Different densities, help please

crystal13

A Disturbance in the Force
I want to know if ive got my head round this is this about right.
We see 1st density objects from a 3rd density point of view, this is not how the first density object sees itself, same for all other densities.
Question 2 : rocks/plants feed, animals/insects feed of them,we feed of them,4th density feed of us, do 5th/6th density feed? If not, why? And is their a special place in the forum to ask questions like this? Thank you for any help.

[Moderation : post edited for clarity]
 
crystal13 said:
I want to know if ive got my head round this is this about right.
We see 1st density objects from a 3rd density point of view, this is not how the first density object sees itself, same for all other densities.

From what I understand, that seems to be the case. And the more you go higher in density, the more refined are your perceptions.

02-11-95

Q: (L) Earlier we were reading from Ouspensky's Tertium Organum about perceptions, was this a fairly accurate description of the state of our perceptions and the state of 2nd density perceptions?
A: Yes.
Q: (L) Okay, now making a jump with that, as to 4th density perception, is the 4th density perception...
A: Wait and see.

Here's an extract from Ouspensky's Tertium Organum - you'll find the whole extract here

Let us now take a lower animal - a snail for example. We know nothing about its inner life, but we may be sure that its perception is very different from ours. In all probability a snail's sensations of its surroundings are very vague. It probably feels warmth, cold, light, darkness, hunger, and instinctively (i.e. incited by the pleasure-pain guidance) it crawls towards the uneaten edge of the leaf it sits on and draws away from a dead leaf. Its movements are governed by pleasure-pain; it always advances towards the one and retreats from the other. It always moves on one line- from the unpleasant towards the pleasant. And, in all probability, it knows and senses nothing except this line. This line constitutes the whole of its world. All the sensations entering from outside are sensed by the snail on this line of its motion. And these come to it out of time - from potentiality they become actuality. For a snail the whole of our universe exists in the future and the past, i.e. in time. Only one line exists in the present; all the rest lies in time. It is more than probable that a snail is not aware of its own movements; making efforts with its whole body it moves forward towards the fresh edge of the leaf, but it seems to it that the leaf moves towards it, coming into being at that moment, appearing out of time, as the morning appears to us.

A snail is a one-dimensional being.

Higher animals - a dog, a cat, a horse - are two-dimensional beings. To them space appears as a surface, a plane. Everything outside this plane lies for them in time.

Thus we see that a higher animal - a two-dimensional being as compared to a one-dimensional - extracts one more dimension out of time.

The world of a snail has one dimension - our second and third dimensions lie for it in time.

The world of a dog has two dimensions - our third dimension lies for it in time.

An animal may remember all the 'phenomena' it has observed, i.e. all the properties of three-dimensional bodies it has come into contact with, but it cannot know that that which for it is a recurring phenomenon is in reality a permanent property of a three-dimensional body - an angle, or curvature, or convexity.

This is the psychology of the perception of the world by a two-dimensional being.

question 2 : rocks/plants feed, animals/insects feed of them,we feed of them,4th density feed of us, do 5th/6th density feed ? If not, why?

It depends whether you talk about STO or STS. The 4th D STS feed off of us (energetically and sometimes physically, according to the C's), not the 4th D STO.
According to what the C's say, 5th Density is the realm of contemplation/rest between 2 incarnations, so not sure about that one.
6thD is the realm of pure thought - there's no more physical aspect, no need to feed (physically speaking).
Maybe this extract will provide some hints :

Q: (T) Okay, and you said that the Lizzies feed on the negative energy?
A: Yes.
Q: (T) Who feeds on the positive energy?
A: You do.
Q: (T) How do we feed on the positive energy?
A: Progression toward union with the one, i.e. level 7.
Q: (L) In other words, you fuel your own generator instead of fueling someone else's. (T) You are at level 6, what do you feed on?
A: You have the wrong concept. We give to others and receive from others of the STO. We feed each other.
Q: (L) So, by feeding each other you move forward and grow but those of the STS path do not feed each other so must feed off of others.
(T) Now, you are talking to us now. This is considered STO?
A: Yes.
Q: (T) We are providing energy for the channel also, does that provide you with energy?
A: No.
Q: (L) What do you want from us?
A: We don't want when pure STO. We came because YOU wanted. But that is STS until you share with others.

And is their a special place in the forum to ask questions like this? Thank you for any help.

This is the place :) The Newbie section was created to allow new members to ask such questions. But I can only recommend you, and all new readers, to read the material discussed here - particularly The Wave - and also use the search function, as a lot of these types of questions have already been discussed in several threads.
 
I'd like to revive this thread as a similar question formed in my mind recently, while going through the wave.

