Axiom: any conscious evolution proposition is only true at the instant it is conceived.
Thursday, 30 August 2012
Here is a thought! Only a thought mind:
I am intrigued by the number of luminaries in the conscious evolution field and the fact that each of
them has one or several websites associated with and touting their particular
philosophy. There is a similar theme at the base of all of the philosophies.
My thought is this: –
“As soon as someone formulates their own particular theory and writes their own particular book and collects their own group of acolytes, they are throwing out a subconscious
anchor and tying themselves to their original proposition! It takes time to
write a book, set up a website, establish a reputation and collect a following.
During the evangelising activities, the proposition starts to cut some deep
tracks into the collective unconscious. The original creative thinking process
develops inertia.
The original phenomenon, namely evolution of consciousness, driven by the Divine wind, is largely
separate from the observer. That process continues on its merry way and
bypasses or overtakes the proposition that has been anchored in books, websites,
thinking and the collective.
And just in case this thought embeds itself in the collective, I will call it the “Harris
Hopeless Harness Proposition”. It is at the very least blasphemous and
could well get me excommunicated.
(My secret wish – I will share the wilderness with Leonardo.)
Axiom: any conscious evolution proposition is only true at the instant it is conceived.
Thus endeth the first lesson.
8 responses
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Preposterous snow goose! What are you smoking?
Harris – we have so many different ways of expressing the same concept, that we get lost in the words and forget the theme. We are here to enable each other and the Harris Postulate seems to imply doing by doing. I was smoking salvia, but i am now smoking milder stuff, while jumping through the hoops bring on the winds of change. Happy to shift with you.
I would explain the phenomena you are writing about in this way. The greater river of time space carries us all along in it’s current. I call this flow the quantum flux and it may be considered very similar to the collective consciousness but only a portion of the flow is directed by consciousness the balance is guided by chaos. When we become creators by using our consciousness to add energy to the flux we create what I call a quantum bubble which can move to the outside of the quantum flux and in fact can diverge from the flux with enough separation to give the creator of the bubble to believe they are more in control than chaos. This bubble gains strength and energy the more adherents it attracts and the more energy it collects the more it can influence (but not control) the direction of the quantum flux. Because of this characteristic of the relationship of the bubble to the flux any philosophy which diverges too far from the flux will eventually be subject to a snap back effect where the bubble goes through a correction and returns to the flux. This is that future time when the philosophy is overtaken or bypassed. The only way to avoid these circumstances is by having a philosophy tied to the center of the quantum flux. This is best described to me after a life long study of spirituality as the Tao. Taoism is simply the study of the natural flow of the space time integrated with individual action.
I understand that I babble gibberish quite often but it seems to me the purpose of philosophy is to find a cosmology which explains things in a way that allows us to use our consciousness creatively and effectively to influence the flux with the least amount of energy. This explanation works for me and allows me the freedom generally to do just that.
Interesting that i use the term flux box when i suspend the idea due to dubious nature. I had time and money both in the flux box for a while, now most of mathematics resides there while i attempt to figure out numeracy. The fibonacci sequence determines the golden mean ratio which governs nature – mathematics seems to be a rather harsh absolute overlay – which works when it works and is bogus when it doesn’t work. I allow the math that i have worked through on my own, matrix algebra, group theory, prob and stat. But the truths based on the cartesian coordinates are not correct for a natural overlay, hence back to simple counting and small number ratios. and babble, as Warren might call it.
I like the model that you present (that’s if I understand it of course). What I think I’m reading is that there is a flux. I think you equate this flux with the Tao. This flux is a little bit like what I referred to as the “divine wind” (an expression I sucked out of my thumb on the spur of the moment). Then if I understand you further, any philosophy that gets itself too far from the flux will get “snapped back”.
I think that’s enough for now. I might just get sucked into the serious sh1t and I know I will very quickly find myself out of my depth. I must confide that I concocted this hypothesis in a moment of serious frivolity. And it is just conceivable to me that such moments may produce absolute rubbish or deep insights.
Hey Ho I think I will go tend my vegetable garden.
Sun Bear said (to paraphrase) “if your philosophy doesn’t grow food i don’t have time for it”
Doing by doing? Hhhmmmm . Now I often say things that I later do not recall having said but I dont remember ever having said anything that I dont later understand. Well that bodes well for my role as a channeller. And anyway remembering is an overrated skill. I wouldnt have to remember if the collective hadnt spent 55 years teaching me to forget
I guess i must have expressed myself clearly because you are correct in stating what I call the quantum flux is equivocal to what you have very poetically labeled the “divine wind”. I had never really considered the relationship of the tao to what i call the quantum flux until this question so now i would have to say that it seems to me that the flux and the tao share a common center but as the tao includes what is, what could be, and what will never be then the flux having been named can only exist within the greater field as a subset of the tao. what that means i’m not sure but as i read your post this is what came to me.
yes, i know, the tao has also been named, but it is the name of the nameless, so it gets a free pass.