Consciousness

[Kallas]

Hi everyone ,

Sorry if this is a stupid question or if it has Been asked before, but in relation to conscious focus levels, what is the earth? and if that wasn't random or confusing enough i will now elaborate

If we have four levels of consciousness, which one is the base or foundation one?
I am currently presuming that it is FoC 4 as this is kind of a source 'if you will'.

If so then what is the earth, would it not be fair to say that earth itself is simply a construct created to house certain consciousness', that being said it would also be fair to say that everything or a large percentage of  the earths contents are also constructs, i.e plants, animals and even some people, can you see what I'm getting at. this would mean that the body a consciousness inhabits is also a construct this of course reinforces the theory of re-incarnation (i will explain later). It is possible that  some people on earth are 'made up' by a nearby consciousness, it basically relates to the fact of if i cant sense it how do i know its there, take color  for example ( now I'm sure you all have heard this one) we all see different color's but how can we be sure that what we are seeing is the same color , as the names we have for color's are simply names we were taught to call them, in other words what i call blue you may call red. So when a person walks off how do you know that they are existing outside of what you directly can perceive, the fact is you don't know, you just presume that they are doing something. ( this of course could be seen in an incredibly selfish way of saying that everyone is a construct created by my consciousness, seriously though think whilst your reading this how do you know that your mind hasn't 'invented' it in order to put meaning into something) Ahhhh.. its all so confusing.

Neglecting all the selfish stuff, another question is raised , WHY then is FoC1 our primary focus, i would be most interested to hear peoples views on this, my current theory is that FoC4 is simply to difficult for a basic consciousness to understand and so through many 'earthly' cycles (re-incarnation) the consciousness develops in order to reach a state of enlightenment ( as stated in some religions) or heaven/ nirvana ( as stated in others), that being, reaching heaven is simply a permanent shift of consciousness into FoC 4.

Sorry for using religious examples i was just attempting to put it into a world perspective, i also apologize for any grammatical errors or, if it plainly doesn't make sense I'm just a high-school student so sorry  

So yea, i would be most interested in hearing peoples views on this as i am asking a question as to what you all think, i have seriously cut down on everything i could have said as it would have taken too long but i will elaborate on anything else if I'm being to confusing.

Sorry if it seems like I'm seeing this from a very selfish or stupid way that's not my intention it's just everyone is trying to work out how projection happens/works and i was just wondering why.

Thanks

- Paul

[Kallas]

I have just read over what i wrote, and it really does sound stupid, soooooo.. i will ask these basic questions

What is the base or foundation level of consciousness, and what leads you to assume this?

Why is Focus 1 our primary one?

In response to the two above questions, what is the earth?

Cheers

-paul

[Willis]

I don't think any of it was stupid.  Anyway...

I have recently been thinking about the Earth in similiar ways.  Like does it have on some level a coherent consciousness?  I don't mean of course in the human perspective or sense, but as a unified consciousness made up of its parts (including us!).

I think that Focus 1 is our primary focus because thats where we have decided to focus our attention.  What Frank has explained is that going to focus 2, 3, or 4 is actually a mental exercise in moving your focus of attention or awareness to those levels.  We have "decided" temporarily to focus our attention on this level.

Question concerning this though... Is it possible there is a focus level beyond 1 going the other way.  Like if your primary focus was in 3, do they see focus 1 as being further away from 4.  And if so, is there a 1/2 (Something just beyond 1)?

[Kallas]

whenever i have looked at the focus's of consciousness i have seen Focus 1 & 2 as tightly interwoven, one being a seemingly primary Conscious mind the other a primary subconscious , where as 3 & 4 seem to operate independently to this almost as a foundation, as if our 1st and 2nd focus is just one possible primary consciousness that has stemmed from and infinite number of possibilities.
IE. focus 3 & 4 are like a rock or foundation and 1 & 2 are like a building upon it, there is an infinite number of possibilities as to how the building may look but the foundation will remain the same,

Looking at that though it would make sense that our primary focus be 3 & 4, and from there the consciousness creates a possibility as to a 'Physical' focus for individual points of the consciousness to 'live' in (thus a person is simply one point of a united consciousness, but then again each person must exist individually in some way, oh i just don't know, lol i keep confusing myself)

so yea i lost my train of thought  but i will try and re-gain it... oh well lost it.
Oh yea.. so maybe it's that focus 1&2 are the 'person', or an individuals own consciousness in which experiences are made and then contributed to focus 3 & 4  which is the 'united' or source of consciousness, kind of like lots of little tributaries (individuals) that flow into a great big river FoC 3 which then flows into a great big lake FoC4.

hmm...interesting

But still then what is the earth?

Strange Ive never thought any of that before... i have always assumed that i was totally separate from everyone, ( it may still remain that a person is) but it's worth a thought

Thank you, although i don't think i have actually commented on your response that much sorry, but its discussions like this that feed the imagination and spawn new interesting questions

i kind of lost my train of thought halfway through writing that, so hopefully I'll remember later and post

cheers

-paul

[Telos]

If we have four levels of consciousness, which one is the base or foundation one?

