Hello all, does anyone have any contact details for Joseph Dartez? I’m sure that most of you know this incredible writer of “The Tarot According to Ra”. I’m trying to determine if he has an update to his manuscript and ask him a few hundred questions about is determination of the personas for each archetype>
Hi Hugh ,
Have a look at …The other selves working group.
Joseph is now Claire. I am acquainted with Claire and I will contact her regarding this. I have an updated draft, and would like to get updated permission to share it. I will let you know.
Those of Ra did not not reveal much about the archetypes, but it’s a key point I think they make here:
I heard back from Claire:
Thanks for passing along the message about my name.
The truth is that I don’t really want to answer a hundred questions. At least not right now. It’s not a subject I’m ready to return to. I will probably return to it one day, but that day will be well in the future.
My apprehension about questions, however, is not merely that I’m not in a place for it. I think you hit the nail on the head with the explicate/haunt distinction. I have become wary of people treating me like a teacher, especially on this topic. All I really wanted to do was to give a framework for people to make sense of how the archetypes fit together and what kind of depth to look for in them. But nothing I say can replace the haunting. I let them haunt me, and that book was the result. Now it’s other people’s turn.
I think sharing my updated intro might give this person a sense of how I would like people to think of it. So I encourage you to share that if you want to. You can also share the content of this email.
So I will share the updated archetype manuscript, which is a draft so it hasn’t been edited. I have to figure out how to do that first. I see I can share a photo here, but this is a PDF, so check back.
Here is Claire (Joseph) Dartez’s manuscript on the archetypes:
I’ll check back to see if the zipped file is working properly. Thank you Patrick for the help.
wow , just a bit of light reading then.
Have just been reading through the manuscript and have been very successful at not gaining a grasp on some of the harder areas of the material.(Ill keep working at it)
While reading through it a thought occurred to me. When the author mentioned about the Feminine and Masculine not being a fundamental concept or design higher up the M/B/S complex.
The Author notes that the Feminine has tendency toward the positive path and The Masculine has a tendency towards the negative path.
Feminine - Acknowledges all is one and leads back to unity
Masculine - Believes itself to be the creator and all other selves lesser or the illusion of separation from the creator. (the only thing not possible is true separation from the creator) Hence the falseness of the negative path.
separation implies a boundary.
When talking about the first distortion The Author states “The splitting of undifferentiated unity into a subject
and an object is the creation of a boundary where no boundary previously existed”
Unity knows itself by separating itself in various ways. There is a theme on separation in everything that the Logos, sublogos, subsublogos does. It keeps splitting itself into smaller parts. Including separating the conscious from the unconscious (The veil).
What if the negative path is not just a side effect of the veil but a fundamental theme that the creator keeps doing to know itself. It keeps separating itself to get a more efficient way to know the whole. Its like a computer 3D model the more polygons/faces on the model the more detailed the picture.
So the masculine is essentially the illusion of boundary of separation
and the feminine is the whole picture or unity.
The separation (falseness) of the masculine gives greater detail to the true picture unity (the feminine)
Pull towards/Push away
What where doing in this illusion is trying to balance.
Imagine you want to create a sphere on a computer.
How many polygons would you need to get a perfect representation of a sphere?
An infinte amount would be the required number.
But the higher the polygon count on the sphere the more clearer it becomes.
More separation enables better resolution.
But we can never model the perfect concept of a sphere just an illusion of one.
Hense we use a finite separation to represent an infinite object.
Thats why the universe will always begin and end in mystery because
we will never have the full picture. The finite cant fully understand the infinite
but it can help create a better understanding of it.
And to better understand itself it separates
That is why the negative path only wants wisdom and skips love.
Where unity is everything so the positive path involves both love and wisdom.
And the reason the Negative and Positive are in conflict with each other
is that they are two opposing forces. A Push and a pull.
One pushing away from the creator and one pulling towards the creator.
One trying to separate and one trying to join the creator.
If you get the same balance of each force you get a centered stillness.
With both forces going in opposite directions. The two kinetic energies of movement
producing a non energy, a balanced rest of stillness.
Making the positive path the most desired path because it incorporates both energies.
Rather than just an unbalanced one. An attempt to know the unknowable. A paradox.
An endless journey of trying to know the self through the illusion of otherself.
Thats why higher density entities can to go back to 3rd density and either
obtain more Love or More wisdom. To obtain higher levels of energy.
Because there is more separation. With the risk of producing too
much separation that causes the entity to become unbalanced and
must try and gain balance again in order to re-graduate maybe? Not sure.
To balance oneself in potential rather then move either way.
A positive path entity can graduate with an excess of Love and not enough wisdom?
and can go back to obtain more wisdom in order to reach higher energies/densities?
A negative path entity graduates with an excess of wisdom?
and will need to obtain more Love before it can go past 6th density?
The density requires a certain amount of Balanced Potential energy for it to be reached?
Maybe Masculine and Feminine is a more fundamental concept than the Author thinks?
I was talking with a friend last week and told him I don’t like the idea paying taxes because they will hire people for my money to persuade me to continue doing it in the loop. He told me he likes paying taxes because if he went to shop he would have some guaranties. I told but I’m OK with you having different opinion. He told me but he’s OK with me having different opinion. I told him but there’s a difference: you want all shops to be with bills as you want, and I want some shops to be without bills but not all of them; and I do not want to pretend to services you want to have for the money you paid but instead you want to use money I paid for the services you want.
So there are two types of understanding of unions and separations:
There’s a union where all pay taxes. Who does not want to pay separates from others.
There’s a union which allows both models: paying and non paying. Choosing only one model is a separation from the union that holds both.
And there are some features:
Type 1: In this type surely they put together in the same group both a) who does not want to pay and wants all not to pay b) those who are OK with both what I called models.
Type 2: It might be looked as contradictory opinion allowing both models. Allowing both models is a separation that separates one from another.
Also, it might be looked as a point of view on a choice: type 1 is saying there should not be choice, type 2 is saying there should be choice. And also it’s a point of view if people are evil: type 1 is saying people are evil (see Leviathan and Hobbes) and do not let them have a chance, type 2 is saying people are kind and believe they will not harm you after their choice.
I was also reading that draft (manuscript on the archetypes) a bit and at first sight it didn’t look correct to me and I stopped reading it for a while because I was feeling it brings me unnecessary distortions. Duality (look type 1, a) feminine/masculine looks not correct to me because feminine can born both feminine and masculine, but masculine cannot. It’s not so much symmetric.
Yeah I can see why this doesn’t sit well and I was puzzling over this myself. Maybe the negative path was a side effect? Maybe the feminine was just the original path that encompassed both union and separation but the “improvement” of the veil created an unintended masculine path. There was too much separation and the energies of separation kind of ran away creating a tendency for entities to find a narrow valid path of separation and only learn wisdom and ignore love. Because the experiment was effective in speeding up evolution and the fact that the narrow path is still that of the one creator the experiment was considered “all good”. Like a glitch they just have to put up with to speed up evolution and understanding of the creator.
Yeah your right thinking about it that way its not so symmetric in terms of the negative path.