I am often wondering why it could be that The Four were so spontaneously real for me, for so many years now, this understanding of being part of a four-fold larger entity (and upward even beyond that), and why others don’t have it.
I know plenty of people who are probably a lot more … what’s the world, evolved? … than I, and they don’t have this. Or perhaps they have it, but I mean, they aren’t aware of it.
It was my one day feeling some need for confirmation about ‘the four and my aeons’ that led google to show me that other ‘sethian gnostic’ stuff that surreally seems to lay out the same thing: one as four, surrounded by 12 (as 4 in 3 groups), so similar to the diagram I had myself created! What a trip.
I haven’t looked back at that again–partly because I worry it will structure my experience which I don’t want, and partly because I felt absolutely no energy from it. As if the person who wrote it knew nothing. Or, in a more esoterically fanciful theory, as if the energy were intentionally removed from it somehow, to prevent ‘recognition’ of its reality triggering others who would not have let it survive in the religious collection it has for so long.
I sometimes chance on references in writing, to the many-selves. Yet for those, still you’d think there would be so much more on this, other people with blogs like this. I just can’t understand why there are not. The internet is filled with people who will prolifically describe the most obscure, boring things, but I can’t find a single other person who will talk about their interactive relationship with the identities that are part of them or they are part of? Go figure.
I will have to get a couple new books. I saw this the other day:
Ken Wilber’s four-quadrant system reflects a pattern familiar to cultures across the globe; the famous psychoanalytical pioneer Carl Jung discovered that maps depicting a four-part reality have been drawn as mandalas all over the world. The similarities between these various four-part depictions of reality are quite astounding, and all seem to reiterate the idea that the universe is a unity comprised of four fundamental components. [...] Peter Novak
Now that sounds familiar. I haven’t read enough Jung yet, apparently.
P
PS Googling just after I published this post I found this, haven’t read it yet: http://www.redicecreations.com/article.php?id=1722
Maybe the number of groupings of the other consciousnesses are different for everyone or maybe the borders between how consciousnesses are grouped are hard to define. If such is the case, you would not expect much concensus. There could be many more consciousnesses but as well but they are too hard to grok from the perspective of an Earth oriented consciousness such as yourself.
It kind of reminds me of how scientists gather data and come up with a theory that explains it and they draw up a beautiful chart or graph or tree that graphically depicts it and everyone has to learn it in college as the ‘state of the art facts of the universe.’ And then a few years later, new data is found that doesn’t quite fit and the scientists have to tweak the chart to wedge in this new data. And then a few more years and more data and more tweaking and warping of the chart. Until finally the original theory is massacred by too much conflicting data and shortly they come up with a whole new theory of everything that everyone has to learn in college. And there are tests on it and we all barf up the required answered and get our A grades. Until the next batch of data starts to come down the line and the whole game starts all over. So maybe the eons and the largers and all that, maybe the numbers you get depend on what chart you are currently on in what time frame, and also in what reality you are looking at it from, and on how you set you definitions. And so of course no one will agree on anything!
;-)
Yes, probably true!
Or to be more cynical but accurate about science, what happens is that the chart is not allowed to be changed, and the new information either ruins the many people gradually trying to make it clear, or is published but completely ignored, until finally the overwhelming picture is so radically different than the previous picture that it becomes nearly a socio-scientific war of sorts, and then the older one finally collapses under the passion of the younger. They say science advances one funeral at a time.
I was telling LD earlier today that I was reading something recently about evolution being more circular than linear, and we all probably have to wade through every imaginable thing and perspective in various lives and times. So matter where we are; there we are. It doesn’t mean we are really anyplace more or less worthy than where anybody else is. This vs. that approach, is all equal in the end.
Which means that if I often feel like the lone ranger about The Four and the Aeons and the Largers and all that, maybe it’s not that I am blazing any kind of new trail — or, documenting the tragedy of schizophrenia in an otherwise functional person LOL — but that everybody else I know already got through this or will in this or some completely different model way, and this just happens to be the ‘model’ that my brain found most entertaining.
I think that about the ‘identities’ too. Maybe when I think of a chakra as an identity (still having a hard time wrapping my brain around it but I’m getting a crush on the idea and the being-I-saw which is helping), well maybe that’s just what works for me. Maybe it’s equally NOT an identity and whether or not we stick a handle on something is really just an arbitrary way of relating to it and it doesn’t really matter. Maybe on some level it’s just what some part of us finds ‘fun’.
P
The other thing is, there are probably so many things to know and learn. You are working on thoese largers and other identies. Other people are working on other things. PLus few people have guides they talk to regularlya and then remember about it later and then do it again often. OF those few, even fewer are willing to admit it and talk about it publically. I can also see another one of the dangers. If I get too involved with my sleeping life, I get less involved with my waking life. If my waking life gets more important, I lose concentration on my sleeping life. For most people, waking life rules their attention and concentration. And for me, with no current situation of yacking with guides often, I sometimes see all mamner of weird things, but I have no context for them. While sleeping, I see some guy here and some entity there. Sometimes I have some weird snippets of conversation with them but it’s like catching a snippet of someone else’s conversation. I wake up with some weird memmories but no context or framework to put them into. Maybe if I could just concentrate on remembering to try to talk to guides when I am asleep, I will do better. But you seem to be rather unique in your ability to often sort of call up a yack fest on purpose in a specific time frame and then often remember to ask specific questions, and then remember large portions of what was said. Without that sort of regular conversation, how would one figure out even half of the stuff you have blogged about? That’s why I so like to read your experiences. They tend to often help me sort of flesh out the meat on some of my skeletons of ideas and clarify connections that were hovering before but not quite recognized. Your experiences spark my mind in interesting ways.