Friday, April 04, 2008

Thoughtforms, Geometry and Abstract Identities

This is the third and last post on the concept of identity, which is just the first part of the equation I'm trying to hash out in my head for a larger question.

One of the most interesting things about metaphysics is the bizarre stuff that makes total sense inside you but sounds bewildering to anybody you try and explain it to. Either people have such an experience themselves, and they know what you mean, or they haven't, so there's no way they can.

Thoughts are things, as Edgar Cayce is quoted as saying. I agree. But in the case of deliberately generated thoughtforms, they are powerful things.

In the east, a thoughtform of a creature of any kind (including a human) would be called a Tulpa. I'm not sure if they have a different word for thoughtforms that are not seemingly autonomous entities (such as inanimate objects). I read a neat book on it once. The creation of this sort of thing is a whole magical art unto itself.

Some would suggest that simply altering belief systems and probability to bring what you need into your life, is probably easier than creating it from scratch. This is probably true. But there's always those people who will build their furniture rather than buy it, so I suppose it's the same sort of thing in a way.

Fictional characters in a story are thoughtforms. I believe that the more people who read a given book, and the more energy, interest, emotion they put into that character in various ways, the stronger the thoughtform. James Bond and Harry Potter have become literal archetypes in our culture, as an example.

Religious icons, from Mary to Mithras, no matter what they might have been at any point in the past, have had so much energy-attention poured into them that they have become autonomous thoughtform Tulpas on a nearly god-like level, at least compared to us. So the thoughtforms range from the wispy creations of an unpublished fiction writer, to unimaginably powerful creations that, like humans but even moreso, grow into their own sense of identity and autonomy eventually.

It's not just characters, though. I consider everything inanimate a thoughtform--it's merely that some things have more "representational energy within the bandwidth I call physical reality" than others.

If I take out my tools and I cut and plane wood, router it, put it together into a chair, sand it, paint it, and then use it, in my view that chair is a thoughtform. My "representational magic" just happened to be quite literal in this case. (A voodoo doll, by comparative example, is representational magic, but indirect.) But its envisioning, and its creation, and its perfection, and then its utilization, are all something that I arranged.

The same goes for everything, even if it's a television with two thousand tiny parts made in an automated lab in Taiwan. Still, someone had to plan--(humans playing nature-deva)--every tiny piece, and the arrangement, and the function, and everything that went into making it, and everything from the raw materials mining to the commercial marketing in retail stores is part of contributing to that thoughtform, both individually for a given TV, and as an archetype about TVs in general.

So you won't be surprised that in general, I consider most everything a thoughtform on some level (some are physical, some aren't), and I consider all thoughtforms to be an identity of sorts, whether it's a television or a fictional character.


When communicating in some rather obscure states-of-mind, nothing really works to get an idea across in terms of words. What does work, though, is if you "intuitively search" for a "geometric shape" that "feels like it fits" the concept you're trying to get across. This may be large or small, simple or complex, it's usually pretty offbeat, and sometimes it takes awhile to 'feel out' the various proportions of it that intuitively feel right.

Once you have the whole thing feeling appropriate, then you can present that shape to an entity--and to them, for whatever reason, it apparently makes sense.

Often I've had this "language training" in dreams that felt like some kind of geometry. And there's a level of both spontaneous dowsing (simple gut-locating) and grokking (like a whole galaxy) that is entirely based on "geometry-of-meaning."

For a long time I considered the 'base' of most everything in the universe to be 'shapes and relationships of energy' -- or, geometry -- but so far I still have no evidence for that. Then I considered geometry to be a sort of language, because for me shapes were being used as a language. But eventually I realized that I was marginalizing the whole concept.

A given shape/geometry of energy is just as much a 'thing' as, say, a chair -- and in some respects, might be more 'pure' a thing, for having less 'add-on' to its nature: it's just a shape, not necessarily some material-energy made into a thing in that shape. Shapes don't feel like thoughtforms to me because they feel like they are behind or under that, as if thought itself is laid upon shape in order to take a certain 'form' -- as thoughts are not physical, the 'form' they take is a sort of geometry... it becomes physical, in an energetic sense, on some level. This could be wrong or incomplete, it's just my impressions so far.

I once merged with a geometric shape; it was astounding, like my whole form took on that shape, like it grew to life inside me and 'of' me with my energy, and like I morphed and stretch to match it, which was awesome. But the real point I'm making is only that eventually, I came to consider all geometric form--which is infinite--to be at base, a sort of identity of its own. Let's say something simple, like a triangle. As a geometry, which is also an archetype... it is an identity.

Numbers are in the same category. I once merged with the number 4. Man, 99.9% of the experience was completely ineffable, and that's just the part I was able to retain when it was over; most was too far out. It was like becoming one of the fundamental building blocks of the universe. Every number is infinite, as Liber al vel Legis says... I really believe that now. Before that experience I had never considered that the number four was literally "sentient to the degree of a powerful godform". That was hard to wrap my brain around for awhile, since to me, numbers are just abstracts.

But aside from numbers, so are fictional characters. So are geometries. Abstracts, ideas, just as much as physical things, are at the least thoughtforms, and in the case of geometric shapes and numbers, possibly much, much more. It's a little hazy on the lesser things, but there is no doubt on the greater things, that these are definitely--at the least--"identities".

Identity is an arbitrary collection of energy. 10 marbles, a bowl, and that bowl of marbles, are 12 different identities technically--because when you start adding things together, your equation has a slightly different sum; every combined thing is a new identity just from the combination, more than the sum of its parts. Let us say you have a table at a restaurant, and you have five people plus a waiter, and all the food, and a birthday cake, and a celebration. All the components that are part of that birthday dinner go into making up the *identity* that is "the birthday dinner." That identity is a conglomerate, a composite, and it includes several people and objects and aside from that, it includes all energy dynamics within a given span of time, and many other subtle elements.

This is why in remote viewing, you can target an idea. You can target a fictional character. You can target an event. Even though these things are not "things," nor are they "people", those definitions themselves make up an identity.

And because everything is an identity--a unique identity, even though in many cases there is so little uniqueness that a viewer tends to get more of the group thoughtform/ archetype than the specific (e.g. if targeted on a television, a viewer is as likely to get archetypal info about TVs, even if it's not accurate for the specific one in question)--but because everything is an identity, viewers are more than capable of simply tuning into that identity as a "target".

You might say that the whole identity concept is merely a "singular" way of putting it. A person has a ton of different energy and components but we call that conglomerate "PJ". A television has a zillion tiny parts but we call it "a TV." A birthday dinner has a ton of different elements, from physical forms to entities to objects to 'energy dynamics' without form, but we call it "a birthday dinner."

The fact that identity is arbitrary and able to be collected in infinite ways is great. It's what allows "a target" to be a singular tasking in RV, rather than a detailed list of every imaginable detail involved. That's pretty important, since at root, we may not even know what all is involved and that might be part of the whole point of viewing something in the first place. But if we know the "host identity" -- the target -- we can explore its components.

So, is accessing a given "identity" merely a matter of getting your attention to it? Is every identity comprised of energy? If there is no space, and there is no time, exactly 'where and when' is this energy being stored? How do we find the Star Trek "section 729G" address of that identity?


No comments: