been here before

[Ra1111]

This is not the density of understanding. In order to be harvestable an entity must admit that it doesn’t understand. Yet here in our experience we all claim to understand....that we are on a spinning sphere that looks like a globe. It sounds like maybe someone doesn’t want us to keep thinking about what’s going on.

[Ra1111]

What do you think Ra meant when they said social memory complexes are necessary for fourth and fifth density? I can’t find the quote do you know the one I’m referring to?

Yeah, that's one of those ideas that I can't tell whether I concluded it from interpreting what Ra said, or Ra said it explicitly.  This passage is pretty close:

The basic purpose of a social memory complex is that of evolution. Beyond a certain point the evolution of spirit is quite dependent upon the understanding of self and other-self as Creator. This constitutes the basis for social complexes. When brought to maturity, they become social memory complexes. The fourth density and sixth density find these quite necessary. The fifth positive uses social memory in attaining wisdom, though this is done individually. In fifth negative much is done without aid of others.

One way I think about this is that individuation seems to reach its apex in third density; we can't be any more separate than we are right now.  Once we've reached this "inflection point", the only direction in which progress is possible is back towards unity.  Social memory appears to be the way we begin reintegrating back into unity through successively less separate experiences of consciousness, balancing our experiences and yielding up to the Creator its fruit.

It is interesting that, if I understand correctly, fifth density appears to possibly involve an individuated selfhood experience once more.  However, without the veil, it must surely be different in its lessons than the third density experience.

Thanks for your thoughts here. That is the exact quote I was thinking of. Beyond a certain point our evolution depends on the notion that we are the a Creator.... so we must see in the “higher densities” that we are the ones creating the world, creating the experience, creating the entities ! How could we do that “on 4d earth”.....?

If the density already exists and finds our social memory complex quite necessary then do you take that as meaning it is something that we create and integrate into the reality?

we are still to learn individual lessons while seeing us all as the creator while still inside a “more dense vehicle hmmm.

[rva_jeremy]

This is not the density of understanding. In order to be harvestable an entity must admit that it doesn’t understand. Yet here in our experience we all claim to understand....that we are on a spinning sphere that looks like a globe. It sounds like maybe someone doesn’t want us to keep thinking about what’s going on.

This essay really helped me address my thinking about understanding. 

Let's take the flat/sphere earth debate as an example.  In the Western tradition, we have this approach to reality that draws from the ancient Greek's law of identity: that A is A.  A thing is only what it is, no more, no less.  A thing cannot be two different things at once.

But the scientific method flies in the face of this approach.  In order to investigate reality using this method, we invent hypotheses and then test them.  If the data proves the hypothesis correct, then strictly speaking that doesn't tell us what something actually is; it only tells us that the hypothesis was useful in making certain predictions about reality.  The hypothesis is a lens through which we view reality, but we don't mistake the lens for the reality itself.

To the extent that we can juggle multiple different models of reality, we can maintain a flexibility towards our experience.  I don't believe in a round Earth; it's simply a useful model for explaining why the sunset and sunrise behaves a certain way.  Most of the time, I behave as if the Earth was flat, and that model serves me well in other contexts.  I don't know what the Earth, the ding an sich as Kant would say, actually is.

In my experience this is a really good way of dealing with what the Confederation tells us is an illusion.  We construct these models of reality in our head, but they are conveniences, shortcuts that we take.  They are not the way things are, only the way things seem given a particular lens.  Change your lens, change the reality.  Timothy Leary called this a "reality tunnel", where we use our minds and perceptive capacity to reduce all of the trillions of signals coming from the universe at any given moment to a tiny fraction so that we can cope with it.  But all those other signals that we're ignoring are reality, too.

And this, I think, is the secret to ritual magic: changing your consciousness at will results in perceiving a different subset of reality.  Science, in a manner of speaking, is just one particular form of it.

[Ra1111]

“We construct these models in our head”... your thoughts give me lots of ponder , thank you for the inspiration .... I have in fact wondered in the past if the “globe” theory of reality IS the social memory complex (I know, I have a lot of those theories haha)

Ritual magic has always induced much fear inside of me

But the Ra contact has always been the one that doesn’t

I have been interested in the “magical personality”lately, I thought astrology was my magnet but maybe not now. Thank you again Jeremy I am sure to start spewing more thoughts into the cloud soon!