I'm having difficulty grasping the fact that 1D beings could have a consciousness. Correct me if I'm wrong but at that level, we are refering to minerals.

Its easy for organic life forms, as they are individuals: a tree, an ant, a flower, etc. It's easier to conceive of their perception and individuality.

For minerals though, its more complex as they are not individual entities. Lets take a common rock for example. It can be fractured and then becomes two seperate pieces yet still exists as a rock, but two smaller one. Consciousness divided in two ?

Or lets take iron in a mine. Miners dig and dig, fragment and fracture and extract from a mountain the mineral. The mountain or the rock it contains, has a consciousness ? What happens to the ore being extracted and transformed in goods ?

Anyways, it puzzled me. I guess its good to review lessons of previous densities !

But then I think about what the C's have said about Stonehenge and what the stones were used to back in those days and it puzzles me more that add a consciousness to it.
 
Omega said:
I'd like to revive this thread as a similar question formed in my mind recently, while going through the wave.

I'm having difficulty grasping the fact that 1D beings could have a consciousness. Correct me if I'm wrong but at that level, we are refering to minerals.

Its easy for organic life forms, as they are individuals: a tree, an ant, a flower, etc. It's easier to conceive of their perception and individuality.

For minerals though, its more complex as they are not individual entities. Lets take a common rock for example. It can be fractured and then becomes two seperate pieces yet still exists as a rock, but two smaller one. Consciousness divided in two ?

Or lets take iron in a mine. Miners dig and dig, fragment and fracture and extract from a mountain the mineral. The mountain or the rock it contains, has a consciousness ? What happens to the ore being extracted and transformed in goods ?

Anyways, it puzzled me. I guess its good to review lessons of previous densities !

But then I think about what the C's have said about Stonehenge and what the stones were used to back in those days and it puzzles me more that add a consciousness to it.

I don't know that this will help, but what if we think of "consciousness" as a property of the universe rather than a property of a mineral, rock, animal or human? To me, that view helps to explain how empathic "connections" between various supposed animate and inanimate lifeforms can exist and how, ultimately, objectivity is all about "how the universe sees itself".

In the case of the rock broken in two, consciousness is not 'split' except maybe in a gestalt sense. Rather, whatever consciousness overlays each "bit" in the rock's makeup, is still present no matter where individual bits wind up.

These are just my thoughts and this idea of "conscious as property of the universe, not individual 'things'" just represents how it makes sense to me.

So, in terms of my perspective, 'densities' 1 - 3 would correspond to density (or perhaps, range) of information processing capability and this capability translates into nervous system processing capability as a life form becomes more complex. 4th probably would be like this too if a 4th density being represents an aggregate being in some sense.

Hope this doesn't confuse things further. :/
 
Bud said:
Omega said:
I'd like to revive this thread as a similar question formed in my mind recently, while going through the wave.

I'm having difficulty grasping the fact that 1D beings could have a consciousness. Correct me if I'm wrong but at that level, we are refering to minerals.

Its easy for organic life forms, as they are individuals: a tree, an ant, a flower, etc. It's easier to conceive of their perception and individuality.

For minerals though, its more complex as they are not individual entities. Lets take a common rock for example. It can be fractured and then becomes two seperate pieces yet still exists as a rock, but two smaller one. Consciousness divided in two ?

Or lets take iron in a mine. Miners dig and dig, fragment and fracture and extract from a mountain the mineral. The mountain or the rock it contains, has a consciousness ? What happens to the ore being extracted and transformed in goods ?

Anyways, it puzzled me. I guess its good to review lessons of previous densities !

But then I think about what the C's have said about Stonehenge and what the stones were used to back in those days and it puzzles me more that add a consciousness to it.

I don't know that this will help, but what if we think of "consciousness" as a property of the universe rather than a property of a mineral, rock, animal or human? To me, that view helps to explain how empathic "connections" between various supposed animate and inanimate lifeforms can exist and how, ultimately, objectivity is all about "how the universe sees itself".

In the case of the rock broken in two, consciousness is not 'split' except maybe in a gestalt sense. Rather, whatever consciousness overlays each "bit" in the rock's makeup, is still present no matter where individual bits wind up.

These are just my thoughts and this idea of "conscious as property of the universe, not individual 'things'" just represents how it makes sense to me.

So, in terms of my perspective, 'densities' 1 - 3 would correspond to density of information processing capability and this capability translates into nervous system processing capability as a life form becomes more complex. 4th probably would be like this too if a 4th density being represents an aggregate being in some sense.

