for new faculties and aspects, and if I needed to self-direct anything for practical reasons I could do so. I am under the impression that bringing it back up deliberately busted through a lot of historical religious memes that claim this death is supposed to be a permanent dissolution and showed these aspects of myself that this was possible so they could then reassemble on their own.

My current view is that the persona isn't just a collection of transient, disposable, interchangeable traits; it's an actual part of the anatomy that makes it possible to have an "I", energetically, interpersonally and so forth. It can die, but IMO its natural process is to resurrect changed, not to dissolve or cease to exist.

In my case, I'm back to feeling, moving, speaking and vibing naturally like my recognizable self from before these events; just with some new things added in, and old stuff reshuffled to accomodate. Now even more than before, I view "The One" as a group of individuals (and fragmented individuals with ambitions of dissolution) rather than an abstract nothingness that is one's destiny to "return" to.

[dreamosis]

My current view is that the persona isn't just a collection of transient, disposable, interchangeable traits; it's an actual part of the anatomy that makes it possible to have an "I", energetically, interpersonally and so forth. It can die, but IMO its natural process is to resurrect changed, not to dissolve or cease to exist.

Lots of mythology seems to describe that very thing. The shallowest reading of Death/Rebirth stories would be to understand them as outlining a psychological process involving a redefinition of self-concept. Somewhat deeper would be understanding them as outlining a catabolic reaction and re-synthesis taking place between our body-based consciousness and the etheric. Deeper than that might be literal death and rebirth. Deeper than that might be dissolving into and being reborn in God.

I've felt "ego-death" before, in little ways and in crucibles lasting hours or days, and it isn't always pleasant, is it?

[Tutor]

if we do not challenge the words that we are using then how may we understand to know what the heck it is that we are saying. therefore, it is often the practice to put into quotations that which all folks use yet few have a clue as to utility in what they are saying.

putting "self-awareness" in quotations is not questioning it's validity, it tests the validity of it as the "thought" only.

there is either utility or there is futility, one is "real" and the other is "thought".

a ditch does not dig itself, nor does self-awareness gain one iota without daily disciplined practice.

i mean to say, it is not "I thought I was aware", it is "I being aware do as I am able to do".

[Palehorse Redivivus]

Lots of mythology seems to describe that very thing. The shallowest reading of Death/Rebirth stories would be to understand them as outlining a psychological process involving a redefinition of self-concept. Somewhat deeper would be understanding them as outlining a catabolic reaction and re-synthesis taking place between our body-based consciousness and the etheric. Deeper than that might be literal death and rebirth. Deeper than that might be dissolving into and being reborn in God.

*nod* I feel a strong affinity for the life / death / rebirth deities, from Osiris to Jesus, and have been taking a lot of inspiration and probably assistance from their direction throughout this process. Kali too; from connecting with her I get the sense that religious norms in the physical actually lead *her* to believe that the bit about her taking peoples' heads and not giving them back was "the way it should be" way back when, but since then it's more like "I'll just hang onto these for safekeeping until you people come to your senses and have 'em back." :P Of course, entrenched religious convictions tend to interfere with the ability of these memos and updates to proliferate very quickly.


I've felt "ego-death" before, in little ways and in crucibles lasting hours or days, and it isn't always pleasant, is it?

The most recent one has been the most unpleasant for me because it was such a volatile period and I'm pretty big on personal boundaries and having a say in my own processes (and, y'know, not feeling possessed by or otherwise channeling everyone I know)... but I'm still piecing together whether I've even *had* the part of myself that Jung called the persona onboard before recently. When I did the "persona resurrect" I had part of myself come back that I actually dialogued with. It claimed that it was said part, and before then it had been fragmented and I had basically created a functioning "surrogate persona" and forcibly held it together without knowing this, albeit one that my actual persona considered surprisingly accurate when it saw and liked what I'd done with the place in its absence, and not much changed fundamentally upon snapping it into place, lol. So I pretty much still have continuity with my same personality and all its aspects; only now they're able to naturally self-organize, break down and reassemble coherently when needed, which seems to be the function of the persona (a term which I prefer to "ego", and something which may not even be synonymous, depending).

