What is a consciousness unit?

[BlueKiwi]

The actual "Seeing" is what we as humans consider life, but when the physical body passes, the eyes close and it "sees" no more, does not necessarily mean that the seeing has stopped. What if, the attribute of "Seeing" is an everlasting or eternal one?

From what I have personally experienced in meditations has shown me that while incarnated as Humans, our perceptions are limited to our bodies configuration to interpret the world around us. It's fairly obvious our bodies are are very restrictive vehicle to aid us in our lessons.

I think the attribute of "Seeing" is an everlasting one, and we must acquire many more attributes as we go.

Are we looking for the most fundamental attributes need to constitute what co-linear wave-reading consciousness unit is ? And then all possible attributes that could be acquired ?

I guess it would be interesting to see and understand the differences between the consciousness of a planet compared to a person.

 

[Toni Lorenzo]

From what I have personally experienced in meditations has shown me that while incarnated as Humans, our perceptions are limited to our bodies configuration to interpret the world around us. It's fairly obvious our bodies are are very restrictive vehicle to aid us in our lessons.

I think the attribute of "Seeing" is an everlasting one, and we must acquire many more attributes as we go.

Are we looking for the most fundamental attributes need to constitute what co-linear wave-reading consciousness unit is ? And then all possible attributes that could be acquired ?

I guess it would be interesting to see and understand the differences between the consciousness of a planet compared to a person.

From what I have personally experienced in meditations has shown me that while incarnated as Humans, our perceptions are limited to our bodies configuration to interpret the world around us. It's fairly obvious our bodies are are very restrictive vehicle to aid us in our lessons.

A very intriguing analysis, BlueKiwi and I think it's safe to say, that we share like-minded ideas on awareness, seeing, and unending life.
I'm going on the assumption that you are probably have never heard something from the mind virus hacker program to understand that a single consciousness created this virus program and set itself up as the equivalent of God within the framework of its created faux ego doppelgangers. It is from this single consciousness creating a false virtual reality, where every virus cell was a duplicate recording device of all other virus cells, but were also part of a collectivist false mind. This is what led to the concept of Brahman as the ultimate mind to all the soul 'divine sparks' referred to the Atman in Hindu philosophy. Because every human was infected with this mind virus, humans were also infected with this single Creator programming, which clearly is holographic.

I think the attribute of "Seeing" is an everlasting one, and we must acquire many more attributes as we go.

In the case of the claims by the alleged Biblical God, we are talking about a physical being, an alleged conqueror God (the God above all other Gods) that only amplified this single Creator narrative in the programmed minds of humans, who were designed as slaves who were subservient to their physical creator gods. The biblical God was also infected with this mind virus, but was driven by an extremely anti-social ego - just another tyrant. Because of this dual assault on programming the human mind, the single Creator narrative has taken root in human conscious awareness and is one of the hardest concepts for this species to let go of. When talking about the infinite, humans cannot comprehend the concept of no beginning and no ending, and are oriented toward beginnings and endings based on our experiences with birth and death, which my point was exactly that how in the world can the tea call the pot black! As such, humans are constantly seeking the presumed single Source that started all this, yet in the framework of infinity with no beginning or ending, it is incomprehensible to us how and where consciousness came from. Philosophers and theologians have agonized over trying to figure out the ineffable and condense it into finite human thinking boundaries. It can't be done and amounts to little more than mental masturbation. The easiest thing to do is accept the fact that consciousness, or for lack of a better word, God Simply IS, as you also stated.

Are we looking for the most fundamental attributes need to constitute what co-linear wave-reading consciousness unit is ? And then all possible attributes that could be acquired ?