Hope this doesn't confuse things further. :/

I'll need to ponder this one a little more. Even with the overlay of consciousness concept, wouldn't there be the need for an anchor of some sort, like a point of origin or emanation ? See, for living beings it is fairly easy as it relates to a body, the vehicle in which their consciousness is anchored and through which the experiences of life are learned. It is indivisible as if you smash it in two, it leads you back to 5th D. But maybe I'm just trying to transfer my 3D perception to 1D.

An then, how do you divide that consciousness unit ? It can range from a grain of send to an entire continent made of minerals. Since it also evolves to 2 D, it has to be divided somehow ?
 
I have suggested that primal matter is "sleeping consciousness." That, of course, being why it is matter. So I wouldn't say that a rock is aware. Minerals can grow, though very slowly. Minerals can be piezo electric. Minerals can be a lot of things. Just very, very slowly. Like aeons slowly.
 
Not that I'm not also confused, I tend to look at it as 1-D is arranged into major units of collective consciousness. 2-D more refined units with some individualization. 3-d mostly individualized consciousness. I leave the higher densities alone, since I could only use my 3-d thinking and perceptions anyway, which wouldn't really benefit me much.

I think it's important to remember that our current reality has been usurped by 4-d STS and changed from 3-d/4-d hybrid STO reality into a 3-d STS one and, as such, we might have difficulty assessing densities 1-3 as we know them and imagine the higher ones with the STS influence upon our frame of reference.

It's worth noting that Ouspensky included snails and slugs into 1-d, so we're not necessarily limiting that density to rocks and trees.

Some 1st nation elders I've met seem to put rocks into one group of consciousness, and trees into another (not sure how they viewed other members of the plant kingdom or insects and other lower life forms).

During sweat lodges I've attended, when the rocks were brought in from the fire pit into the lodge, they looked at them as members of a group, "grandfathers", not individual grandfathers, although, when collecting rocks for the fire, they did select the ones that "spoke" to them. But I'm not sure if that indicated individuality or merely a certain appropriateness.

Animals, however, seem to belong to both to a collective consciousness unit as well as have individuality. When hunting with them, my father said they thanked the animal and their version of the DCM for the gift.

Ouspensky refered to dimensions, but, since we consider both dimensions and densities, I think Ouspensky was taking dimensional aspects and applying them to densities. I imagined infinite dimensions to any given density, so I do get confused when the two terms seem to get used interchangeably.

Gonzo
 
Omega said:
I'll need to ponder this one a little more. Even with the overlay of consciousness concept, wouldn't there be the need for an anchor of some sort, like a point of origin or emanation ?

Interesting question. Don't know, really. Maybe the idea of 'overlay' could be changed. Don't see why an anchor would need to be identified, though, if consciousness were already blended with each single 'bit' of something. Seems like the very nature of a self-contained unit of anything is bound to experience a 'reflective' sort of feedback from energy/information being subject to motion and vibration in a self-contained processing system.


Omega said:
See, for living beings it is fairly easy as it relates to a body, the vehicle in which their consciousness is anchored and through which the experiences of life are learned. It is indivisible as if you smash it in two, it leads you back to 5th D. But maybe I'm just trying to transfer my 3D perception to 1D.

You mean a human body? Maybe the gestalt consciousness is divisible in a sense. D.I.D. seems to suggest this happens, but the nature of the gestalt (sum as greater than its parts) seems to be defined by the more basic configuration of the elements that comprise it. The concept of Metanoia (shift of mind) strongly suggests that our overall consciousness (sense of self and other stuff) can change, depending on how we configure ourselves through the acquisition and implemention of knowledge and experience.

Omega said:
An then, how do you divide that consciousness unit ? It can range from a grain of send to an entire continent made of minerals. Since it also evolves to 2 D, it has to be divided somehow ?

Why? I'm afraid I'm not following.

Note: thinking about Laura's comment suggests that the anchor you seek may be in the 'physical' density factor. :)
 
Hi Omega,
You may find this thread interesting.

Also, now scientists say that more than 99% of the observable universe is made of plasma (_http://www.plasma-universe.com/99.999%25_plasma). And there is evidence to indicate that under electromagentic fields, plasma can form self-organized structures. There are many scientific papers which talk about this feature.
As an example, a quote from the introduction section of a paper at _https://crppwww.epfl.ch/~duval/P5_002.pdf

[quote author=Talasman/Ignat]
The appearance of the self-organized structure in plasma is of a particular importance from the point of view of the possible applications it could provide not only in technology but also in the fundamental scientific research [1, 2]. In this paper, by a self-organized structure (SS) we understand a structure that breaks the spatial-temporal symmetry of the previous state and of the external constraints. A SS in plasma behaves similarly to a living cell: it appears under certain external conditions; its existence is ensured in a dynamical equilibrium (characterized by a temporal rhythm) during of which the entropy produced as a consequence of the dissipative processes is expelled outside the structure; it has a boundary through which it feeds with particles and energy. Its dynamics is driven by non-linear processes in which the reactions (excitations, ionizations and de-excitations) play an important role. A SS could be seen as self-confined structure. The control of the state of such a structure is performed through the external parameters of it. One of these parameters is the electric field. In this paper we investigate the influence of a radio-frequency field (rf-field)
upon a SS.
[/quote]

