Thursday, May 29, 2003
“Essence as Holonic Personality”
“Regional Area Walk-Through”
Participants: Mary (Michael) and Paul (Caroll).
Elias arrives at 1:41 PM. (Arrival time is 23 seconds.)
ELIAS: Good day!
PAUL: Good afternoon, old friend! (Elias laughs) Always a pleasure to speak with you!
ELIAS: And how shall we proceed?
PAUL: Well, I thought we would continue today with some of the imagery and ideas we talked about in our last private session. (1) But before we get to that I thought I’d do a reversal and actually just ask some questions for some friends, you know how that goes. (Elias smiles) So just to put that on the table first, if that’s okay with you.
ELIAS: Ha ha ha! Very well!
PAUL: Okay, the first question is for my mother, Brenda [Frieda], who sends her regards to you.
ELIAS: And you may express the same to her.
PAUL: And I shall. Her question is she’s wondering if she’s a final focus. My impression is that she is.
PAUL: Okay, great. And then a question for Cathy. She’s been experiencing a nerve – not pain – a nerve sensation from her shoulder to her heart area, something when she pushes off with her left hand, it’s like an electrical nerve thing, and she is curious if there is some connection with Bobbi’s recent heart imagery there.
PAUL: And would you care to elaborate? (Both laugh)
ELIAS: In a partial manner, it may be identified as an empathetic expression. Now; this is associated with anxieties and Shynla’s connection or understanding of that type of expression, and she is generating a manifestation physically – not in extreme, but enough to notice in generating this type of a connection with Jale in an expression of empathy.
PAUL: Okay, great. I’m sure she’ll be pleased to hear that. (Elias chuckles) And my final question is someone who I don’t know directly, but his name is Micah, and it’s not the same as Michael Wilson, but he is curious if you would offer his general information. And rather than me asking specifics, I’ll just let you offer, or whatever, however you want to respond to that for him.
ELIAS: And have impressions been offered as to family alignment and orientation?
PAUL: Uh, no, he didn’t – let me be clear for a second. No, I don’t believe, he did not offer his own impressions.
ELIAS: Very well. Essence name, Meane (MAY nah); M-E-A-N-E.
PAUL: And would you pronounce that again for me?
ELIAS: Essence family, Tumold; alignment, Sumari; orientation, common.
PAUL: Great. I’m sure he’ll appreciate that. Thank you.
Moving on to continue with our series of dream mission discussions. (2) I guess I should mention I’ve been talking to Norm and Reta every couple of weeks since January and we’ve been having interesting conversations really from Norm’s physicist point of view and I guess what we could roughly say from my psychological point of view, and I just wanted to mention that he’s been very helpful from that perspective in helping me continue to develop and refine my ideas and my interpretations of your ideas. (3)
And I wanted to start today with something that we’ve all talked about before, which is the links of consciousness idea, and I wanted to put a word out there, a term, called holon. And a holon is just a theoretical construct which is very interesting to me, and again this is in the same spirit of offering this out there and seeing what your feedback would be on it, but the idea behind a holon as a theoretical unit like a link of consciousness is that, at least in the physical world manifestation, it is a whole made of parts; so in a sense it’s a whole.
But it also has parts that we can look at. There’s no separation between these parts, which is when we look at it as a whole, and then, in turn, every holon can be transcended and included into what we, just again in physical terms, could call a super-holon, and from the holon’s perspective these parts could be considered sub-holons, that each part in itself has a whole/part nature. So it reflects this nested relationship that combines the idea that there is no separation within consciousness on one hand, and yet in a world of time, that there is an appearance of separation and parts that we can look at. So I was just wondering what you think about that idea.
ELIAS: As a presentment in association with what?
PAUL: Really with anything, any “what.” The idea – and I know you’re trying to get me to refine this a bit – the idea that every holon has a perspective. There’s a wholeness perspective and there’s a parts perspective also, and it simply then depends – it shows the relativity of different perspectives that are nested together within all of consciousness.
ELIAS: What you are describing conceptually is quite similar to the expression of essence, which incorporates those qualities that you are identifying in this concept of this holon. (4)
PAUL: That makes sense.
ELIAS: For it is an expression that is a whole that appears to incorporate parts, but without separation there are no actual parts – there is the whole and different directions, different perceptions, of the whole, but not separate entities except in the expressions of physical manifestations in relation to time.
PAUL: Mmhm. So in one sense I would use the phrase “holonic personality” to attempt to describe my version of the expression of essence from a physical standpoint, from a linear time, from an outer ego perspective, and yet holonic personality is then “one-made-of-many.” And there’s imagery in the world’s religions (Elias nods several times) that reflect this and I guess I’ll just provide an example and ask you to comment on that.
There’s a Buddhist icon, and it’s a long name and I may be mispronouncing it, but it’s something like Avalokiteshvara, and the picture of it’s quite beautiful. It’s a human figure, and yet the face is three-sided and there are two, three, four, several three-sided heads on top of it and there are what looks like dozens of arms coming out. And when I saw that picture in the context of, we’ll call it the expression of essence, one-made-of-many, I thought, “My goodness, that is a literal – it’s not literal – it’s a figurative interpretation of the expression of essence.” Is that correct?
ELIAS: Yes. (5)
PAUL: Yeah, so over the millennia, the various yogis or practitioners, whatever terms we want to use of people who have perceived directly and interacted with their own essence or other essences in an altered state, shall we say, this is the type of how it gets interpreted in linear terms (Elias nods), in the physically manifest terms, correct?
ELIAS: Yes. Yes, you are correct. Therefore, also, the symbolization of the lotus flower.
PAUL: Right, right. Now there’s another principle that I want to try and tie into this idea, the expression of essence being a holon, a holonic personality tone, and it’s the idea of what you call choice and what other philosophers might call free will, the ability to make choice, that when we look at one-made-of-many and there’s apparent whole and there’s apparent parts, there’s some sort of holonic boundary, what I believe you just referred to as a veil and piercing a veil. And so these veils are the way that essence manages to create the appearance of wholes and parts. (Elias nods several times.)