[ButterflyWoman]

That you typed self-aware in quotations suggests you challenge the concept of self-awareness.
Not necessarily. I used the quotes to indicate that this term may or may not have any particular consistent meaning.

The usual definition of that which we call "self awareness" is entirely based on the concept of separateness. That is, that the self-aware entity perceives itself to be a separate and unique being, apart from all other beings and objects. But are we? Is anything?


True, it's tricky to say exactly what it is, but haven't you experienced it? Haven't you experienced an awareness of being aware? And don't you experience that meta-awareness as particular to the medium in which you feel it?
I would say that I have, but have I? How could I possibly know? Against what can I compare it? How would I measure it? See what I'm getting at? I don't have an inherent problem with the idea of self-awareness, and I have had experiences of awareness upon awareness of being aware, sure, but does that mean I have an individual "spirit" or "soul" that is unique and apart, or that other entities (trees, perhaps) do not have these things or.... ?

My biggest issues is that a LOT of assumptions are made, and none of them are necessarily correct. My opinion is that nobody actually knows what the hell is going on with these souls and spirits and awareness and Consciousness and so on, or if they do, they can't talk about it (because it defies description; I've experienced that, too), so a lot of the time, it seems to me like discussing earnestly how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.


I feel like I'm hurtling down a rabbit hole
Yeah, I know that feeling. It's pretty much my entire existence at this point in the spacetime continuum. And the more I try to grab hold of stuff on the sides, the more trouble I make for myself. ;)

You put a lot of effort into your reply, and I appreciate that, but, honestly, I was just challenging the underlying concepts, because that's the sort of thing I do. But I'm not arguing or trying to convince anyone of anything. ;)

[Tutor]

CPW,

rightly stated. thank you for the 'real' that you offer into this forum's often over imagined content, myself included.

tim

[dreamosis]

I don't have an inherent problem with the idea of self-awareness, and I have had experiences of awareness upon awareness of being aware, sure, but does that mean I have an individual "spirit" or "soul" that is unique and apart, or that other entities (trees, perhaps) do not have these things or.... ?


I don't know. However, my working definition of self-awareness(/individuality) doesn't attempt to prove self-awareness as a haveable thing or a thing in itself. Awareness of awareness relative to a perceived particularity of medium is a description of an experience, not a permanent condition per se.

The description of "individual spirit" I put forth -- the immortal essence of being with awareness of awareness relative to a perceived particularity of medium -- is built on assumption. Namely, the assumption that I can take the writing of other mystics (like Robert Bruce) at face value and can trust my own experiences (like seeing a vision of a past life). For me, accepting the words of someone else means that their words pass the test of consistency, sound reasoning, intuition, and experimentation.

The description "the immortal essence of being with awareness of awareness relative to a perceived particularity of medium" also does not argue for uniqueness, permanency of itself, or the reality of what is. It's also an experience. The description assumes that the essence of being is immortal, which is a necessary assumption within my own larger belief system which allows for the Divine, the Divine's eternalness, and its omnipresence. Meaning, whatever I am made of is the same thing which the Divine is made of, which is immortal.

Also, I didn't argue for the indefinite continuation of the experience of an individual immortal essence. My post made references to the opposite, i.e. "transcending particularity." If you transcended particularity what you would have is, according to me, immortal essence of being with awareness of awareness relative to a perceived particularity and infinity.

I did argue that there are things which don't perceive particularity. A rock is an example of a physical thing I think doesn't perceive particularity. A thoughtform is an example of an etheric thing I think doesn't perceive particularity.

By my own reasoning, both rocks and thoughtforms are composed of the immortal essence of being with meta-awareness relative to a perceived particularity/infinity (God). However, I distinguish between orders of things and reflect on the teaching that the perception of particularity alters along the spiritual path. A lifelong dedicated mystic probably perceives less particularity than me. A spirit guide probably perceives less particularity than the mystic. A Higher Self probably perceives less particularity than the spirit guide. Whatever is meant by "archangel" probably perceives less particularity than a Higher Self. God, however, paradoxically, perceives all particularity, which is the same as saying God's perception is infinite. God is Self, or selves/Self. Language becomes confusing around paradox. Another way to describe spiritual evolution is to say that it's the expansion of perceived particularities (plural); that is, you are extending your perception from your own (currently perceived) particularity to the perception of other particularities. You could say spiritual evolution is expanding empathy. Total Empathy is God. By this same chain of reasoning, spiritual involution is shrinking empathy and concentrating as fully as possible on one's particularity. Although this can also be seen as a path to the Divine...