[Diana]

Let's take the flat/sphere earth debate as an example.  In the Western tradition, we have this approach to reality that draws from the ancient Greek's law of identity: that A is A.  A thing is only what it is, no more, no less.  A thing cannot be two different things at once.

Humanity seems to learn slowly and resist change, at least at certain nexus points. We have had quantum mechanics for over a century, and according to its (observable) predictions, a thing can be at two places at once, so it follows logically that it is at least possible to be two things at once.

Somehow, scientists and lay people can be aware the "craziness" of the quantum world and draw a line in the sand between the microcosm and where we are, as if it were separate with separate laws and tendencies.

But the scientific method flies in the face of this approach.  In order to investigate reality using this method, we invent hypotheses and then test them.  If the data proves the hypothesis correct, then strictly speaking that doesn't tell us what something actually is; it only tells us that the hypothesis was useful in making certain predictions about reality.  The hypothesis is a lens through which we view reality, but we don't mistake the lens for the reality itself.

This is so true. Science is cautious and very left-brained in general. But not where the virtuoso scientific theorists are concerned: as Einstein said, The greatest scientists are always artists as well.

Newton's laws of physics are a perfect example of certain things being useful but not a description of what is. Though we know the static view of the universe to be wrong since relativity, Newton's laws still accurately predict reality for our purposes on the planet.

And when it comes to quantum physics, only probabilities can be predicted, which opens up enormous speculation as to why that is. The uncertainty principal, quantum entanglement, superposition, etc. all point to a reality utterly outside of the Newtonian box. 

To the extent that we can juggle multiple different models of reality, we can maintain a flexibility towards our experience.  I don't believe in a round Earth; it's simply a useful model for explaining why the sunset and sunrise behaves a certain way.  Most of the time, I behave as if the Earth was flat, and that model serves me well in other contexts.  I don't know what the Earth, the ding an sich as Kant would say, actually is.

This is an excellent point. I agree that bypassing 3D "reality" is useful. It relates to being in the moment, and only using linear time when the need arises, thereby loosening the grip on linear time and expanding into a larger apprehension of what is possible—becoming more wave-like and less particle-like.

In my experience this is a really good way of dealing with what the Confederation tells us is an illusion.  We construct these models of reality in our head, but they are conveniences, shortcuts that we take.  They are not the way things are, only the way things seem given a particular lens.  Change your lens, change the reality.  Timothy Leary called this a "reality tunnel", where we use our minds and perceptive capacity to reduce all of the trillions of signals coming from the universe at any given moment to a tiny fraction so that we can cope with it.  But all those other signals that we're ignoring are reality, too.

And this, I think, is the secret to ritual magic: changing your consciousness at will results in perceiving a different subset of reality.  Science, in a manner of speaking, is just one particular form of it.

This is where "beliefs" get in the way. If you believe, you have created a box to exist in, and anything outside of that box is not accepted.

Letting go of beliefs is like opening a door to possibilities, but it's not as cozy.

[rva_jeremy]

If you believe, you have created a box to exist in, and anything outside of that box is not accepted.

Letting go of beliefs is like opening a door to possibilities, but it's not as cozy.

You put it exactly right, Diane! I think one of the muscles we're building in third density is an ability to abide discomfort, ambiguity, and the unresolved. We have to learn how to be able to "stand on our own" without relying on any constraints. Third density is like this training ground where we get thrown into an experience of limitation and finiteness that we liberate ourselves from in progressively more subtle ways. We start out embracing constraints imposed from without, move on to embracing constraints imposed from within, and I think the closest we can get to true freedom in 3D is embracing constraints in a fluid, "take 'em off, put 'em on" manner. In many ways it's functionally the same as having no constraints, but in manifestation the entire idea is to work within limitations so without constraints you can't really participate in the illusion. You just gotta know the constraints aren't real and not fear them.

[Ra1111]

If you believe, you have created a box to exist in, and anything outside of that box is not accepted.

Letting go of beliefs is like opening a door to possibilities, but it's not as cozy.

You put it exactly right, Diane! I think one of the muscles we're building in third density is an ability to abide discomfort, ambiguity, and the unresolved. We have to learn how to be able to "stand on our own" without relying on any constraints. Third density is like this training ground where we get thrown into an experience of limitation and finiteness that we liberate ourselves from in progressively more subtle ways. We start out embracing constraints imposed from without, move on to embracing constraints imposed from within, and I think the closest we can get to true freedom in 3D is embracing constraints in a fluid, "take 'em off, put 'em on" manner. In many ways it's functionally the same as having no constraints, but in manifestation the entire idea is to work within limitations so without constraints you can't really participate in the illusion. You just gotta know the constraints aren't real and not fear them.