And so the idea, though, is that free will – see this is something that I’ve been wrestling with for a couple of years in that, and I asked you a version of this question before, and I believe it was around February of 1998, and I’ll check that and add that in a footnote to this session, but I talked about at that time what I just called “the veto power of essence” and I cited an example from the first Oversoul Seven book where the character Joseph was levitated several miles down the hill and your response to me was that that was figurative and of let’s just say the relationship of one-made-of-many (Elias nods) and how that might interact. (6)
But what I’m sensing is that essence as a whole has this type of free will. And in that exploration of consciousness and that creativity that is present within essence there is a type of free will or holonic free will present at that, let’s just call it a “layer,” – I’ll put that in quotes, because it’s not a separate thing – and yet for me as a focus of essence, I, for all intents and purposes, have what appears to be free will to make choices and do what I want within my own boundaries.
And let’s say on another level the cells in my liver, we can identify them as a cell, so it has a boundary, and they have a free will in which to be liver cells, and they are happy little liver cells doing what they do (Elias nods), regardless of what I choose, regardless of how the essence layer chooses – it’s not regardless, that’s not the right word – but it’s nested within, there’s multiple free will.
PAUL: And that’s part of the design of the oubliette and the remembrance. (7) Is that correct?
ELIAS: (Nods) Correct. But in this what may be challenging – to generate a clear understanding of – is the element of the lack of separation. For in the association of separating you generate your expressions in association with your beliefs concerning a type of hierarchy in which in your perception as you view any manifestation in a smaller and smaller and smaller capacity, it becomes less and less and less in relation to the hierarchy of choices and its individual free will per se, which is actually incorrect. This also generates the idea and the association of less of an empowerment to the individual, for it generates the idea that you, or whatever it is that is you as your consciousness, is separate from all of these other elements, be they physical manifestations of cells, or be they non-physical expressions of essence. Are you understanding thus far?
PAUL: Yes, absolutely.
ELIAS: This is quite strongly associated with your beliefs within this physical reality. And in this, in relation to your archetypes, so to speak, that you are creating, the element of the interconnectedness and the lack of separation is significant, for this expresses that there is not necessarily an independence of all of these different expressions or manifestations without cooperation. (8)
Therefore, the liver cell does incorporate what you term to be free will, but in cooperation with the whole, for it is not separated from the whole. But the whole is not necessarily dictating to the part, just as the whole of essence, which also incorporates choice and direction, is not dictating to what you perceive to be the parts of the focuses, for they also incorporate choice.
PAUL: Right. So, if I can try and summarize what you said in terms of challenging, I think, is a caution in that we’re dealing with a type of hierarchy – really, nested hierarchy, holonic hierarchies, and they are valid, it’s a valid concept. However, it’s very easy to misinterpret or take an interpretation of hierarchy into a place where we diminish certain parts (Elias nods), shall we say, in relation to the whole.
ELIAS: Correct! And what I am expressing to you is that the idea of the hierarchy is a belief.
ELIAS: This is the element that generates distortion and misunderstanding, for in actuality, there is no hierarchy and no part is less significant than the whole.
ELIAS: For without the parts, there is no whole.
ELIAS: Which is, in actuality, the reverse of what you generally associate within your beliefs – that the whole generates the parts, that the whole is first, so to speak, and the parts are generated from that initial whole. But this, in actuality, is incorrect, for the parts are elements of the whole that have always been present.
ELIAS: It is merely a manner of manipulating energy in different configurations to generate manifestations.
PAUL: Mmhm. What you just said I’ve been wrestling with, of how to explain this in simple ways. And I mean there is a general way I approach this, which is of duality and the manifest/the unmanifest (Elias nods several times), time/no-time, space/no-space, and looking at dualities like that – parts/wholes – because there’s essentially a paradox in our perception, in our belief systems that we’re so used to taking for granted – that this acorn-sapling-tree aspect to our perception here, that that’s absolute somehow. (9) And I know that this is not an absolute, and so there’s a basic paradox of how to try and wrestle with that, and I guess that’s all I’m really trying to do with these different concepts.
ELIAS: I am understanding. Even in this example that you have offered of the seed, the sapling, and the tree you may view the different perspectives in the association with those three elements. In one direction, you may perceive that the grandeur of the final product, so to speak, is generated by the small beginning; or that the large generates the smaller. Both of which in association with consciousness are a distortion and an absolute association and somewhat incorrect, but generally speaking, this is the manner in which you associate in relation to your beliefs. Either some vast entity creates all of the smaller entities, or the small entity creates and continues to grow to become the large entity.
PAUL: Right, and that’s essentially from the space-time point of view is where the belief systems develop about that. From the no-space/no-time or the simultaneity perspective that’s obviously incorrect (Elias nods throughout), that all of those exist as a simultaneity, and yet, as they manifest in a time framework, the acorn is the emergent part, then the sapling, and then the tree, and it has to appear that way. However, that’s one perspective, that’s one holonic perspective, which is mine, being in time, in a body in time.
However, from a different perspective outside of time, more of shall we just say an essence perspective, that’s not the way it is at all. And that duality seems to be what we wrestle with in trying to find ways to conceptualize and, not only that, but then to help understand it further and explore it ourselves from this linear space-time point of view.
PAUL: Which leads a couple of places. Let me just throw another idea out there. And if we’re talking about expression of essence or holonic personality tone and hierarchy/non-hierarchy, nests within nests, there is some type of holonic communication meshwork therefore between them (Elias nods throughout), this network of wholes and parts. And if we just take the example of essence, focus of attention, and a liver cell, in that particular focus of attention, what you were talking about earlier that the critical understanding of the cooperation of that nest is absolute. Without the cooperation that nest doesn’t manifest ever. And so, each super, regular, and sub-part/whole of it still communicates. In order to cooperate, a liver cell, the focus of attention and the essence are talking to each other, are translating, projecting energy, and translating energy, and it’s not just two-way, is it? It’s multidimensional.
PAUL: Right. Right, and then trying to discover from my perspective, from the forgetting, the oubliette perspective, trying to remember that communication meshwork is kind of cool (laughs and Elias smiles), is something of an art-science that I think will emerge in the next few centuries. (10)
ELIAS: Yes. (Nods)
PAUL: Well, I would love to hear you comment then, just on this idea of communication. Now you already have, of course, with your avenues of communication from essence to the focus of attention through impression, imagination, inner senses, dreams, physical sensation (Elias nods several times) and so forth, so that’s one avenue of holonic communication from subjective awareness of the essence to objective awareness. Are there other – what other dimensions or angles or parts of a communication network are there that we haven’t talked about yet? I guess I’m asking for some more clues. (Laughs)
ELIAS: In relation to other dimensions?