Christian belief that God created everything has went outside his Creation plays a great part on the question you raised. We are not separate from the Actuality Field, we have just convinced ourselves that we are, and that has created much of humanity's problems. It leaves humans with the agony of believing that they must do something (profess a belief) to gain access to the false heavenly kingdom and sit at the feet of God after they die. Such concepts have created more anxiety and warfare over the ages between all religions that profess similar erroneous ideas and made their religions a merit system based on belief. I have devoted a lot of thinking on this subject from being a Gospel Singer, riding around on a tour bus through the Swiss Alps, with lots of different books in my lap. Those were the days, my friend.

I guess it would be interesting to see and understand the differences between the consciousness of a planet compared to a person.

Even immaterial sentient consciousnesses can not know the origin of their creation, they just ARE. Some things we just have to accept as they are without seeking to break it down to some starting point, as much as such a concept may make our senses rebel with our beginning and ending finite orientation. So personally, I have also saved myself from a lot of aggravation since shifting my awareness to accept the fact that some things will never be known, no matter how much energy we expend trying to make things fit into a human cognitive box. Nothing exists outside the Actuality of the Moment! Although humans have erroneously convinced themselves that they are somehow separate from the whole, it does not make them separate except through their limited perceptions. My confidence is High, that who or whatever is responsible for the music between the notes (Mozart), or every breath we take, will never ever be fully comprehended nor understood, because in that "moment" of realization, it would no longer be that, for we would have also become that and perhaps or a big just maybe, cause it then to also further expand higher into something other, or level of reality and understanding. And now, I Am at lost for words.

 

[Boza48]

https://ia801405.us.archive.org/32/items/PdfsSethMaterial/6758481-Seth-on-a-Conscious-Creation-Myth1.pdf

 

[BlueKiwi]

I'm going on the assumption that you are probably have never heard something from the mind virus hacker program

I have not heard of this, but I will look it up

a single consciousness created this virus program and set itself up as the equivalent of God

Is this the emergence of STS ?

The biblical God was also infected with this mind virus, but was driven by an extremely anti-social ego - just another tyrant

Are you referring to Yahweh ?

As such, humans are constantly seeking the presumed single Source that started all this

I guess that's why we are here on this forum. We all seek the truth here. Some people just don't care, and that is their free will to do so. I think that each of us, eventually, somewhere along our journey a seed sprouts, and we start to question things on deeper levels.

It seems that the Creator likes to forget what it is, by creating a new souls and sending them off to explore themselves (itself), and figure out what they really are where they really came from. Then it can add to it's knowledge of itself.

Philosophers and theologians have agonized over trying to figure out the ineffable and condense it into finite human thinking boundaries. It can't be done and amounts to little more than mental masturbation

I think so too, if all you are going to do is theorise and talk about it. But there are certain states you can get to in meditation where the concept of time is not possible. It is just not relevant

As the C's have said - It's fun to see what you can access.

Tame the monkey brain, and explore, I say

My apologies @Sol Logos if this thread is being hijacked

 

[Sol Logos]

I think this is actually pretty close. Whitehead's philosophy is an attempt to generalize experience on all levels, and your questions are resonant with his overall description. Though "thinking" would only be present in primitive beings (like electrons) on a very automatic, unconscious level--not enough perhaps to earn the name 'thinking'. Spatial position is arguably one of the most fundamental things about physical reality that all beings must be aware of on some level, otherwise our cosmos would not be as stable as it is. Each organism takes in information about the relative position of itself and the other organisms in its environment, processes that information, and in its response (i.e. its self-realization) conforms to that information. At least, that's what seems to occur in the vast majority of cases - to the extent that there is enough regularity for scientists to discover and confirm "laws" about such things.

It’s strange to think that every single particle in our body is conscious of itself and of other particles. Even stranger is the consideration that if each particle did not have its own self-awareness and awareness of other particles, then possibly nothing including us, would exist.

Your correspondence between thinking, feeling, and acting; and position, spin, and motion, is interesting. At first I was going to say that it's perhaps going too far. It might be a little too neat. But Whitehead did equate energy to feeling (energy being feeling as objectively experienced, feeling be energy as subjectively experienced). In the case of simple particles, they take in not only information about position, but also energetic states, so those are also factored into its 'thinking' or internal processing--just as we constantly take in conceptual, emotional, and processual information about ourselves and the world around us. Outside of conceptual abstraction, all three get blended into a unified whole in conformity with all the other unified wholes. At least, that's how I currently see it!

