The Balance of Inner and Outer

Confederation Philosophy
1

I wish to begin a discussion of this topic using this Q’uo session as a framework.

This is the opening question:
"What is the intellect’s role in archetypal study? When does it get in the way? "

First, I would say that I find the way question is stated to be not well grounded in the seeking behind it. It asks off-handedly and evokes no affect of seeking, openness, reverence nor dedication. Even so, happily, the response given does reflect an unstated depth of seriousness. (In my view, such things should not be taken for granted.)

Second, in this post, I would comment on the following paragraph which pulls forward the unspoken parity of the intuitive faculty with the rational faculty, something omitted in the question above.

The manner in which you have focused this initial approach to the question of the archetypes settles on the distinction between the intellectual and the intuitive portions of the mind. We would suggest to you that from our perspective, these two portions which to you can be quite distinct are much less so, and that is because we, from our vantage point, do not operate within the parameters of the veil of forgetting.

This, for me, is a key notion in our understanding of the relationship between intellect and intuition, that they are not oppositional, but two limbs of the same body which are meant to be complementary. This would argue that taking a side and saying one or the other is predominant is not helpful in the seeking of truth.

What it shows is that it is the condition of the veil that distorts our understanding of this. Because intellect is what we use to evaluate the outer world, and it’s always open season for this, we are thus persuaded that reason is an effective tool for gathering knowledge. And because intuition is how our subconscious self converses with our conscious mind, and because this is a very difficult process for most of use to use to seek truth, therefore we may easily regard intuition as an inferior method of finding truth.

But let’s think about this. Are you a seeker of illusory truth or of eternal truth? If the latter, is eternal truth in a pure form found in the illusion? No, by definition. Then it follows that eternal truth is found within (as all sages have averred) and a well developed intuition is the primary tool for seeking it.

Now, let’s swing back to the passage quoted above. Intuition must be balanced by intellect, as well as that may be done, or else we become victims of our own confirmation biases (believing mainly what we want to believe) or our fantasies. Universal truth that cannot be reconciled in a solid way with the illusion may not be so universal after all.

Concluding this much, it is very important to develop an ability to know one’s mind, not just the loud rational observation, but also the quiet intimations and subtleties of the deeper self. And no less important is removing any antagonism between these two, for they are sister faculties, working in tandem for our betterment.

1 Like
2

Now, for a second installment. This is next paragraph from that session which continues to introduce the topic.

Now, it is important to recognize that the veil of forgetting, which does introduce a barrier, shall we say, or a threshold that separates the conscious from the unconscious mind, is not something to be despised. The veil of forgetting is, in truth, a gift, for it allows a kind of differentiation of experience, a separation of facets of what may be experienced, that would otherwise be unavailable. And so the address which we will undertake in sorting out that which belongs to the intellectual mind and that which belongs to the intuitive mind will be redolent of the primary distinction between the conscious and the unconscious portions of the mind, for intuition partakes of the unconscious portion of the mind far more deeply than does intellect, and intellect situates itself within the heart of the agency expressed in conscious activity far more stringently than does intuition.

It’s not often you hear anyone endorse to veil, but here it is praised because it allows us–because of greater separation–a better view of all the intertwined pieces. I find that a savvy comment. This level of being, with its sinews and grit, is a more granular way of experiencing “reality.” For those who do “work in spirit,” it offers better advantage to move into the micro level of truth, as compared to a broader, more generalized experience.

This also mentions that, while intuition is a way of knowing the inner self, intellect gives us a better sense of how to move forward in life, using our energies to define our present and our future in our outer word, but also, I would argue, in our inner seeking.

3

It seems that we treasure the contrast we were able to achieve while veiled, once it is lifted.

All the pain, for example, creates such an appreciation of the inherent joy of what is. This joy does not change, but we are able to appreciate it exponentially more than before having a veiled experience.

I would surmise that our appreciation of our unconscious/intuitive side is similarly contrasted by having a veiled experience where we can barely use that faculty. Perhaps we treasure that quality ever more once our veil is lifted. It is less taken for granted.

4

Yes, we are much closer to it, we can stop the projector and inspect our experience in much detail. What’s good about that, one might ask? Fine question.