PAUL: Yeah, I know this is tough. No, not, well, I guess probably is where this leads, because I’m thinking of myself in a single dimension and I realize what you refer to is Regional Area 1 is penetrated with infinite sub-dimensions, correct?
ELIAS: Correct. (11)
PAUL: So, so, okay, this holonic communication, it’s infinite, in one sense, but I want to try to get more concrete examples. So what else should I throw into this then? Let me, can I try another idea?
PAUL: (Both laugh) Okay, I appreciate it. Let’s put in the idea of probable selves, because I think that helps to get us into a multi-dimensional framework here. And this is something that we might be able to ask some further questions about. From my perspective, as a focus of attention, I have a probable birth, but that is really the initiation of all of my probable selves, is that correct?
PAUL: In terms of linear time…
PAUL: …I’m calling it linear time. So, we’ll just take my life, and I was born May 5, 1955, so I’m a little baby there, and I’m doing my thing, and at some point I splinter off into my first probable self. And at another point life conditions create a tension-resolution (Elias nods throughout) to such a point where I splinter off into yet another probable self – and I’m referring mentally, Elias, to a chart that I showed Mary back in January (Elias nods), so I think you have that in her memory bank to refer to with these probable selves and these bifurcation points. Is that diagram a roughly accurate, at least beginning way to look at probable selves as they fragment through time? (12)
ELIAS: For it is an initial draft of identifying movements and choices and directions within one focus which generate probable selves in different points of the focus.
Now; recognize whenever you generate one of these points in which you, in your terms, splinter a probable self, you do not merely generate one probable self or one probable reality, for in that moment all of the probable probabilities are actualized.
PAUL: And that would then include all subsequent probable splintering?
ELIAS: Therefore, in a manner of speaking, it is infinite.
PAUL: Right. And yet in a manner of speaking there’s a way to make it somewhat discrete, correct?
ELIAS: Discrete in ….
PAUL: Yeah, finite, I guess. It’s back to that duality – finite vs. infinite.
ELIAS: The finite action is the choice that you generate that you insert into your reality. But from that choice springs, so to speak, infinite choices and infinite scenarios of probabilities.
PAUL: Right, that’s clear. This is good. This is helpful here. So I want to get back to the choice, the free will, the choice that is a bifurcation point. There’s something else in this.
At the bifurcation point itself, for example, the liver cell bifurcates also, my entire physical form bifurcates, or is it the entire, the entire dimension? (Pause)
ELIAS: (Takes a deep breath) Figuratively speaking, yes. In relation to you.
PAUL: To the perspective, the focus of attention.
ELIAS: (Nods) Correct. And the essence.
PAUL: Ah, right, right, right. I keep forgetting that layer! (Both laugh) Oh, but I’m getting more in touch with including that layer, because that is the primary thing, and it’s just so invisible that I keep forgetting about it! But that’s the nature of the forgetting, isn’t it? (Elias laughs loudly)
You appreciate this, don’t you? (Both laugh) My confusion? My remembering. I know you do. (Elias laughs) So, this question, then, you just articulated that thus far in my awareness that it’s a major decision vs. some minor decision, so if I get up to go to the bathroom, I don’t necessarily fragment into a probable self, correct?
PAUL: So there is some intensity within energy that’s discernible somehow, where this probable splintering occurs, correct?
PAUL: So that is something that Norm and the dream-art physicists will eventually begin to identify somehow, correct?
PAUL: Yes, okay.
ELIAS: You are already moving in that direction, for you are already recognizing that there are points in your movement that are identifiable in time which signify that action of generating probable selves and probable realities.
ELIAS: And that you may actually intersect those probable realities and probable selves and interact. You may move into those probable realities and move also back to your own.
PAUL: And how would I know in my objective awareness that this has occurred? There must be some perceptible apprehension in objective terms, not necessarily five senses, not necessarily a thought, but in terms of impression, impulse, feeling, even emotion, I guess, since that’s a baseline and a key avenue of essence communication. Is there then an emotional way that I could learn to discern these probability points, these bifurcation points?
ELIAS: You may easily identify these points objectively. The manner in which you identify these points is merely to be viewing your movement objectively and your directions, and each time you generate an alteration of your direction you may, in your terms, mark this as a point of creating probable selves and probable realities. In those time frameworks in which you generate decisions, choices that change your direction in some manner, you are generating probable realities also.
For example, an individual may be avoiding a collision within their vehicle, and it may be what you term to be a near miss. In that moment there has been a jerk action of the individual’s direction. The direction was to collide, and in that moment there has been an alteration of the direction which is noticeable, but it is also abrupt.
Now; not all probable realities are generated in abrupt alterations of your directions, but those are quite noticeable. Those that may be more subtle, so to speak, but are also quite obvious, may be pinpointed in any decisions and choices that you incorporate that change your direction. Incorporating different schools, the choice of coupling yourself with another individual, or dissolving a coupling, generating a new relationship with another individual, different expressions of friendships that may change your direction. Now; you may be incorporating a friendship and not be generating a probable self or reality; it is dependent upon whether your direction changes. But each time you alter your direction you also create probable realities, and in that moment all of the probabilities are actualized.
PAUL: Hmm. So desire, intent, and emotion are involved in those choices.
PAUL: That result in the bifurcation in the new sense of probabilities.
ELIAS: Not necessarily result. Desire, yes. Emotion is a communication, therefore it is an involvement, for it is an action of communication that you offer to yourself in relation to what you are doing, identifying what you are doing, and communicating to yourself about that action. Desire, yes, is a motivating factor. Your intent, yes, that also generates an involvement for all of your directions are associated with your intent.
PAUL: So the emotional communication then is a signal, that is, well, in linear terms, after the choice. (Pause. Elias takes a deep breath.) Not necessarily. (Laughs)
ELIAS: In actuality, it appears to be subsequent to the choice. In actuality, it is literally generated at the moment of choice, but in association with the movement of your attention it appears that the communication is expressed after.
PAUL: Right. So this would be one way to identify, then, one of these bifurcation points through the intensity of the emotional signal?
ELIAS: (Another deep breath. Paul laughs) Not necessarily. For at times you may generate a choice to be altering your direction and not necessarily offer yourself an intensity of emotional communication.
PAUL: That makes sense, right.
