In a live conversation, our tone carries our words.
In a forum, the structure of our words conveys the tone, and that opens up a lot of potential for misunderstanding the actual atmosphere in someone’s delivery, as the tone of others is spontaneously imposed when we read.
2 Likes
I just don’t understand why I let his ungenerous opinions get to me (for instance, a critique of the usefulness of understanding deep mind structures that doesn’t address at all what the video was about). But he’s been pushing back on my projects since before the working group started, so I can’t understand why I’m surprised. It’s something I’m taking into meditation.
1 Like
I’m not trying to make a joke of this, but what you describe suggests that you are falling into a kind of atmosphere when I, it seems to you, deliberately challenge the adequacy of your offerings. Perhaps some type of personal thought form is being evoked which entrances your emotional apparatus?
Maybe not, but this could be a pathway to explore in meditation, if you feel so inclined.
For the moment I think I’ll go out on a limb and say I’m competent to conduct my meditations without outside intervention. I’ll let you know if I need a coach.
1 Like
01:21:29 I just assumed well then mind must be a creature of spirit, right?
01:21:54 mind is the fundamental structure
01:22:04 Spirit is this distortion of mind
Don’t know. What I think now is that Mind and Spirit are two separate fundamental things.
Do you think thought (forms) can be private? If so what does private mean?
My conclusion, with an acknowledged risk of delusion:
Essentially everything is absolutely private, all interaction is self interaction, all is one. The fleeting state of individuality (even eons of individuality is fleeting from an eternal perspective) provides a vacation from the unity of all experience that we all eventually return to.
mind, spirit or physical, is not different things, rather different aspects within the complexity of totality that is part of our exploitation of coherent types of reality,
1 Like
Well, what about the fact that any inner planes being who cares to can look at you and look through you to see whatever there is to be seen. Is that your idea of private?
The idea that we are all agents of the Creator also suggests there is no real privacy. We are neither our creator nor our owner. All will come to light, you might say.
I’m not really taking a strong stand, just musing.
are you saying ‘all is one’ except inner planes beings?
‘all is one’ in itself implies absolute privacy 
To my ear, that conclusion rings of slippery silliness.
If you truly, fully experience all as one, then you should not argue anything. Just be quiet and radiate love because you no longer have need to play this game of many. But if you are here because you have some unsatisfied need to play the game of many, then don’t pretend you are out of the game. If you are many, then you ain’t got no privacy because we can all see your constituent parts.
So saith my individuated self.
I just want to tack on here, the Confederation speakers tell us that we are not here on Earth to experience oneness, so, for my part, I’ll leave that for another place and time. Instead, I will work to blend together in harmony many layers of the many.
The catch is, I may not be able to do this smoothly or skillfully right away.
1 Like
Greetings itudemo,
Allow me to offer my two-cents on this gedankenexperiment ;
I’m willing to bet that thought forms aren’t private, but the “future” choice of the entity - as willful and evolving subject - to generate the thought-form is. Although maybe “private” isn’t the right word as much as “encrypted” or “shrouded in mystery” to anything that isn’t 7D+ entities. All else - even a 6D Oversoul/Higher Self - is left to make lemonade with a collection of probability/possibility vortex lemons whose flavor depends on an innumerable variety of factors ranging from the most transient and parochial to the most timeless and (multi)universal.
A very tentative gesture toward Nonllinear dynamics and Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle - expanded to the limits made possible by Intelligent Infinity- may be useful in conceptualizing the choice-making abilities of the citizens/Co-Creators of this Logoic Octave.
In short, as long as you’re knowing yourself, accepting yourself, and becoming the Creator, it is fair to conclude that no “one” is to say with absolute certainty whether you’re about to think of a pink elephant or a turqoise hooliphant (the latter being best described as a species of domesticated elephant-like second-density lifeforms that may or may not hail from a habitable planet in the Alpha Centauri Sub-Logos system.)
The Creator knows best.
2 Likes
That’s a fair challenge.
You’re pointing out the classic paradox:
Why ‘argue’ if ‘All is One’?
But recognizing myself as ‘you from another point of view’ doesn’t break the game. If anything, it promotes universal empathy within the game.
I’m not saying we shouldn’t honor our human perspective and orient with a sense of integrity; we are the One pretending to be many, precisely to play.
Discussing the nature of reality doesn’t mean I’m ‘out of the game’ or that I’ve “stopped playing.” We don’t have to experience physical death in order to understand what ‘all is one’ truly implies. Insight and participation can, and do, coexist.
This brings it back to my original point. You say:
“then you ain’t got no privacy because we can all see your constituent parts.”
In the ‘All is One’ model, who is this ‘we’?
Is that ‘we’ not also part of the One?
If ‘we’ are also the One, then any ‘seeing’ that happens is still just the One interacting with itself. That is the “absolute privacy” I was pointing towards. You’re still describing self-interaction, you’ve just labeled it as a violation of privacy as a reflex of individual perspective. Contradicting truths are in play here, understanding your self as the ocean as a drop doesn’t immediately return you to the sea.