I will attempt to reexplain what Frank has already repeated many times, and beg his forgiveness if I am mistaken.

There are no "levels" of consciousness. Rather, there are areas of conscious attention. No area of attention is higher or lower than another, especially since they can be mixed and matched.

The following are my own metaphors from my current interpretation of Frank's model, so they are by no means "official." I say this because Frank's model is gaining such popularity that is fast becoming "the" model, which is fine, but it means that everyone is natuarlly adding and subtracting to it!

Imagine a four-legged table and a mouse sitting in the center. For whatever reason, the mouse may be attracted to something on one corner of the table and move towards it. The weight of the mouse is now more focused on the leg supporting that corner. Then the mouse moves to a side, distributing its weight mainly accross two corners. Returning back the center, the mouse's weight is distribution across all four corners. One might say that we busy ourselves mostly with the physical corner of the universe, occasionally facing and moving towards the corner of imagination. There is no "base" corner, because the base of the table is all four legs.

Similarly, imagine a four-cylinder engine. We might be able to run just fine with one or two cylinders at a time. But just the same, we can go on all four cylinders. F4oC is not four cylinders but the fourth cylinder, but not necessarily in the fourth order, which we could use should our first cylinder "fail" (bodily death).

Now imagine a primate. It can walk on four legs, two legs, or hop and swing around on one.

These may be very bad metaphors, because the four legs of a table are symmetric and areas of attention may be very asymmetric, but they emphasize the cardinality of the areas of consciousness, and not necessarily their ordinality. We say that there are four areas of consciousness, but not necessarily that they come in the order "first, second, third, and last."

[Edit: I just noticed that Frank now uses the words "primary focus" and the abbreviations PF1, PF2, etc.]

[Clarification: In this thread about PF1/PF4 overlay, Frank describes PF4 as the source of raw energy for everything. But the source is simply another leg of the table, so to speak, and not the table itself. It is not an ordinal base, but a component of the system.]

[Kallas]

from what my young (uneducated) mind can see, most things seem to rely on something else,
separate focus's, i mean sure they are different but still they are all separate parts of a whole system and this would lead me to assume that they rely on a foundation, but i like your analogy very much, it does make a lot of sense to me, Ok so they are not really levels, i suppose thats why frank calls them focus's so people don't get confused.

Ok so basically that means it is a system that relies on itself

So what then is the earth. lol sorry i keep bringing it back to this but im genuinely interested.

thanks  

-paul

[Telos]

Ok so basically that means it is a system that relies on itself

I think you've hit on a very important point. Scientific theories generally rely on experience. Mathematical theorems rely on axioms. Both sometimes rely on other theories, and both rely on their respective philosophies.

Frank's model seems to rely on his experience, Monroe's model, and his philosophy.

So what then is the earth. lol sorry i keep bringing it back to this but im genuinely interested.

No problem! The Earth is a big roundish rock with water, life, and atmosphere covering the surface. But I think I know what you meant. ;)

Many people have asked, "what is the physical" or "what is the body," which I think is a more inclusive way of asking your question.

In Frank's July 1 newsletter he said,

...as I have said repeatedly on this forum, a body is merely an objective representation of the accumulation of a particular set of expectations regarding the enactment of certain types of actions within particular areas of consciousness. It holds no other purpose!

As you can see it relies on the "area of consciousness" distinction, but basically the Earth and the body are in the same category - objective representations of the accumulation of a particular set of expectations regarding the enactment of certain times of actions.

A part of the "particular set of expectations" for the Earth might be the expectation that when things go up, they come back down, accelerating at 9.8 m/s/s near the surface. Now, in PF2, we could observe that same expectation as a subjective representation, so that when things go up in a dream they come back down just the same, except the focus of attention is non-corporeal. In PF1 we see the law of gravity as an objective representation and in PF2 we see gravity as a subjective representation, but it is gravity just the same. The only different is your focus of attention.

I must admit I don't understand it very well but I think after trying to write it out and explain it for I've clarified it a bit more for the both of us.

[Kallas]

Ok thanks , so what exactly does Objective representation mean?

Also If this relies upon a "particular set of expectations" doesn't that mean that these expectations hold true for each individual only because the individual expects them (what a mouthfull) in other words isn't gravity itself just a construct created along with a body to form meaning.

So basically concsiousness creates world and in order to create meaning within world, concsiousness creates different laws???

What does sub & objective mean ... this might just help me understand a bit better, but i think i kind of get what your saying thanks Telos

-Paul

[Telos]

So basically concsiousness creates world and in order to create meaning within world, concsiousness creates different laws???

Yes, you seem to have hit the nail right on the head. You are not alone if you think it is an absurd declaration.

You've asked a great number of questions and I do not think that I can answer them in any cohesive way. However, I can say that Frank is definitely one of those "you create reality" guys, meaning that you create everything and anything in your life experience - including the people around you.

There's a corollary that appears to follow this, which Frank also advocates, which is the lack of a distinction between the perpetrator of a crime and the victim. In Frank's world there are essentially no perpetrators and no victims.