ELIAS: Especially if you are generating a strength in trust of yourself, you do not question your choices, and in that expression of trust, regardless of how affecting the alteration of your direction may be, you may not necessarily be generating an emotional communication concerning it.
PAUL: Mmhm. So the key then is identifying the doing and choosing.
ELIAS: Yes, and paying attention to the emotional communications if you are generating them.
PAUL: Right, so it all works together (Elias nods) in a spectrum.
ELIAS: Yes, which is quite important to be paying attention to all of these different functions and generating them in harmony. When any one of them is not in harmony with the others, you are attempting to communicate some information to yourself that concerns your beliefs and concerns how you are influencing your perception and, therefore, how you are influencing your reality.
PAUL: Mmhm. That makes sense. So if I could ask you at this point based on our conversation today and in the previous session, to just walk through, then, the four Regional Areas, in a very general sense, to try and give a sense of their relationship to each other in the context of the expression of essence and the holonic personality, and just what we’ve been talking about in a sense. Would you mind just trying to walk through the four?
ELIAS: In what sense?
PAUL: In the sense of their . . . yeah, in what sense?
ELIAS: You, as essence, figuratively speaking – for consciousness is not a place and it is also not a thing – but figuratively speaking, you as essence occupy all areas of consciousness. Therefore, identifying any particular Regional Area is actually identifying different actions.
In this, Regional Area 1 is the aspect of you in which you generate the action of physicality.
Regional Area 2 is the area in which you generate the action of communication in association with Regional Area 1 and all other Regional Areas. It is the bridge to Regional Area 1, allowing for the availability of any desired information.
Regional Area 3 is the action of interconnectedness, collective, of no separation, which also, in a manner of speaking, feeds to Regional Area 1 through Regional Area 2, in the sense within Regional Area 1 of being interconnected in some manner regardless that there is the appearance of separation.
Regional Area 4 is the action of, (pause) in a manner of speaking, your archetype. In association with any action of generating any physical manifestation, this springs, figuratively speaking, from this whole of Regional Area 4. (13)
PAUL: Thank you.
ELIAS: Which is also the part – but the whole – of the whole, of all of the other Regional Areas.
PAUL: Does the Regional Area metaphor break down at that point, as far as my perspective is concerned?
ELIAS: As to your understanding within your physical awareness, your objective awareness, yes.
PAUL: Now that makes perfect sense. So in theoretical terms, when we talk about this physical reality, if we deal with these four nested Regional Areas, that’s pretty much going to cover it.
ELIAS: (Nods) Yes.
PAUL: And yet, on the other hand, consciousness in its vastness, of course, branches out in all sorts of different ways.
PAUL: And there’s just no point in referring to them as Regional Areas.
PAUL: Right. That makes sense! (Laughs)
ELIAS: This is the ongoing, infinite lotus flower.
ELIAS: For what you are exploring is directly associated with your physical reality and, in your terms, what is related to your physical reality and, in this, these four Regional Areas may be directly associated with physical reality – not merely your physical reality, but any physical reality.
PAUL: Right. Right. And from the Regional Area 4 perspective, you’re saying that all physical dimensions are connected from that Regional Area focus of attention?
PAUL: That makes sense. So as essence, then, the aspects of essence manifest in Regional Area 4. It is their choice and intent to explore these physical time frameworks from that construct, this Regional Area 3, 2, 1 (Elias nods throughout) nest unfolds and is explored from that perspective.
PAUL: And so essence, then, of course, explores in other ways and there’s really no point in me talking about them right now! (Both laugh)
ELIAS: This is one direction. Now; beyond what is identified as Regional Area 4 you are incorporating the genuine expression of no separation, and therefore there is no distinction, so to speak, of essence, for essence is consciousness, and consciousness is not a thing; therefore there is no thing to be separated.
PAUL: Right, right, and let me ask you this, then: As I study the different perennial philosophies and translations and interpretations – that’s referred to in the Buddhist tradition as non-dual emptiness. And they recognize that that is just a label which is meaningless in one context, (Elias nods throughout) because it’s only a description, it’s not the focus of attention itself.
PAUL: It’s not even a focus of attention.
ELIAS: (Nods) Correct. (14)
PAUL: So these maps are somewhat accurate! (Laughs. Elias nods) In the sense of showing a non-dual source consciousness that’s unmanifest, ineffable, inexpressible and yadda-yadda, but as sort of this beyond Regional Area 4, which of course isn’t beyond, because it’s within everything.
ELIAS: Correct. But they are somewhat accurate. They are translations, and they are associated with what you know within your physical reality, and they are associated with your beliefs, but they are not entirely inaccurate.
PAUL: And specifically, I was referring to that sort of trans-Regional Area 4 part of the nest, whatever you want to call it, because I wasn’t sure about that before, but I understand it, I can conceptualize it better now (Elias nods), and then I find great joy and amazement to see that others have at least experienced it briefly and have attempted to map it for those of us who are still in our forgetting and as we go along. (15) (Elias laughs)
And I find that consonant with what you just said about the four Regional Areas, and then trans-Regional Areas (Elias nods), that’s not even verbal, there’s no object, there’s no thing, no process, no consciousness, no energy, no perspective, but there IS…
PAUL: …basically, IS.
PAUL: That’s close enough for today! (Both laugh) Oh, I just have a couple more questions here, and I really, again, I always appreciate our discussions and your helpfulness and the clues that you plant for me to ponder here as the years roll by. (Elias laughs)
Back to the probable selves idea and the fact that it’s a cluster and whatnot – in a sense, then, from the essence perspective, as it goes through a cycle of manifestation and explodes all its manifestations (Elias nods) and whatnot, as probable selves are created in a time framework, this means, then, that there are – and I know it’s obvious, but I just wanted to state it for the record – that there’s probable deaths, there’s holonic deaths, there’s not a single death.
There is no death, which as you’ve said is a translation of state, a translation of being, a new chapter beginning – but beyond that (Elias nods), just in terms of regular linear time in these probable dimensions that are nested within my Regional Area 1 in this dimension, there are countless probable deaths experienced.
ELIAS: Correct, for this also is a choice to alter your direction.
PAUL: Right, right. Wow.
ELIAS: And in that choice to alter your direction you, once again, generate numberless probable realities and probable selves.
PAUL: And from the perspective of essence, that’s all maintained in a simultaneous focus of attention?