I mentioned the off handed tone of the question for this session. As one works more deeply with faith, the quality of the ground one stands upon becomes perceived as more important than it was before. As one’s catalyst is more in your face and in your heart, one is able to base one’s faith more deeply, stretch its roots down to depths not possible without the veil.

This involves, joy suffering and everything else, it’s about (1) the clarity of experience, (2) the depth of the experience of it in the self and (3) using this to allow your faith to respond and become more awakened, more articulated and enlivened. This requires some skill, but mostly just faith of a clarified vibration.

By the way, faith is of the unseen, the hidden, the unmanifest. It is different from knowledge, the offering of the intellect. Knowledge is formatted for minds of the illusion, where faith flows in mystery, in what is potent, yet could never fit into a rational definition.

Well, Patrick, you are anticipating a thought from later in that session.

Now, we will tell you that though we are no longer subject to the veil, that we are beneficiaries of having been subject to the veil, in the sense that our formation permitted us to distinguish between the intellectual and intuitive functions more dramatically, more decisively, than we would have been able to do had we not undergone the formation as you are undergoing it. That involves the veiling of the one from the other.

5

I don’t wish to be… crappy at all. But rather than thinking over the different issues with how to approach the archetypal mind. Would it not also be potentially interesting to simply study the archetypal mind and do the practices?

Coming back to this:

hdc archetypes
hdc archetypes760×900 179 KB

For me, I have done Maia (That I term Gaia) Lakshmi, Parvati and Hades. I have researched and thought over the others here. But the four that I have done the exercise with, of placing them on myself as a kind of suit, I have a lot of powerful insights still coming from them in a very emotionally relevant way. Like a part of my brain has been opened by that exercise. Even though it was only thirty seconds for each ‘Godhead’.

Have you considered studying the archtypes themselves? Have you done so and not mentioned it? What is to be achieved by the analysis of how to study the archetypes before studying said archetypes?

Again, I don’t wish to be crappy, this just seems logical to me.

6

Next, Q’uo acknowledges that the archetypes are (haha) “not overtly disclosed,” and therefore mainly for the intuition to discover, but they (typically) give little or no instruction for developing intuitive skills. Unfortunately, they have no more to offer than most, suggesting paying attention to dreams or meditation or odd synchronicities or any other way your subconscious may seek to communicate with you. I suppose that matches the fact that they offer no advice at all for improving the keenness of the intellect. Here’s that passage.

Now, when it comes to the study of the archetypes, you are in fact attempting to reach down into those portions of the mind that are not typically evident to you—not overtly disclosed, shall we say—and that does put them in relation to the unconscious. So one might therefore suppose that the largest percentage of the effort in studying the archetypes should be grounded in the intuitive capacity. And to some extent, this is true.

This next point is important.

However, the intuition is typically in the veiled condition not availed of those structuring elements that the intellect so ably provides, and therefore it tends to be less well-organized, less well-articulated, less well-situated in relation to the broader life experience than it would be with the addition of the intellectual component.

This is the major challenge of learning from the subconscious self. It is disorganized, subtle and mysterious. But this, we are told elsewhere, is intentional. By making the search more challenging, we value the prizes for our effort more dearly. One advantage to this is that it challenges us to reconsider the fire of our polarity periodically. Otherwise, it is very easy, once the going gets easier, to become more self-oriented in one’s workings. It is very helpful to have to recalibrate one’s commitment to seeking for the love of it now and again.

This is followed by a passage noting that the intellect can see relationships and order that can inform the seeking of the intuition and make the process easier. In my experience, these two elements can “fall together” and create a larger working structure of intuitive sense and rational structuring of thought.

And this revelation of which we speak, in the particular case that you are currently studying, is what you have called your tarot, and it is grasped initially, consciously, by the intellectual mind. And so it is through a sort of intellectual effort that you can begin a process of taking up a relation to the deeper portions of the mind as articulated in the manner we have called archetypal that enables you to engage the study that the revelation of the tarot has made possible, so that the intuitive function, when invoked, is better situated, or better focused, as we may say, upon those areas of your beingness that the archetypes differentiate for you.

After this, they begin talking about the studying of the archetypal mind, which I’ll go into in the next post.