It appears that our language has clues that could have a deeper meanings here. For instance, when we express our position on a subject or concept, we are often describing a stance via a thought process. We can also create connections with others simply by recognizing their vibe (vibration) that we feel from them or our mutual understanding described as being in sync (frequency). I’m connecting frequency to spin - which might be a large stretch. Additionally, when we are in pursuit of a similar aim and become part of a collective “movement” - this is akin to vectors and motion too. All these in human terms relate to relationship structures but might also be connected to structures that form with attraction and repulsion “forces” at micro levels too!

 

[Boza48]

Maybe if you break up the phrase they using might help understand better ? We have :

• Colinear
• Wave reading
• Consciousness unit

Or is it

• Colinear Wave reading
• Consciousness unit

They refer to the ability to interact with the information field is related to level of density. This implies the information field is wave like in nature i.e "wave reading"

Here's another quote from session 27 may 2000 that might help :

Maybe if you break up the phrase they using might help understand better ? We have :

• Colinear
• Wave reading
• Consciousness unit

Or is it

• Colinear Wave reading
• Consciousness unit

They refer to the ability to interact with the information field is related to level of density. This implies the information field is wave like in nature i.e "wave reading"

Here's another quote from session 27 may 2000 that might help :

15 Years of studing C`s, Datre, Elias, Seth and Ra - my conclusions;
- Base, and ONLY material for "building" Universe (It Self), are IDEAS.
- Ideas are abstract, per se, and, everything "built/dreamed/manifested" from them IS ABSTRACT too.
- Our Physical reality is illusional reality. 2D, 4D, 6D and 7D too.
- We invented MetaPhysical terms: Soul, C.U., dimensions, levels and so on. These terms do not exist at
6D level. They have no language, by the way.
So, when we ask them for explanation of any invented term, they can ONLY use our words for explanation.
But, words are Abstract, too.
We may "understand" explanations but, we can NEVER comprehend them (honor to exceptions).
I believe that even "Teachers" from 6D do not completely understand the nature of Universe.
There are other usefull informations, by Them, considerning our well being, no doubt, and, that is all.
Both STS and STO are on evolution path, and, what will hapen at the end of next 1,000 years, is to be seen.
In the mean time, i am stoping Cracking my brain.
What is enough is enough.

 

[Wandering Star]

I believe that a unit of consciousness reading collinear waves refers specifically to the "people" of third density. As the C's said, "I suggest you look in a mirror."

In this regard, I looked for collinear in photography and I found this:

"In the configuration of a photograph, the equations are obtained by considering the central projection of a point of an object through the optical center of the camera to the image in the image (sensor) plane. The three points, the point of the object , the image point and the optical center, are always collinear. Another way of saying this is that the line segments joining the object's points with its image points are all concurrent at the optical center."

In fourth density where there is no right or left and you can see all the points of a circle, wave reading may be called something else.

Same for second density.

Regarding the classification of types of consciousness, the types of densities define them very well for me and surely each of them will have a specific way or capacity to "perceive" the creation.

Something I thought about this topic and wanted to share.

 

[Toni Lorenzo]

Is this the emergence of STS ? Are you referring to Yahweh ? Yes. Yes.

 

[Toni Lorenzo]

https://ia801405.us.archive.org/32/items/PdfsSethMaterial/6758481-Seth-on-a-Conscious-Creation-Myth1.pdf

Hello Boza48, many thanks for the link, and I nearly did it in my pants when the quote from YES, Tales of Topographic Oceans appeared.