PAUL: Yeah, that’s amazing. (Both laugh) It’s really amazing to be in my little bubble where I am floating through consciousness and knowing that there’s another veil and another veil, which are all present right here, right now (Elias chuckles), in a very simple way.
Just a couple things here. The chart that I showed to Mary, I just wanted to get your feedback that it was not a distortion in terms of the multiple focuses. I attempted to show a beginning, continuing – or initiating, continuing, final focus, even observing focuses, where the initiating focus is in terms of linear time, it’s like number seven, and the final focus is like number five, so it shows that they’re non-linear.
ELIAS: (Nods) Correct.
PAUL: And it also shows then the nine – from my focus of attention, physically manifest focus of attention – there are nine forms of time, in a general way, in a very general way, and how they relate then to each of the other focuses. Is that, was that somewhat accurate how I mapped that?
ELIAS: (Takes another deep breath) Identify nine forms of time.
PAUL: Okay. We take past, present, future (Elias nods throughout), and just matrix it into past-past, past-present, past-future; present-past, present-present, present-future; future-past, future-present, future-future. Each one being a valid perspective from my now.
ELIAS: Yes. Yes. (16)
PAUL: So each focus personality….
ELIAS: In your now. Yes.
PAUL: This now can access those nine perspectives.
PAUL: Or does access those nine perspectives in different ways, even though there’s a tendency to stay in the present-present and present-past and present-future.
ELIAS: (Nods) Correct.
PAUL: So there’s six past ones and future ones. (Elias nods throughout) Are there, and perhaps in altered focus or other ways, they are clearly accessible to us.
PAUL: Okay. Hmm. Wow. That does it on that chart. Just one more question then for today, old friend. (Elias laughs) The idea of – let me frame the question, I realize that’s so important in the way you answer – in the context of this acorn-sapling-tree developmental stages in time (Elias nods several times), from this focus of attention, from the essence focus of attention, it’s a simultaneity, recognizing that – as we go through that, the ten belief systems that you’ve presented to us (17) as general areas of beliefs that work together are present in the acorn, they’re present in the sapling, they’re present in the tree to different degrees, and therefore….
ELIAS: Not to different degrees. They are all present continuously. The distinction is that they are not all expressed.
PAUL: Right. Okay. And, okay….
ELIAS: They are….
PAUL: As they get expressed, as we develop and go through our developmental stages – and this is a moral question (Elias nods). Okay, this is a tricky one. This is duplicity, the belief system of duplicity is present. And let me just ask you this question – in your context, the belief system of duplicity would be the area where we would look at morals and ethical belief systems?
ELIAS: (Nods) Yes.
PAUL: Where we judge good and bad?
PAUL: As opposed to the other nine, which deal with relationships, I mean, and that as you stated the belief system of duplicity is nested within the other nine…
ELIAS: (Nods throughout) Correct.
PAUL: …and so that moral judgment is always present…
PAUL: …and with our relationships, with emotion, sexuality, and on with the others. So all I’m just trying to get is that this belief system of duplicity, it changes in time also. It goes through a, what we could loosely call, an acorn, sapling, and tree stage.
ELIAS: That would be quite figurative…
PAUL: (Laughs) Okay.
ELIAS: …for it is not a development. Do not misunderstand. You incorporate all of the beliefs within all of the belief systems from the moment that you choose to be participating in this particular physical reality. Now; you express relatively few beliefs within each belief system. I am aware that it appears to each of you that you express many beliefs in association with each belief system, but in relation to the countless beliefs which are contained within each belief system, relatively speaking, you express few.
Now; those are not absolute either. They change. The beliefs do not change, but which beliefs are expressed may change. Some beliefs you continue to express throughout the entirety of your focus, but some you do not. You may move your attention in association with different directions that you incorporate within one focus and that may alter which beliefs are expressed.
An indicator of this that you may obviously objectively recognize is preferences. Preferences change. You may incorporate certain preferences in one time framework and within another time framework you may incorporate other preferences. Preferences are merely preferred expressed beliefs. And in viewing how your preferences change, you also indicate to yourself that other expressed beliefs also change and may become non-expressed beliefs and exchanged for other beliefs to be expressed. (18)
PAUL: That makes sense.
ELIAS: This is the significance of genuinely generating an objective understanding of what you actually incorporate within this physical dimension – that beliefs are not your enemy and that they are not to be eliminated, but rather that you move your awareness to a wider expression and recognize that you actually incorporate a myriad of beliefs to choose; which rather than your familiar association with beliefs in automatically viewing them as bad, the point is to recognize that they are an integral expression and design of this physical dimension and to be incorporating optimum movement and creativity within this physical dimension to allow yourself to be incorporating the choice of all of them. Use them rather than attempting to eliminate them. And the manner in which you use them efficiently is to neutralize them in association with judgment.
Now; as I have stated, duplicity is a belief system also, and it incorporates beliefs also. And those are not to be eliminated either, but rather to be recognized in relation to preference or the lack of preference, not in absolutes. But you may continue to incorporate your opinion and your preferences, knowing that they are relative to you, and not an absolute.
PAUL: Right, and at some point, at some point in linear terms, the awareness, the focus of attention becomes aware of what you just said – preference, opinion – as opposed to absolute.
PAUL: So it’s not inherent in the acorn stage, necessarily, or is it?
ELIAS: That awareness?
PAUL: Yes, that awareness.
ELIAS: The potential of that awareness, yes, is.
PAUL: But oftentimes, more often than not, that potential is not anywhere near fully realized in the preconventional stages.
ELIAS: (Nods) Correct. In this time framework and throughout your history, you are correct. But this is the reason that you are incorporating this shift in consciousness.
PAUL: So are you suggesting, then, that post-shift (19) that the preconventional stages will be more aware of that potential awareness, will be more fully manifest in the preconventional stages?
PAUL: Oh, that’s good news. See, there, I made a judgment! (Both laugh) But that makes sense as far as the shift, and that would be a huge shift from where we are presently.
ELIAS: (Nods) Yes, you are quite correct. (20)
PAUL: And just the last question then. The ten belief systems – they’re general, you know, we could divide them up other ways too, I suppose, but it covers a spectrum – those ten are inherent in the blueprints.
PAUL: So that as an essence, when it manifests, say, 1200 focuses – woof! – those ten are in all 1200 focuses.
ELIAS: (Nods) Yes.