This could be relevant to your question - or not. FWIW
 
Well it's very interesting to me, obyvatel. I have been thinking since the early 2000's that the universe is fundamentally electro-plasma, and with the "electric universe" theory and this info on plasma, I've got even more info to help develop the picture. Thanks for that! :)
 
The double-slit experiment suggests some form of "consciousness" in quantum particles. Rocks are made of atoms....
 
As Laura said, there is primal matter which is 'sleeping' and consciousness that is to some extent 'awake'. Seems to me that the division is perhaps in the complexity of the organism which requires an increasing level of consciousness to animate it and therefore give it the ability to interact with the world/reality around it. Rocks, minerals etc don't really actively interact with their reality but are instead acted upon, they are largely passive. As you go up the scale of life forms you see an increasing level of ability to interact with surroundings.

Having said that, it is possible that there is a 'planetary consciousness'. If you strip the planet of all animated life forms, what are you left with? Minerals and water. Perhaps the totality of these are the 'body' of the earth, which might have a consciousness, although I would think that any planetary consciousness would be closely tied to or mutually linked to the life forms that it hosts and harbors.

The whole topic is obviously pretty complex for our 3D brains! :huh:

My 2 cents.
 
Perceval said:
Having said that, it is possible that there is a 'planetary consciousness'.

Maybe human experiential experience has some affect upon this 'planetary consciousness'?
 
Laura said:
The double-slit experiment suggests some form of "consciousness" in quantum particles. Rocks are made of atoms....

This is basically Whitehead's (and David Ray Griffin's) view on the matter (no pun intended). He thinks that awareness (or more properly, experience) is the root of existence. Griffin goes into the ideas in detail in his philosophical books. Basically, he says that rocks and such "things" have the awareness of their parts, i.e. atoms. But as you get to higher levels of being, there is a "compound consciousness". So not only are all of my atoms and cells aware at some level, but there's a higher consciousness compounded on top of all those awarenesses. Even our 'organs' can be said to have some type of rudimentary awareness. They go into their arguments for such a view of reality in detail. I still haven't digested it well enough to do it justice, but so far it's been the only account I've read that really tries to explain it, justify it, make such a view coherent... I've got another of Griffin's books that's near the top of the pile, so I'll post some more once I make some sense of it.
 
Approaching Infinity said:
Laura said:
The double-slit experiment suggests some form of "consciousness" in quantum particles. Rocks are made of atoms....

This is basically Whitehead's (and David Ray Griffin's) view on the matter (no pun intended). He thinks that awareness (or more properly, experience) is the root of existence. Griffin goes into the ideas in detail in his philosophical books. Basically, he says that rocks and such "things" have the awareness of their parts, i.e. atoms. But as you get to higher levels of being, there is a "compound consciousness". So not only are all of my atoms and cells aware at some level, but there's a higher consciousness compounded on top of all those awarenesses. Even our 'organs' can be said to have some type of rudimentary awareness. They go into their arguments for such a view of reality in detail. I still haven't digested it well enough to do it justice, but so far it's been the only account I've read that really tries to explain it, justify it, make such a view coherent... I've got another of Griffin's books that's near the top of the pile, so I'll post some more once I make some sense of it.

If we start going to the atoms, then it starts making a little more sense.

The piece that still puzzles me, is the transition from 1st to 2nd. Has in 2nd D, consciousness can be identified to a body of some sort, be it animal or vegetal.

So @ Bud, you see, if awareness / consciousness is the overlay we were talking about in earlier post, encompassing the minerals as a whole, how does that consciousness unit transfers to 2nd D into a specific body ? To oversimplify what I mean, does a mountain becomes a fly in the graduation from 1D to 2D ?

@ Laura: So if I start from the fact that primal matter evolves very slowly, being sleeping consciousness, then their is a point where it awakes ? Graduates to 2nd D in a biological body ?

The question puzzles me as then I take it that the consciousness units we are now (us 3rd D) must have originally started at 1st D right ? So I guess with all that my ultimate question is if I started as a stone, or a pile of stone, what is the natural process that got me here today.

Sorry if I'm not too clear, English is not my first language si its sometimes laborious to try to convey complex ideas or thoughts.
 
Back
Top Bottom