1 Like
7

After the above follows a long winded passage about how love energy begins as sparks or rays of light which come into form around nodal points, and this term “nodal points” is how they would describe the archetypes. In other words, they are foci of energy, and much of that energy is fueled by desire.

Then they note that intuition can pick up and experience these patterns of being. And then they focus on one pattern in particular, the pattern of desire between the Matrix and the Potentiator.

We speak, when return to the archetypes, of the matrix of mind as that which conscious thought invokes as a receptacle of what it seeks. But the matrix always already is but a mirror for what motivates it to seek in the first place, and this we have called the potentiator. The potentiator, therefore, can be seen to be both before the matrix and after the matrix. It cannot be manifested except through the matrix, but once it is manifested, it is manifested as that which the matrix has always already sought.

Then they say that, in addition to the seeking and the one who is sought, there is a third element which is the self conscious observation, and this is of the intellect.

And so, with these primordial movements of energy, we have not just a duplication, but a triplication, if we may so put it. We have a threeness that arises. Now we have trouble to describe this arrangement in this primordial way to give you a sense of how you yourself might enter into this movement intuitively, so that you might feel how the Creator feels in this primordial moment of the desire to be known to itself. But, in the process of so doing, we have pointed certain things out; we have said that the one becomes two, and the two becomes three. That “pointing out” has the character that you would call intellectual, in the sense that you are now standing outside the process and noting something about it: it is three.

This takes us to a seminal observation here, namely, that it is self observant awareness TOGETHER with intuitive participation that constitute learning and intelligence.

You may also enter back into it at a point at which you are no longer focusing on the threeness per se, but merely on the movements internal to the seeking process, and thereby enter again into the parameters of pure intention. There is a movement back and forth, and that movement back and forth from intuition to intellectual registration is what we would call intelligence.

Following this point, the session becomes more lively, happily, but I want to say a word here about why it has been, to my feel, so painfully slow up to this point.

The group channeling this material has a very strong intellectual bent, I would say. Just look at the question, it’s all about intellect and never mentions intuition. if you listen to their podcasts, especially about the archetypal mind, intuition isn’t much mentioned there either. So, for Q’uo to put this in perspective requires a tedious explanation of the virtues of intuition. This is balanced out some in the final section, but I want to summarize this first before we move on.

First, the archetypal mind is a subsection of the deep mind, and these are of our subconscious being. Therefore, these are accessible through intuition, not through intellect. However, while the intuitive faculty can experience the deep mind, it isn’t much help when it comes to creating an organized understanding of it. This is where the rational faculty serves us. So, the intuitive faculty helps us experience the deep mind and the rational faculty helps us organize our understanding of it.

Second, they repeat the message from the point of view of primal energies. They speak of sparks, rays of light and nodal points, which take shape as they are driven by desire. This is not unlike the creation of matter. Building blocks appear and these take shape as desire emerges.

And then they drop this idea of primal intelligence, which has to do with desire, desire attained and the observation and learning from this which leads to some adjustments being made. This then leads to more desire, more desire attained and more adjustments made.

This, they say, is , in basic terms, the process of the Creator learning of itself.

The final section leaves the realm of primal energies and wraps up with practical thoughts about “the intellect’s role in the study of the archetypes.” Hint: what’s ahead was formatted for those with a default-intellectual approach to metaphysics.

1 Like
8

From what I remember when reading about balance of inner and outer. I think it is not about intuition or intellect, but more becoming of who you want to be.

For example, you value being disciplined, yet surrender to addictions. Inner would be desire to be disciplined, outer would be not submitting to addictions.

1 Like
9

I haven’t gotten to that part yet. Please bear with me, I’m taking the slow route, you might say.

1 Like
10

To quickly sum up the main idea up to this point, consciousness begins as a flow of desire in pursuit of that which is desired and attainment of that which was desired…then further desire. This is in a constant state of play and is only somewhat differentiated from complete unity. Nothing is built from this and not much learned because there is no self reflection. So, along comes self reflection and rationality. This removes us from the endless flow of near unity so that we may evaluate, perchance to create further structures of behavior.

What’s happening here is that we are taking a step out of unity and into separation so that the a static “outer world” outer reality may be constructed and given meaning by the human mind. In very general terms, the function of intellect is to step aside and create perspective. The function of intuition is to move into the primal flow.