PAUL: Yeah, okay, that’s consistent with your model as you’ve explained it so far. Well, I guess that does it for me today, old friend!
ELIAS: Ha ha ha! Very well. (Paul laughs) I shall be anticipating our next discussion. Ha ha ha!
PAUL: And so shall I. And I just have to say again how deeply I appreciate the interactions, and I do prefer being in physical proximity but the telephone will do also. (21)
ELIAS: Ha ha ha! Very well, my friend. To you, as always, I express great lovingness, and in my tremendous affection, au revoir.
PAUL: Au revoir.
Elias departs at 2:56 PM.
(2) Paul’s note: see sessions:
Digests: find out more about the dream mission.
(3) Paul’s note: Joanne and I first met Norm and Reta Farb at the Sethnet Int’l. conference in New Haven, CT in November 1996. Coincidentally, they also met Vicki Pendley and Ron Churchman, saw a videotape of Mary/Elias in the conference break room, and shortly thereafter began to attend Elias group sessions in Castaic, CA.
Norm is a physicist and Reta has a background in various religious and spiritual teachings. They recently relocated to Independence, OR from Southern California.
(4) Paul’s note: social philosopher Arthur Koestler (1905-1983) coined the term holon as the fundament unit of whole/parts that form a holarchy. For example, a human holon is a whole made up of cells, molecules, quantum fields, and CUs. A cell, in turn, is a whole made up of molecules, quantum fields, and CUs. By holonically situating any thing, process, or event within a holarchy, we can move beyond the modern reductio ad absurdum of fundamental parts. It opens the conceptual door beyond myths based on purely materialist or idealist conceptions of physical reality, because it includes both. Ken Wilber further developed these concepts in Sex, Ecology, Spirituality (1995) where he applied holons and holarchy to the “Great Chain of Being.” His twenty tenets of holons show generally how holarchy works.
So, holarchy consists of nested hierarchies (depths of unequivalence) and heterarchies (spans of equivalence). Proper use of hierarchy includes some kind of ranking guided by the principle of “not vice versa.” So ranking simply means that each properly identified wider hierarchical region becomes a superholon in relation to the previous subholon because they “transcend and include” their predecessors. For example, the following ranking or scale of depth occur naturally:
Linking means that within each hierarchical region we find holons of equal value that are crucial for overall systemic stability (i.e., no subholons or superholons). For example, the following links or spans of equivalence occur naturally:
However, we make these distinctions only to point out the exceedingly complex nature of overall relationships within All-That-Is in relation to our linear time framework (Framework 1). Since all hierarchies and heterarchies are nested together they are ultimately inseparable aspects of All-That-Is, which we could also call The Great Holarchy of Being (Wilber).
According to Peggy Wright, a pioneering voice in feminist transpersonal studies,
In terms of linear time, then, each holonic region within All-That-Is forms a critical heterarchy necessary for each succeeding hierarchical region to emerge in Framework 1 terms. According to current research, all quantum fields in Framework 1 manifest through some sort of implosion called The Big Bang. Atoms (quantum fields) formed almost immediately along with linear space-time. Once these basic elements were manifest, the foundation was laid for basic cellular biological life to emerge, followed by more complex forms of biological life, and so on. That is, there’s an order to the unfolding of consciousness from the perspective of Framework 1 (it is different from the subjective perspectives within nonlinear Frameworks 2, 3, 4...).
Simply put, our multiverse and planet Earth were not created in seven days, but took billions of years to form the proper systemic balance in the physiosphere for biological life to emerge. However, it’s important to note that each hierarchical region consists of rudimentary (narrow) forms of consciousness that dream and use inner senses. But in order for self-reflexive human life to emerge, the physiosphere (quantum fields) had to be just right for the basic biosphere (cellular life forms) to emerge, which then had to be just right for the noosphere (triune mammalian brain/minds) to emerge, which, and we’re speculating now, has to be just right for the psychosphere (subtle/astral) to emerge.
Could the emergence of the subtle/astral realms be a part of what Elias calls the shift in consciousness? I believe so, but it’s still too soon to tell in any systemic way.
Moving on, the following example shows holonic heterarchical linking within each region and holonic hierarchical ranking within wider “levels.” Again, we can slice up the “pie” of All-That-Is in many ways, so the following is only meant to show the exceedingly complex relationships involved in the creation of Framework 1 while being mindful of the nested, nonlinear Frameworks 2, 3, 4... that co-exist simultaneously.
In Framework 1 terms, then, each emergent region transcends and includes” its predecessor. For example, without electrons, there can be no atoms, without which there can be no molecules, without which there can be no biological life, and on and on:
Coincidentally, Seth’s consciousness unit (CU) was coined around the same time as Koestler’s holons. CUs are Seth’s version of a fundamental “unit” or holon – a “Part” that contains all knowledge of the “whole.” Also, Seth introduced “before the beginning” – an intentional paradox/koan – in Dreams, “Evolution,” and Value Fulfillment, Vol. 1 (1986) to describe cosmogenesis and involution/evolution in the context of these fundamental CUs.
Interestingly, Elias uses links of consciousness (LCs) in the same way Seth used CUs. And both map to the definition of holon used here. However, it’s semantically easier to use Koestler’s holon instead of Seth’s CU or Elias’ LC, for example, holonic personality works better than consciousness unit personality.
(5) Paul’s note: I referred to the following image – integral artist Alex Grey’s depiction of Avalokiteshvara, a Buddhist icon. It depicts the psyche (essence) as one-made-of-many, or what I call holonic personality. Elias confirms here that it’s “a figurative interpretation” of what he calls “the expression of essence.”
From Alex Grey, Sacred Mirrors: The Visionary Art of Alex Grey, Inner Traditions Int’l., Rochester, NY, 1990.
The above is an example of what I call “holonic free will” in which various nested aspects of essence work cooperatively, each within their own domain of choice and action. In Elias’ terms it would include aspects of objective and subjective awareness. This idea helps explain that the outer ego, or objective awareness, by itself doesn’t create all of its reality but works cooperatively in nested, holonic fashion with various subjective aspects of essence.
(7) Paul’s note: Together, the oubliette and the remembrance cover the full spectrum of human consciousness as it changes-in-time. Elias occasionally refers to a focus of essence as an oubliette. In French, oublier means “to forget.” In English, an oubliette is “a dungeon with an opening only at the top.” Sounds cozy, but according to Elias,
Digests: find out more about the oubliette.