1 Like
Yes, thank you.
Also true.
Am I misperceiving this, or are you arguing this philosophically, while I am arguing it practically? If so, then perhaps we are not is actual disagreement. If this be so, then I suppose I will have to content myself with the disappointment of having nothing to argue about.
Alas.
1 Like
Hi, thank you for the answers
I should have added to my question «can be private for sub-sub-Logoi?». Looking at it from the point of view «all is one» does not add understanding for «lower level» distortions.
It is interesting, but I am daunted by word «gedankenexperiment» and not sure if I understand you well.
As Mirror mentioned
Mirror uses «can» which is one of the interpretation of private. But if you can it’s not always mean you may, which may be another interpretation. And also what comes to my mind private might be just because no-one looks it, just because of no interest.
My question about privacy is caused by multiple opinions that what one thinks always impacts on the whole universe. By impact I mean direct impact from thought form, at least it is how I understand saying. By my intuition it doesn’t look so.
1 Like
Very good point.
The lower level vibrations have a vitality all their own.
1 Like
That’s okay, it’s a fun german term for “thought experiment”.
Yes, I agree on that point. I was only making a tangential speculation that every mind/body/spirit complex is something akin to an irreducible “black box” of consciousness whose outputs (thought-forms) could be observed - as Mirror pointed out - but not the exact choosing-algorithm that he/she/they used to generate it; this being due to the First Distortion, but more fundamentally to the non-deterministic nature of the Intelligent Infinity that is unfolding and activating within every entity of this Octave.
2 Likes
This excerpt offers a sense of my personal bent regarding this. I mean, I’m not really arguing, per se, but this view represents me SO MUCH better.
Once an entity has moved through those reexaminations of the default settings of the mind, shall we say, one is then perhaps more in touch with where the self meets the process of spiritual evolution today, at this time, at this instant.
Then the soul may begin to become conscious about its choice of points of view. The choice is not what it seems, for it is not the choice between one mental view and another. It is not a choice that can be pinned down to thinking one way or disciplining oneself to behave in one certain way. Rather, it is a growing awareness that the self is magical and the environment of the self is also magical. In the realization of the profundity and the depth of that magical self there comes a realization that much of the most important part of you, as you view yourself and your gifts, is impersonal, that you are living a personal life with perhaps 20% of your energy and living an imperishable, impersonal life with by far the majority of the life energy that is invested within the personality shell which entities relate to as each of you.
You are so much more than you seem. And so much of what each seems to be is only the shadow of the essence of the gifts that are burgeoning forth from that fountain of catalyst and emotion. Each gives so many gifts that each is unaware of through each day.
5 Likes
2.6 Both together: “Rejoice then and purify this place in the Law of One. Let no thought-form enter the circle we have walked about this instrument, for the Law is One.”
Well, at least thought-forms are not omnipresent. Looks like.
Alas indeed 
The keyword was ‘Essentially’. Essentially it doesn’t matter if you are in higher or lower realms, what changes is your perspective, not if all is one or not.
well put, reminds me of the Liquid Living thread
“No force, no claim
in the creative currents
of the same”
“Words like water
Liquid understanding,
Translation of reality
Undemanding,
Central self
Undefined,
Yes,
We are aligned”
“Let it flow, Let it be
Through the heart
of your personality”
“No final destination
every situation
is a phase,
in liquid contemplation
conclusions are applied
with grace”
“Don’t blindly follow
what you say or hear
you have a deeper self
that is deeply aware.”
“Let love fuel your actions,
regain your peace.
Be here in the moment,
and do as you please”
-what do you feel like
doing now?
-in the beauty
of being you
2 Likes
I was thinking about connection between thought and energy, (=or information and energy); and I have some answer. To produce a thought we need to spend some energy, sometimes it’s a huge amount of energy. But then when we give this thought to another one it allows him to save the energy, in other words to use it. Wonderful quality of it is a fact is that costs of transferring the though might be very low comparing to producing it.
From this energetic point of view we can make social conclusions if needed. For example, keep though with oneself equals not giving energy to another one; if applying golden rule to such case it is a prisoner’s dilemma from game theory. Or it can be looked on conspiracy as a try to keep energy and hence have power.
From this point of view I can divide thoughts into negative and positive. Negative ones entangles, positive ones untangle. I don’t know how common this phenomenon is, but once one receives a thought he needs to process it. From the negative point of view the energy spent on thought needs to be recuperated from one who gets the thought, it should be at least greater than the energy spent, but better to be infinite (infinite=slavery). The untangle thought does not aim to be recuperated, it’s like a gift. But sometimes it can violate free will when the receiver does not want to receive the thought. I would call such thoughts differently (not negative, a different word) because of different aim. Same can be applied to negative thought that does not violate free will.
What is a difference between thought and thought form? I find no difference, but some people saying there is.
When sharing this thought I hope I’m multiplying the “energy”.
1 Like