Moving on now, Q’uo speaks about the integration of intuition and intellect and the freedom this enables as a pivot to offer a word of caution about the rational faculty.

We speak of integration as no terminal point per se, but rather a point at which the exploration may assume new directionality, for you must be free to explore—as free as you can conceive of—while always maintaining one’s recognition that this mission of self-discovery cannot simply reduce itself to a principle or conceptual exegesis such that it is safely captured and thereby stops this motion-filled flow that one feels, even in the most still moments of one’s discovery.

We are herein eliciting a caution about the uses of the intellectual mode of mind, because balance is crucial if one is to achieve an appreciation of the moment of integration that one can feel is participatory, so that these (perhaps) micro-initiations that mind presents to the seeker are always, whenever possible, moments of care, thanksgiving, and praise, and not opportunities for the feeling of mastery, for this is a temptation of intellect.

In other words, as they re-iterate, the rational aspect of mind can easily lead one to feel satisfied that it now understands whatever-it-is as it stand in separation from the Mystery and the flow of the Creator.

…the tendency of the seeker is to try to gather up the feeling tones into a write-up, a kind of summarization that can then perhaps be used. The archetypes, my brothers and sisters, these nodes of energy expenditure in the relation one to another, are not to be used any more than the self in its wholeness and completeness could ever be a mere means to an end. Therefore, when one seeks to crack open the book of cosmic potential, working with one’s archetypal faculties, there must be a kind of sacrament involved, a reverence for the pure mystery involved.

They approach the end of the session by saying this.

Those who cling too closely and desperately to the grounding or situating aspects of the intellect shun this mystery in some way, for they wish to have their feet on solid ground. Why would a seeker wish to float freely? Of course they want to tread a path that gives them a concept of progress and fruition promised. It is most understandable and most human.

This is a very good question. What does it refer to? In my experience it refers to the reward of becoming far less driven by the personality and much more so by one’s connection to Divinity. And this brings us around full circle.

The question for this session was about the intellect getting in the way of studying the archetypes. The answer is, in my reading, that one should avoid allowing the intellect to persuade the personality that the thought structures it has built are more real than the eternal flow of being which the intuitive faculty can connect with. This dynamic is very similar to the way the intellect can persuade the personality that it is a physical form understood by the intellect, rather than a being of infinite light which one can discover through the intuitive faculty.

Why is this thread titled “Balance of Inner and Outer?” The rational faculty looks outwardly and builds thought structures while the intuitive faculty looks inwardly and wades through the swamps of our substrates of being. These should be balanced, else the personality get confused about who or what it is. And this way, that which is created from the heart on upwards is far more stable and grounded in expansiveness.

What we mean to say is that the intellect cannot serve as an instrumental means if it is overly identified with; if, in other words, the intellect is the end-all-be-all, shall we say, of spiritual seeking. Now, there is no seeker, whether of spirit, of the illusion, of any sector of awareness, who does not draw both upon intellect and intuition. They are your left and right feet, my friends, and one can stand on one leg for only so long. However when the other foot comes down, it is nevertheless possible to appreciate one foot over the other, to take the lesson in terms of that one capacity of mind, and to leave the other as a kind of by-product of the process of integration one tends towards. The balancing will occur, and it will occur in a way that sooner or later will humble the seeker.

1 Like
11

For those who are interested in this topic of inner and outer, intuitive and rational, I wish to add this brief quote from L/Leema, a no-nonsense 5D group from 1986.

And as we speak, do we not listen? And as you listen, does your heart not speak? We ask you these questions because the question has been asked of us, “What is the place of analytical thought upon the spiritual path of seeking the truth?”

The intellectual mind and the intuitive mind are two sides of one coin. Analysis is a form of speaking, intuition a form of listening. And yet, when one is speaking, does one not also have ears? And when one listens intuitively, does one not hear the voice of silence?

This idea of listening is a key feature, I would say, of the different between intuition and ratiocination. Intuition is the opposite of enjoying hearing the sound of your own ideation. It’s about tuning in, being of neutral valence and joining in the experience.

And yet, as they say, it is certainly possible to, as you speak, listen to the voice of your heart. This an experience of wholeness and grace.

1 Like