The “remembrance” is not a memory in objective awareness. It thus has nothing to do with dualistic imagery in Regional Area 1 terms, but is a state of awareness, attention, or BE-ing. More from Elias,
(8) Paul’s note: archetypes were created by psychologist Carl Jung (1875-1961) to represent “sub”conscious aspects of the human psyche (essence) – universal symbols or blueprints within subjective awareness that are constantly translated through our dreams and myths in all cultures. For example, Jung described the:
Though they translate themselves into objective awareness as constructions colored by local cultural belief systems, the underlying symbols and roles are universal. So we find them expressed in various ways within mythic aspects of the world’s religions, sciences, philosophies, etc.
They exist in Elias’ information, too. For example, Dream Walkers, essence families, the nine children of Rose, “before the beginning,” etc. are all translations into Regional Area 1 terms of these inner symbols and blueprints.
(9) Paul’s note: the acorn-sapling-tree analogy is a simple way to show developmental changes-in-time in terms of Framework 1 manifestations. Folks sometimes confuse the notion of simultaneous time with this to mean that there is no such thing as an acorn, sapling, or a tree. Put another way, just because the acorns, saplings, and trees exist as simultaneous potentials within the blueprints in Frameworks 2, 3, and 4 doesn’t mean a full-grown oak tree will manifest overnight in Framework 1 terms. So, as a function of Framework 1, there are real, clearly observable stages of development that occur in physical bodies and mental abilities
(10) Paul’s note: this is an area of overlap with the Seth material. In The “Unknown” Reality, Vol. 1, Seth/Jane Roberts introduced the concept of dream-art science as a potential methodology in which to explore the “blueprints for reality” from our waking, Framework 1 consciousness.
For more info see The Dream-Art Science Sessions (700-704), Abridged.
Elias’ version is called the dream mission. For more info see Digests: the dream mission.
(11) Paul’s note: Elias has greatly expanded the definition of Framework 1 to include multiple sub-dimensions. For example, I asked Elias about a projection experience I had in March 1998 in which I awoke around 12 PM. in the vibrational state and was able to just sit up and “leave” my body in the bed. I had assumed that I was in Framework 2, but….
The above exchange also reminded me of Seth’s Alpha states in Seth Speaks (1972,1994). He outlined a spectrum of altered neurological focus that hints at significant ontological and phylogenetic relationships within normally “hidden” aspects of the psyche (essence).
There are five main areas:
Though Seth used numbers, his “map” isn’t strictly linear, like climbing up and down a ladder, but a more multidimensional spectrum of holonic personality. In other words, we don’t necessarily move through one to get to the next. If we think of our conscious mind as a radio that receives and translates energy transmissions from our inner ego (subjective awareness) over a spectrum of “stations,” we can simply assess any station by tuning into the proper “frequency.” It’s instantaneously available since we don’t have to travel “around” space-time as Elias stated earlier. We simply go “through” it.
Also, the alpha states outlined here don’t map directly to those of contemporary dream researchers. They define alpha as the relaxed state that precedes sleep. So Seth’s use of alpha states shouldn’t be confused with this more conventional scientific belief system. Still, Seth’s A1-A5 offers a “map” in which to conceptualize and interpret paranormal experiences in terms of lucid dreams, projections, near-death experiences, trance and other altered states.
Dream research is in its infancy in the West having only recently acknowledged lucid dreaming, which for example, is well known in Vedanta Hinduism. Western researchers have measured four main types of neurological focuses in which the brain/mind operates:
Coincidentally, these states correlate directly to those found in Vedanta, which also mapped a corresponding spectrum of energy-bodies.
All of which suggests that when we compare Elias’ sub-dimensions in Regional Area 1, Seth’s five alpha focuses, dream research’s beta, alpha, theta, delta states, Vedanta’s three states and energy bodies, we are talking about a similar range of phenomena that ballpark us for further exploration of the holonic communication meshwork I began to explore in this session. They describe complementary snapshots of the same spectrum of holonic personality. Integrating these snapshots into a parsimonious theory, model, and storyline is the goal of integral conscious creation.
(12) Paul’s note: I created a 2’ x 3’ “map” that visualized a group of Elias’ concepts including primary and observing essences, and beginning-continuing-final focuses. It also included several concepts from Seth/Jane Roberts such as the nine forms of time from The Education of Oversoul Seven (1973,1995), counterparts, probable selves, and Frameworks of Consciousness. I brought this with me to the session, and briefly reviewed it with Mary so that Elias would have a physical frame of reference for our discussion.
For photos of the original map see session 1246, January 16, 2003, endnote 2.
The following chart dealt with probable selves.
For an updated version see Integral Conscious Creation Maps (Holonic Personality).
(13) Paul’s note: it’s interesting that Elias places Jung’s archetypes within Regional Area 4. However, this is cursory information at best and not too much should be read into his statement until further clues are given. Also, according to Elias Regional Area 3 is where the action of transition occurs. It’s possible that these archetypes also play a role there.
(14) the perennial wisdom traditions all say something similar, namely, that “nondual emptiness” must be experienced directly. Words like Holy Ghost, Void, Emptiness, Shunyata, Dharmadhata, Turiya, Witness, Unborn, Buddha-mind, Atman, Brahman, I-I, All-That-Is (Seth), and all-of-consciousness (Elias) attempt to convey the ineffable subtleties of this “always already” perspective.
(15) Paul’s note: I referred to the following diagram that shows multiple maps of All-That-Is from various premodern traditions in terms of Levels of Reality (All-That-Is) and Levels of Selfhood (essence).
From Ken Wilber, A Theory of Everything: An Integral Vision for Business, Politics, Science, and Spirituality, Shambhala, Boston, MA, 2000, p. 68.
Note that Seth’s four Frameworks and Elias’ four Regional Areas map to Levels of Reality. Also, Seth’s outer ego, subconscious, inner ego and Elias’ objective awareness, avenues of communication, subjective awareness map to Levels of Selfhood.
From an integral conscious creation viewpoint, the idea is to remind ourselves that the words and maps are not the actual territory. They are merely our best attempts within any Now to map All-That-Is and the psyche (essence). The point, then, is to take the words and maps with a grain of salt, and simultaneously seek to “remember” what they signify, namely, our “always already” nondual Source (or Seth’s “unknown” reality).