I have challenged Frank on this in a number of ways. For instance, he has criticized America's actions in Iraq, which seems inconsistent with his insistence that there are no perpetrators. Buttressing that I asked him, "aren't Iraqi citizens creating their reality?" I never received a straight answer, at least I don't think.

Please feel free to use the search feature in this forum with the terms you've just given. You may find things that others have missed.

Also, Frank, I apologize if I've mischaracterized your judgments, since I am also quite capable of missing something.

[Nara99]

As this is a subject that interests me as well, I would just like to share my opinion.  It's a bit different then what I've read here, but it's held true for me.

What is the Earth you ask?

Assume a single creator from which all things originate.  Everything around you is part of this original source.   To get a better understanding, imagine a scene outdoors.  You have the dirt, the grass, the sky, clouds, wind, light etc.  All of these things seem separate even in your imagination but they all originate from your single imagination.  One day after taking some salvia divinorum (a hallucinogenic drug), I had an experience where as best as I could can describe, I was a piece of plastic!  My consciousness as that piece of plastic was limited to say the least, words really can't describe.  As the drug began to wear off though, my consciousness began to revert back to normal.  

That experience really drove this theory home for me.  It was then that I began to believe that everything around us is part of the same universal consciousness just in varying degrees.  To clarify lets go back to the imagination analogy.  Image a rock.  It's hard, dull, heavy, in-animate, brownish-gray and that's about it.  Imagine a dog.  It's furry, friendly, hyper, hungry, play-full, sad, happy, it can dream, imagine, see, speak, hear, smell.  Both of those two things originated from your imagination but one was given more qualities.  

What I'm in effect saying here, is that for all sakes an purposes, we exist in the mind of the Creator.  His thoughts become a "reality".  If he were to think of a rock, a "part" of his consciousness would "split" and take on the qualities that he imagined.  Inevitably some things are created with a consciousness closer to his own.  One thing you need to be careful of though is to not place any importance over the consciousness of say a rock and yourself.  As far as I can tell, the Creator tries everything.  Every possibility, every thing that could ever happen, even universes completely different from our own are being created.  As such nothing has any more importance over anything else.  Also, there is no purpose besides the purpose we individually give to something.

Many people claim the purpose of life is to become one with the Creator.  To become more like him.  That is a purpose we give ourselves and not one the creator intended though I believe.  But it is a goal that can be pursued.  If we brought our consciousness closer to the Creator, we would be able to see the illusion of everything around us.  Nothing is real and anything can be changed with a mere thought providing you have the proper state of consciousness.

Hopefully that made a bit of sense.  I know I left out alot but it's getting late and I need some sleep.

[Kallas]

, how, by all that though can you be sure that anything exists at all and that it all just isn't a construct.. freaky

reminds me of the matrix... if of corse you scrap the machines and all the Hollywood crap.

thank you Telos you have been unbelievably helpfull

[halfphased]

It exists because you are experiencing it.  However, that does not give it any solidity.  We must keep in mind when we throw words around like 'exists' and 'reality' that we are speaking subjectively (in other words, in relation to the sense of self or individuality that most of us carry around) and not objectively.  When I say "objectively" it means that something exists absolutely regardless of who is experiencing it.  We only know things exist because we experience them.  If something does not exist, then we can not experience it.  In fact, it does not even make sense to talk about something that does not exist, for then it would be a non-thing.   How are you suppossed to talk about something that does not exist?  How are you able to describe this non-thing?  It may be that it only exists in your mind and not the physical world, yet it still exists and is "real" to a certaitn extent.

Anything that exists is a construct.  It exists because it is a construct.  If there were no constructs then there would not be anything.  In other words, everything that we percieve as being real takes its meaning or identity from the relationships between it and the other things that we know of.  This means that there is no one thing that exists by itself of its own accord.  Everything is dependent upon everything else for it's meaning.  I could also say that a thing is actually defined by what it is not.  A sculpture takese on its definition because of what we have taken away from the block of clay.

If everything in the universe were identical, how would you describe any one thing?  Would you know what it was for something to be big or small or yellow or bitter?  How do I describe anything without drawing a comparrison with something else that is different from it?  I could not even say that this and that are identical.  If they were identical they would be existing in the same position, same moment, and having all other properties being exactly the same.   Which means that there is no this and that.  There is only this.  And there would be this only if this was aware of this.

I can see how that would not make much sense.   hehehe
but really, I need to figure out a way to simplify my explaination.

I try not to use the word creator, because a creator is a conceptualization.  A creator only exists in relation to what is not a creator, which implies that if there is a creator there must exist at the same time something that is not a creator.  In other words, up until the moment something is created there is no creator.  This givies us a paradox, because the thing that the creator created creates the creator.  So, who is really creating who?  Am I creating the creator or is the creator creating me?  I like to think that I am as much of an illusion as the creator is, but this is not to dimish the role of either of us.  hehehehehehehehe

Master of carefully illuminating confusing clarity?
-Nathan

[Vvid1012]

Wow Nara, nicely said.  A very deep and power thought indeed.

As it has been repeatedly said throughout history... If you want to discover the laws of nature, you must look inside yourself ...(or something like that )

[Kallas]

yes that was very well written

bravo