Seeking defintions: Matrix, Potentiator, & Significator

[JustLikeYou]

I beg to disagree. The Significator of Mind is your personal identity. The you of you.

We speak like this all the time, but it is really shorthand for "the part of you that the Significator of the Mind describes is..."

Consider:

78.31

Recall at all times, if you would use this term, that the archetypes are a portion of the resources of the mind complex.

92.11

This is indeed carried within that portion of the mind which is of the deep mind, the architecture of which may be envisioned as being represented by that concept complex known as the Potentiator.

The point I'm trying to make here is not that your description of the Significator of the Mind is inaccurate, but that your language is somewhat sloppy. To say the Matrix of the Mind, for example, IS the conscious mind confuses the representation with the thing itself. When architects are looking at their blueprints and describing to engineers what they have in mind, the do not refer to the blueprint as the building. They talk about how the building will be but is not yet. In our case, we are still using the blueprint as a reference even though the building is already built, so it is far easier to confuse the two for each other.

Although the Significators themselves (as well as all the archetypes) are only concept complexes, they are by no means empty. However, it is what these concept complexes represent which collect biases.

Since we're talking about bias collection, my assertion is that the spirit complex collects biases in the same way as the mind and body do, but its act of collecting biases is in reference to polarity. That is, the spirit wants to serve in either a radiating way or an absorbing way. It pains the spirit to have to alternate. So as incarnations mount and the choice begins to manifest, the spirit takes on the bias of the polarity chosen. This is why wanders have the spiritual "armor of light" which not only protects them from getting absorbed in karma, but also encourages them to choose yet again the preferred polarity.

Purity of service is written into the Significator of the Spirit as its natural inclination, but because it must experience itself through the modes of mind and body, the spirit cannot come to a conclusion as to which kind of purity will be chosen until the mind has enough experience to choose to tap into the energy of the spirit consistently in one way or another.

A concept is a belief.

You've got this backwards. A belief is a concept in which a person or group of people have become emotionally invested. A concept does not need to be believed to be a concept. Concepts are the fundamental particles of mind, out of which all mentation is constructed. Concepts have two perpendicular elements to them, just as electromagnetic waves have two perpendicular elements (electricity and magnetism). Thoughts are one of these elements and emotions are the other. A thought names and describes a concept in a structural way, while the emotional element gives the music of the concept.

The problem with using the word "belief" instead of the word "concept" is that "belief" has the connotation of emotional investment. If you believe something, then you take it for truth. Concepts need no attachment to truth to exist. You may well have a concept of unicorns, but that does not mean that you or anyone needs to believe in unicorns for it to be yet a concept.

---

Is there an essential spirit of us that we bring into each life, and if so, how does it differ from our essential personality (mind)?

I like to use the old Greek concept of the daemon. At his trial, Socrates defended his belief in the gods by saying that he faithfully adhered to the dictates of the daemon. At all times, the daemon guided him through his life, assisting him in knowing which avenue to take next and how to best approach any situation.

While the daemon may sound, here, like the Higher Self, it is closer and more personal than that. The Greeks also used a very interesting term which we have poorly translated "happiness": Eudaemonia. This term means complete adherence to the pull of the daemon. Whereas the Higher Self is seen as outside or above or beyond, the daemon is very much inner and feels like a part of the self. The daemon is that which pulls you in a direction without consulting the mind or body. It has its own will and to ignore that will is to sacrifice some measure of your own joy. The mind is always struggling to grasp what it is that the daemon is telling it, ideating and intuiting about what it ought to do, what it wants, what comes next, etc. But there is no thought which can accurately name the deep pull of the daemon. It is the mind's doom to merely approximate.

While the mind is the harbinger of choice in this experience, it is not by any means the source of a sense of fulfillment or joy. This is squarely the province of the spirit. The mind can choose to move in alignment with or against the pull of the daemon, but the feelings associated may not be the ones desired.

So while it is true that the Significator of the Mind describes the personality, this personality itself is not quite enough to describe the incarnate self fully. We all, each of us, bring something into incarnation which is deeply personal and yet somehow straddles all incarnations. It is not merely the unconscious mind informed of previous incarnation, or the unconscious mind programmed with biases. The biases of the mind are felt as emotive; their horizon is love, not joy. The biases of the spirit, on the other hand are, well, spiritual (for lack of vocabulary), and their horizon is joy and sorrow. For feeling love says nothing of whether we feel it joyfully, sorrowfully, or in some other way entirely.