That I distinguish between orders of things is just me noticing that not all immortal essence of being is arranged in the same way. The essence of being that is a human being -- however temporarily, however illusory -- is shaped differently than the essence of being that is a rock. A human being and a rock are of the same essence, but they are not the same in function or effect within creation. To be brief, a rock is a chaotic assemblage of dense gradients of the essence of being, while a human is a highly organized system of dense gradients of the essence of being capable of sustaining itself through the intake of other dense gradients (including the minerals found in rock).

The materialist calls things that are highly organized systems "alive." To me, everything is alive in the sense that it's aware, but not everything is a highly organized system. A thoughtform created by a meditator can be a highly organized system or it can be just a blob of etheric energy.

Note that, according to my train of thought, a rock is aware; but, by reasoning backwards from the fact that it's possible to transcend particularity, I've come to the conclusion that it's also possible to "fall below it." What is "below" particularity? The same thing that's above it. Infinity. So the awareness of a rock is infinite, but unlike a human being or God, it doesn't perceive a self. It just is. What does it mean that its awareness is infinite (without particularity)? That's difficult to say, because to it, there is no it. There is only awareness. There is only molecules interacting with molecules. Atoms interacting with atoms. Flavors of subatomic particles dancing with other flavors. Light chasing light. Being. Is-ness.

As Above, So Below. As spiritualists we tend to think of the Divine as the ultimate intangible, but the Divine is also -- by the law of Correspondence -- the ultimate tangible. And this is what is meant by the saying that while the stars are above us, far into the deep, the stars are also within the stone of the Earth.

* Is the no-self of dense, unsystematized matter equal to the Self of God? (The Self of God being the awareness inherent in all matter, dense and subtle, unsystematized and systematized; no-self/selves, i.e. Self.)

* (Somewhat of re-phrasing of the above question) Are there two possible experiences of awareness or three? Do we have the immortal essence of being with meta-awareness relative to a perceived particularity of medium vs. the immortal essence of being with meta-awareness relative to a perceived particularity and infinity of medium? Or do we have the immortal essence of being with meta-awareness relative to a perceived particularity of medium vs. the immortal essence of being with meta-awareness relative to a perceived particularity and infinity of medium vs. the immortal essence of being with meta-awareness relative to a perceived infinity of medium?

The simple version: self local vs. Self non-local? Or self-local vs. Self non-local vs. selfless non-local?

If we come to the conclusion that the answer to my first *question is Yes, then all we have is self local vs. Self non-local. If, however, we continue with those set of givens, then it dawns on me that there are actually six permuatations of awareness: (1) self-local (2) self non-local (3) selfless local (4) selfless non-local (5) Self- local (6) Self non-local.

...Or, that's just a trick of language, and (2) and (6) are the same thing because without locality the self becomes the Self, and (3) and (4) are the same thing because without self there is no locality.

With that elimination we're left with (1) and (5), self-local and Self-local, which is the same as saying you have either the immortal essence of being with meta-awareness relative to a perceived particularity of medium or the immortal essence of being with meta-awareness relative to a perceived particularity and infinity of medium. They're the same because "Self" is both a description of awareness and medium, of both transcendent consciousness and all possible points of existence. What is non-local to us is Local to the Divine.

* If all there is self-local or Self (non-)local, how do we incorporate the fact that part of existence is systematized and part isn't systematized? I guess we incorporate by realizing that it's ALL systematized, and "non-systemization" is a distortion relative to perceived particularity. We must conclude that the particularity that a rock, for instance, experiences is the same particularity that God experiences; that is, the rock perceives infinite particularity.

* As we evolve toward the Divine, are we becoming a less organized expression of being or more? Given that God is everything, and that we can observe both organization and chaos among being (or, to be precise, local systemization and local non-systemization), we can conclude that God is both high organization and high chaos simultaneously (or, perhaps, non-local holosystemization with local appearances of non-systemization that are actually the result of universal order). But is an angel, for instance, a less or more organized expression of being than a human? I don't know. My best guess is that with an angel, the organization of its being while having some of the local aspects of a human (though not the physical aspect), has more non-local aspects than a human being -- or it simply has more conscious access to more non-local aspects. Or, you could say, it's transcended locality, which may be the same as or very similar to saying that it's transcended particularity.