 

[Sol Logos]

Extending the idea of a CU reduced to its most basic component, it must be aware of its position in three planes: the x and y-axes, and the vertical z-axis - due to its spin. This would equate to six points, which in human terms would be left, right, back, front, top and bottom. Fascinatingly, this forms the geometric shape of an octohedron.

I recall considering this shape in comments to an earlier transcript session.

I was looking into how some shapes are more efficient at forming volume than others.

Spheres for example have a surface area to volume ratio of 4:3, meaning that there is less volume area compared to surface area.

Perfect Cubes for example have a surface area to volume of 2:1, meaning that there is one half the volume compared to surface area.

An octahedron is the most efficient shape. The surface area to volume of a perfect Octahedron is always 1:2. That is, an octahedron creates twice as much volume as it takes surface space to create it. Octahedrons are therefore the simplest and most efficient shapes in terms of minimum number of points for maximum volume creation.

This geometric shape was also displayed in a crop circle it seems too.

View attachment 59229

Which takes us back to the West Overton crop circle formation again, which, if it was produced by 6D, means that it came from the C's.

Session 23 April 2022

Have you had a chance to read the Wave Series yet? I saw that you were given the links to the books in your intro thread. You will find a LOT of information in those books. Also, if you are so inclined, any sites like Above Top Secret, etc., along with many ideas in various areas, have been...

cassiopaea.org

Ark: Possibly.

However, this was not the only example of fractal crop circles by any means. Bert Janssen in the Crop Circle Connector has pointed out that:

In the mid 90s some of the found crop circles were based on fractals. For instance the so-called 'Julia set' at Stonehenge in 1996 and the 'Triple Julia set' at Windmill Hill the same year. Or the Koch-fractals in 1997. In later years, this resembling disappeared and was replaced by other features. In 1999 many of the crop circles looked three-dimensional. But did the fractals really disappear?

Janssen then gives the example of the 1999 West Overton formation (see below), in which the fractals were now hidden in 3-Dimensional form:

See Crop Circle Geometry 3 D - Fractals by Bert Janssen.. Selectively quoting from the article:

If you make a drawing of the 1999 West Overton formation, cut it out and fold it together, you get a three-dimensional shape: an octahedron. See image above. This octahedron forms the core of a three-dimensional fractal.

View attachment 59237


The procedure described above (see full article) can be repeated again and again forming a three-dimensional Sierpinsky Gasket. A true three-dimensional fractal! Remember: the red fillings are in fact octahedrons, the shape formed by folding together the West Overton 1999 formation.

This leads me to consider whether an octahedron is one fundamental shape formation of a CU, given its basic capability to “understand” its position in space relative to other CUs.

 

[Boza48]

Hello Boza48, many thanks for the link, and I nearly did it in my pants when the quote from YES, Tales of Topographic Oceans appeared.

?

 

[Toni Lorenzo]

?

Seth on “The Origins of the Universe and of the Species” – An Integral Conscious Creation Myth, the link you posted, page 7 of 146, appears the text from YES, (Famous Progressive Rock Opera Music Group )Tales of Topographic Oceans, 1974, just turns out to be one of my favorite childhood groups, and was quoted in this expose:

https://ia801405.us.archive.org/32/items/PdfsSethMaterial/6758481-Seth-on-a-Conscious-Creation-Myth1.pdf

Hello Boza48, many thanks for the link, and I nearly did it in my pants when the quote from YES, Tales of Topographic Oceans appeared.

“Dawn of light lying between a silence and sold sources,
“Chased amid fusions of wonder, in moments hardly seen forgotten,
“Coloured in pastures of chance dancing leaves cast spells of challenge,
“Amused but real in thought, we fled from the sea whole.
“Dawn of thought transfered through moments of days undersearching earth
“Revealing corridors of time provoking memories, disjointed but with purpose,
“Craving penetrations offer links with the self instructors sharp
“And tender love as we took to the air, a picture of distance.
“Dawn of our power we amuse redescending as fast as misused
“Expression, as only to teach love as to reveal passion chasing
“Late into corners, and we danced from the ocean.
“Dawn of love sent within us colours of awakening among the many
“Won't to follow, only tunes of a different age.
“As the links span our endless caresses for the freedom of life everlasting.”
~ YES, Tales of Topographic Oceans, 1974.