An important lesson to learn, to stand on our own. Jeremy, Ra said that third density experience is to learn the lessons of love(did they also say “of understanding” ?) ... how do you think learning to stand on one’s own is a lesson of love? Or is every lesson we learn here one of those lessons, whether we can relate it to “love” or not??

And Diana, do you think asking Jeremy that question shows that I hold a belief (that 3D is to learn lessons of love) , and have I boxed myself into too much of a Ra Material frame of mind ... if I don’t have a belief about anything , then how do I even observe anything? How do I even exist if I don’t believe I exist ?

[Ra1111]

3D is the density of SELF AWARENESS
We don’t even know what the self is.
How can We be studying and learning the next one if we can’t even agree on what this one is?

Is something wrong with us here and now where we aren’t really even self aware??
Is that the thing Ra feels obligated to correct ? If not that, then what?

[Diana]

And Diana, do you think asking Jeremy that question shows that I hold a belief (that 3D is to learn lessons of love) , and have I boxed myself into too much of a Ra Material frame of mind ... if I don’t have a belief about anything , then how do I even observe anything? How do I even exist if I don’t believe I exist ?

What I said was in response to Jeremy's remarks and not in reference to you.

You don't have to believe you exist. You simply do exist. You can proceed from there.

Having to believe it is something that may satisfy the mind, but now you believe you exist. So you exist, but what if you exist in more than one place? What if you exist and don't exist at the same time? (The possibilities are ad infinitum.) You have now limited your apprehension of your existence because you believe something specific—you exist. It's another form of lableing, which, like linear time, is useful when needed but otherwise discardable.

Without beliefs, you can look at a flower, and see much more than what you might believe that flower to be. Belief comes with conditions, in order to define itself. Without your belief the flower may still exist—the flower may have manifested itself from the implicated universe, and you may choose to interact with it. We are not alone in the vastness of existence, and yet in some ways we are—or so it seems—and the paradoxical nature of 3D duality continually reveals itself as such to our veiled selves.

We as humans just can't help wanting the mind to be satisfied. But it never will be because the 3D mind only knows 3D. It's still delicious to philosophize, stretch our minds, and push the boundaries of mind. But when it comes to functioning here, keeping away from beliefs keeps possibilities iopen. It is far better (for me) to have working theories only, and when new information comes in, the theory can change or I can just toss it without any attachment to it (which belief would have). In a nutshell it is analogous to being proactive, where you don't spend any time wondering why something happened—you just proceed from where you are at and now make the best choices about that.

[Ra1111]

And Diana, do you think asking Jeremy that question shows that I hold a belief (that 3D is to learn lessons of love) , and have I boxed myself into too much of a Ra Material frame of mind ... if I don’t have a belief about anything , then how do I even observe anything? How do I even exist if I don’t believe I exist ?

What I said was in response to Jeremy's remarks and not in reference to you.

You don't have to believe you exist. You simply do exist. You can proceed from there.

Having to believe it is something that may satisfy the mind, but now you believe you exist. So you exist, but what if you exist in more than one place? What if you exist and don't exist at the same time? (The possibilities are ad infinitum.) You have now limited your apprehension of your existence because you believe something specific—you exist. It's another form of lableing, which, like linear time, is useful when needed but otherwise discardable.

Without beliefs, you can look at a flower, and see much more than what you might believe that flower to be. Belief comes with conditions, in order to define itself. Without your belief the flower may still exist—the flower may have manifested itself from the implicated universe, and you may choose to interact with it. We are not alone in the vastness of existence, and yet in some ways we are—or so it seems—and the paradoxical nature of 3D duality continually reveals itself as such to our veiled selves.

We as humans just can't help wanting the mind to be satisfied. But it never will be because the 3D mind only knows 3D. It's still delicious to philosophize, stretch our minds, and push the boundaries of mind. But when it comes to functioning here, keeping away from beliefs keeps possibilities iopen. It is far better (for me) to have working theories only, and when new information comes in, the theory can change or I can just toss it without any attachment to it (which belief would have). In a nutshell it is analogous to being proactive, where you don't spend any time wondering why something happened—you just proceed from where you are at and now make the best choices about that.