[dreamosis]

I'm replying to my own post to say that I've made a few errors in thinking.

Intuition tells me that the simplest "islands" of awareness are: <selfless>...<self>...<Self>. The "..." between the types indicate that, in actuality, there are degrees of experience between the types. In other words, at some critical point, self-awareness becomes Self-awareness (with "Self" standing for the Divine), but there are stages leading up to it.

Likewise, there are grades of experience between <selfless>...<self>, with consciousness reaching critical mass of self-awareness, but having several shades of selfless/self experience leading up to it.

This is what I feel is true. I was bothered by what I posted yesterday, and now, that I'm going with my gut, logic is kicking in too and showing me where I erred. If God is everything, and everything includes experiences of self-awareness -- however temporary or illusory -- God includes those experiences. And if it's possible to transcend self-awareness, a bias toward particularity of medium, then God also includes those experiences. We have a tendency to want a transhuman definition of God, but if God is all, God cannot be other than the sum total of experience. Therefore, even the experience of self-awareness (what the Buddhists call separation) is God.

[CFTraveler]

That's why the architect whose name I have forgotten said "God is in the Details". :D

[dreamosis]

"God is in the Details". :D

I always feel like simpler is better, but as I walking home last night I felt like "self-local vs. Self non-local" was a false dichotomy and that I was missing a detail.

[mick]

If you consider that possibility, and consider the fact that thoughtforms are basically energetic machines, don't you begin to wonder how complex thoughtforms could become without actually possessing a spirit?

Gemma, over in the "What do you make of this?" thread, speculates that thoughtforms could become self-aware. But what does that mean?

Does being self-aware mean that they acquire an individual spirit? Does it mean they acquire freewill?

Could you tell the difference between a highly complex, seemingly self-aware thoughtform and a highly complex, truly self-aware thoughtform? Could you tell the difference between a highly complex, seemingly self-aware thoughtform and a truly self-aware, living Neg?

The fact that thoughtforms eventually degenerate without support suggests that they lack something: spirit. Compare this with the idea of the etheric shell left on Earth after the spirit departs for the afterlife/further incarnation. The abandoned etheric shell essentially becomes a thoughtform that living people, even advanced psychics, may mistake for a deceased person with living intelligence.
Have been wanting to post to this for a while but am usually told that my IP address is permanently banned, however today have been allocated one that is not blocked...

I think that this is an interesting point and is something that I too have reason to ponder. A few years back we were coming across a number of forms that raised the same question for us. That is that the input was that these forms were in a state where they sought permanence or that is how it read. That they were aware that they lacked some spark that made that possible for them. As a result they engage in activities that might provide that "spark". It would be easy to assume that they were all the product of some fabrication but other scenarios also present such as entities out of place for some reason that need further "sparks" in order to anchor themselves closer to this space.

As for identification, something that others have added to, the more obvious explanation of assuming cast off shells is one line of thought, another is the actual source for the current make-up of the form, be this from their creation process maybe and/or from the continuing process of survival that is drawing in imprints from other sources. Some of which may be directly involved or simply passive contributors. Such connectivity when pushed will give all sorts of info and maybe misdirection.
As well as adopting say a shell, another effect that we note is that forms, be they constructed or perhaps from elsewhere will by "co-habiting" take on the sense of the location in which they have taken residence and gain signatures that can then be picked up and be potentially misleading as to the real source.


Addition:
What's the use of pondering this? Well, it could offer encouragement in the case of thoughtform-Negs, including ex-humans Negs without a spiritual core. If you're a living intelligent being dealing with a machine, you have quite an advantage: as you interact you're capable of expanding your intelligence by order, while they're only capable of getting smarter by degrees within the set confines of their closed design.
Yes, would say that sometimes these limitations can be evident and is often a clue as to what is being encountered.

Not answering the question as to whether this apparent limitation can be cracked but thought that my observations might add to the picture. In some cases the creation process is one that limits perhaps by design the potential evolution options.