...And since were here by the same subject, it also mentions;

As human history unfolds, old myths calcify and new ones emerge. This has been chronicled by anthropologists (Mead), mythologists (Campbell), and social psychologists (Gebser, Graves, Beck, Wilber). In premodern cultures we find consistent evidence of a Causal Consciousness. While there are variations on Its Origin, Purpose, and Nature, many traditions claim this Casual Consciousness is interpenetrated – holistically nested – within a “Great Chain of Being” that extends from body to soul to Causal Spirit. Many also suggest that Causal Spirit isn’t really “out there” or “up in the sky” somewhere, but literally a part of you, me, and everything around us. In other words, It is simultaneously in the world (immanent) and not of the world (transcendent). Jane Roberts used the term All-That-Is to express this fundamental paradox.

So, we have absolutely nothing to worry about! (?)

 

[BlueKiwi]

This leads me to consider whether an octahedron is one fundamental shape formation of a CU, given its basic capability to “understand” its position in space relative to other CUs.

Interesting - Ark asked in Session 23 April 2022 about the relationship between octonions :

Q: (Ark) Okay, I'm already getting out. What about quaternion algebra? Is it relevant to wave reading units?

A: Absolutely.

Q: (Ark) Yes? What about octonions? Are they better or worse? They are non-associative. Ooo!

A: Better.

Q: (Ark) Better! Oh my goodness. Better!

 

[Boza48]

Seth on “The Origins of the Universe and of the Species” – An Integral Conscious Creation Myth, the link you posted, page 7 of 146, appears the text from YES, (Famous Progressive Rock Opera Music Group )Tales of Topographic Oceans, 1974, just turns out to be one of my favorite childhood groups, and was quoted in this expose:



“Dawn of light lying between a silence and sold sources,
“Chased amid fusions of wonder, in moments hardly seen forgotten,
“Coloured in pastures of chance dancing leaves cast spells of challenge,
“Amused but real in thought, we fled from the sea whole.
“Dawn of thought transfered through moments of days undersearching earth
“Revealing corridors of time provoking memories, disjointed but with purpose,
“Craving penetrations offer links with the self instructors sharp
“And tender love as we took to the air, a picture of distance.
“Dawn of our power we amuse redescending as fast as misused
“Expression, as only to teach love as to reveal passion chasing
“Late into corners, and we danced from the ocean.
“Dawn of love sent within us colours of awakening among the many
“Won't to follow, only tunes of a different age.
“As the links span our endless caresses for the freedom of life everlasting.”
~ YES, Tales of Topographic Oceans, 1974.

...And since were here by the same subject, it also mentions;

As human history unfolds, old myths calcify and new ones emerge. This has been chronicled by anthropologists (Mead), mythologists (Campbell), and social psychologists (Gebser, Graves, Beck, Wilber). In premodern cultures we find consistent evidence of a Causal Consciousness. While there are variations on Its Origin, Purpose, and Nature, many traditions claim this Casual Consciousness is interpenetrated – holistically nested – within a “Great Chain of Being” that extends from body to soul to Causal Spirit. Many also suggest that Causal Spirit isn’t really “out there” or “up in the sky” somewhere, but literally a part of you, me, and everything around us. In other words, It is simultaneously in the world (immanent) and not of the world (transcendent). Jane Roberts used the term All-That-Is to express this fundamental paradox.

So, we have absolutely nothing to worry about! (?)

Hi,
there are lot of terms used on this site. One of them...Casual Spirit.
What is that?

 

[BlueKiwi]

Hi,
there are lot of terms used on this site. One of them...Casual Spirit.
What is that?

I think it is a reference to the Universal Spirit / Cosmic Mind / God @Boza48