For more info see What is Integral Conscious Creation?
(16) Paul’s note: here’s a summary of the nine forms of time from The Education of Oversoul Seven by Jane Roberts (1973,1995).
These nine primary time dimensions are available to every aspect of holonic personality, with the PRESENT/present forming a main focal point. For example, if we imagine a hundred focuses, there are actually nine hundred nested time dimensions within that holonic cluster that are relative to each other. For example, my PRESENT/present is the PAST/present of what I would consider a future focus. To that focus, I am considered a past focus. All are happening within the Now.
In practical terms, this means that we – our brain/minds – are actually “time machines” and hold the ability to “travel” into different time dimensions. In fact we do it every day – every time we daydream, sleep dream, or engage altered states. So the above is only a snapshot meant to ballpark us to the fact that there is much more available to our perception than the PRESENT/present.
“Oh great!” you say? “I’m just getting used to Seth, Elias, and others who talk about the importance of ‘being in the Now’.” “Does this mean that they’re wrong?”
No. When do you think we access these other time dimensions? From within the Now. The PRESENT/present is simply the nexus point in relation to all the others in Framework 1 terms. This is why it’s so important to learn to hold our attention “in the Now” because with practice we open to more and more holonic aspects of the Now.
Also, these time dimensions form fundamental holonic boundaries, veils of separation, and focuses of attention created/co-created by the psyche (essence). This relates to what Elias means when he talks about “no separation” within consciousness. For even though we wake up each day in our PRESENT/present Framework 1, we also hold the ability to access, merge, and communicate with every aspect self within these nested simultaneous time dimensions of Framework 1.
The nine forms of time may help better explain paranormal phenomenon like reincarnational memories (which may be more aptly called “other focus bleedthrough”), déjà vu, inspiration, invention, channeling, lucid dreaming, alien encounters, etc.
For an updated version see Integral Conscious Creation Maps (Holonic Personality).
(17) Paul’s note: the following are the ten primary belief systems (memes) according to Elias. He adds that there are many, many, many aspects within each belief system. However, they are not discrete, separated parts, but primary aspects (holons) that work together seamlessly within objective and subjective awareness. They also overlap. For example, aspects of the belief system of duplicity are present, in varying degrees, in each of the other nine (originally presented in session 364, February 24, 1999):
Together, these primary belief systems form a worldview typology that we can track over the course of a lifetime. From the body “level” we can track them through the stages of infancy, childhood, adolescence, , adulthood, and seniorhood. Combined with the mental “level,” we can also track them through various preconventional, conventional, postconventional, and wider stages.
Examples of existing typologies include the Myers-Briggs and the Enneagram. In our integral conscious creation model, they are systemic snapshots of overall traits within the collective body/mind in relation to individual body/minds through time.
According to Elias, the ten belief systems are inherent within the “blueprints” of our dimension (what Wilber calls “involutionary givens”). Every focus personality participating in a simultaneous cycle of manifestation translates this typology in an intentional, cultural, social, and behavioral context. Thus, the pattern of evolution is unique to every individual though measurable to some degree.
Moreover, these typologies are never set in stone – they are latent potentialities that evolution in Framework 1 terms. Their counterparts – blueprints, Source Events, and other “involutionary givens” – are also dynamic aspects of Frameworks 2, 3, 4.... Together, they provide more complete snapshots in any given moment point as we explore science, art, and morals in body, mind, and spirit.
Other typologies introduced by Elias to date include:
(18) Paul’s note: notice how Elias continually reinforces the idea of the simultaneous perspective of subjective awareness whenever I articulate things in too linear or objective a fashion. So even though I incorporate various psychological stage models that are readily apparent from decades of research, Elias reminds us that since all belief systems already exist in the blueprints (as “involutionary givens”) before we’re born, they can’t possibly evolve in terms of developmental stages.
However, he concedes that our preferences or expressed preferred beliefs do evolve. So that is all we’re mapping with our stage models. This serves as a reminder that it’s important to include subjective and intersubjective perspectives in our theories, models, and storylines. Otherwise, we map only the tips of the icebergs and reduce all submerged aspects to tip status. The result is a woefully incomplete map!
(19) Paul’s note: Elias has stated that the shift in consciousness with be complete by the third quarter mark of the twenty-first century.
“This shift in consciousness began at the turn of this present [twentieth] century and has been building throughout this century. You approach your new [twenty-first] century and the beginning of your new millennium, and within this coming century, approximately within its three-quarter mark, this shift in consciousness shall be accomplished in its fullness, and your reality shall be very different than what you view presently. ALL of your reality shall be different.” [session 284, May 30, 1998]
(20) Paul’s note: developmental psychologists use the basic stages of preconventional, conventional, and postconventional as a general way to describe various mental abilities that develop in concert with body stages (e.g., morals, cognition, emotions, sexual, self-needs, self-identity, logical-mathematic, linguistic, musical, etc. through infancy, childhood, adolescence, and adulthood).
However, every focus personality begins at stage 1, or preconventional during infancy. So even after the completion of the shift in consciousness, all children will still be born at the preconventional stage 1 and develop from there.
What’s significant is that Elias hints that the preconventional stages themselves will morph and accelerate into conventional, postconventional, post-postconventional, and so on (since there is no set end point to this overall unfolding-in-time). Therefore, none of these general stages are ever set in stone, but are subject to the continual dynamics of evolution (Framework 1) and involution (Frameworks 2,3,4).
Based upon what Elias says here, we should be able to monitor the unfolding of the shift in consciousness during the next eighty to one hundred years. In other words if what Elias says is true, then we should be able to systemically track on a global scale the rates of change in sample populations using continually refined integral methodologies.
For more info on preconventional, conventional, and postconventional stages of development see session 1246, January 16, 2003, endnote 17.
(21) Paul’s note: the difference in energy between this session and my private five months earlier was notable. For the first time I really missed seeing the facial and bodily gestures while in proximity as we interacted. The phone by comparison, seemed very sterile and it was harder to judge when to just listen or when to interrupt. A careful read of this session will reveal that I interrupted Elias a couple of times when he had more to say.
Another interesting sync was that my neighbor, Vicki Pendley, had a running joke with Elias for several years after Mary moved from Castaic, CA to Brattleboro, VT that she would never do a phone session (she actually did several). But I never fully understood what she meant until this private session.
© 2003 Mary Ennis, All Rights Reserved.