The thought of existing elsewhere is one I don’t have often, but I have had before that it is possible, so you have beautifully reminded me that even to question daily existence as I experience it is necessary ... I write down my dreams all of the time but I almost always forget to contemplate the possibilities that they are actual events which could be occurring in an alternate reality.

I remember when I was “awake” for a time , and I remembered to remind myself with every single thought that came to mind that no matter what conclusion I reached about said thought, I just had to love it.

I understand you were speaking to Jeremy’s thought, but I’m glad I questioned your statement because it was quite absolute (don’t have beliefs) ... and your reply is very thought provoking

[rva_jeremy]

Jeremy, Ra said that third density experience is to learn the lessons of love(did they also say “of understanding” ?) ... how do you think learning to stand on one’s own is a lesson of love? Or is every lesson we learn here one of those lessons, whether we can relate it to “love” or not??

Well, "learning to stand on one's own" is rather a metaphor I coined for a much more subtle, abstract thing I'm trying to articulate.  It's kind of like the ability to know yourself independent of context, without reference to concrete ideas or beliefs.  I think pure love is giving of that deep, authentic, ultimate self that goes beyond the incarnate personality or these awkward, clumsy things called "actions" in the material illusion.  We use the material illusion and experience of incarnation within it to learn to give of our true selves with more courage and artfulness.

The drama of third density is instrumental, in my opinion, much the same way a gym is.  The goal of going to the gym is not to be able to lift weights.  Lifting weights is a means by which you reach your goal of health or looking fly or whatever.  But you have to go through the discomfort of weightlifting in order to get there, and the gym has the equipment that allows you to work on it.  You don't get stronger by lifting things that are easy; you get stronger by lifting things that are heavy.

I think that's what third density is: a kind of gym where we build our capacity to love.  Because love seems so rare on the surface in third density, it requires us to exert ourselves to find it.  Because everybody is so separated from everybody else, we are required to find the authentic self in ourselves and others.  We will then use these capabilities we've developed to operate in a much more energetically dense environment which will have new challenges.

Of course, this is a simplistic model I draw out in order to make a point; it's not itself "the way things work".  I'm sure there's infinite nuances I'm missing.

[Ra1111]

Jeremy, Ra said that third density experience is to learn the lessons of love(did they also say “of understanding” ?) ... how do you think learning to stand on one’s own is a lesson of love? Or is every lesson we learn here one of those lessons, whether we can relate it to “love” or not??

Well, "learning to stand on one's own" is rather a metaphor I coined for a much more subtle, abstract thing I'm trying to articulate.  It's kind of like the ability to know yourself independent of context, without reference to concrete ideas or beliefs.  I think pure love is giving of that deep, authentic, ultimate self that goes beyond the incarnate personality or these awkward, clumsy things called "actions" in the material illusion.  We use the material illusion and experience of incarnation within it to learn to give of our true selves with more courage and artfulness.

The drama of third density is instrumental, in my opinion, much the same way a gym is.  The goal of going to the gym is not to be able to lift weights.  Lifting weights is a means by which you reach your goal of health or looking fly or whatever.  But you have to go through the discomfort of weightlifting in order to get there, and the gym has the equipment that allows you to work on it.  You don't get stronger by lifting things that are easy; you get stronger by lifting things that are heavy.

I think that's what third density is: a kind of gym where we build our capacity to love.  Because love seems so rare on the surface in third density, it requires us to exert ourselves to find it.  Because everybody is so separated from everybody else, we are required to find the authentic self in ourselves and others.  We will then use these capabilities we've developed to operate in a much more energetically dense environment which will have new challenges.

Of course, this is a simplistic model I draw out in order to make a point; it's not itself "the way things work".  I'm sure there's infinite nuances I'm missing.

I wonder where “The Choice” would fit into your gym analogy as one of those nuances

[rva_jeremy]

I wonder where “The Choice” would fit into your gym analogy as one of those nuances

It doesn't. Analogies are necessarily incomplete comparisons, but I like 'em anyway.

[Ra1111]

I wonder where “The Choice” would fit into your gym analogy as one of those nuances

It doesn't. Analogies are necessarily incomplete comparisons, but I like 'em anyway.

Don’t give me Mouse Trap man, I want Disney World ! Mwahaa