The Choosing

This year we saw some significant decisions being made. People decided to march, presidents decided to ban, prime ministers decided to separate. Considering how much social and political – both domestic and international – pressure politicians face, they are doing remarkably well. I’d say it even though some of their decisions might seem contradictory. Despite the political and global uncertainty they face themselves, the way they choose to act reflects some level of stability. At least this is the impression compared to their behaviours earlier in the year. Even Mr Trump, unpredictable as he might seem, had not diverged immensely in his behaviour or actions from what he had shown or promised the world in his presidential campaign. In a way we could see it as reassuring.

The socio-political events, and there are few more to come this year, are one level of collective drama playing out. Whether the polarising character of these events is the cause, the symptom or an expression of prejudice, fear and hatred is for us to observe. As we get to grips (or not) with what is happening around, as we decide to join the march, to speak against someone or a concept or value, to disobey the rules or break the law, there is a different type of decision making happening, the choosing of a civilizational kind.

Because elevation happens according to particular data, which we can understand as criteria, I’d like to shed some light on the challenges which the manifestations of we are already facing and will continue to encounter. How we deal with those will in turn influence the quality or essence of data which will be put out collectively. At the ‘highest’ perceivable level we are being ‘assessed’ as an expression of a civilization – this is the widest ‘definition’ currently available to us. Today’s post is to serve as basis or foundation for understandings brought forward in the two posts which will follow and pertain to civilizational coherence.

Collective experience is the current focus and will be described in terms of human psyche or psychological construct. We will look at it from the widest to the narrowest spectrum of perceivable data.

To begin with we observe collective archetypes, already mentioned in previous posts. These are impersonal and already started to dissolve. Some, especially those which were held only by insignificant part of society or nation, have undergone complete dissolution. At the widest and most relevant for the elevation are archetypes of unity and power, which were and to some extent still are represented by European Union on behalf of Europe, Russia and America. It is in fact to our upliftment that the archetypes of unity and power failed to interlock horizontally with each other; it is because their essences are being re-configured and definitions altered. What might and in examples of Greece, Ukraine, Poland, France and Germany did add to the collective struggle was the process of the archetypes, on their way to collapse, interlocking vertically with the collective ‘national’ conditioning (described in detail in Third Field. Part 2). This delays the process of dissolution, complicating in turn processes which people deal with collectively and adversely affecting clarity.

It is almost impossible to give a tangible example but fragments of the process can be observed in how European Union is no longer able to pull its member states together with the same strength and/or conviction as it used to. In America, the archetype of power has undergone fragmentation and seems to be distributing itself evenly without becoming or encountering obstacles as it dissipates. Europe has a harder time of dissolution than America. It doesn’t help that we continue to use the prism of history to dictate conditions of relationships. At this stage it would be inconsiderate if not foolish to rely on American assistance. It is a ‘natural’ ally to turn to but in matters of security it might prove unreliable once it doesn’t meet its own objectives. Let us watch out for the history playing out again through the hands of the unawares.

This leads us to the deeper level and narrower spectrum of collective behaviours sustained through human essences individually (but impacting individuals from ‘outwith’), giving authority and validity to what we, consciously or unconsciously, consider real.

The collective psyche, which had by now undergone an interaction with the previously mentioned archetypes, directly impacts our inner structures (of identity) where we might experience the struggle for supremacy of our own personal archetypes and our conditioning on different or all levels. Majority of humans will not be aware of these interactions, however their impact might become significant to those who make decisions for the collective. Depending on inner resilience it will be one or more archetypes or unyielding level of conditioning which will inform or ask for priority in decision making. Given that, would we be able to make an objective decision? Let us remember that reliance on reason at this stage might also ‘fail’ as for some time yet it will be shrouded in concepts and definitions of itself.

Among many factors some of the stronger strands affecting our group/national/continental psyche, its expression – communication, joy, violence, and manifestation as action, agreement or conflict are facts, beliefs and sovereignty.

In the category of facts I include events and impressions that happened to us (were impressed on us) and our ancestors. These leave almost permanent imprints in our construct regardless of the generation being affected. We will know about these facts because they are present, written or encoded in our bodies. The metaphysical circles will speak about the different bodies like astral, mental etc yet these belong only at a ‘person’ and astrological levels of conditioning. The facts as information will be accessible to us in our own way of understanding unless we fully deny (that is block) it. The fact, unless realised, will continue to influence and form us in the fourth dimension, if detrimental to our heart and soul, it will prevent experience of the fifth and higher dimensions.

It is perhaps worth mentioning that the deeper the societal repression (and traumatization of inner structure), either overt or covert, the deeper the likelihood of collective slipping into involution, implosion or acting out of wounds on the ‘neighbour’, the next person or political partner. Facts don’t ‘go away’ and, depending on how beliefs about the facts are dealt with, will yield to or block alchemisation.(*)

Then there are beliefs about the facts, something I sometimes refer to as the ‘past’. It is all the theories, over dramatisation, explanations and self-cheating we lay on top of the ‘fact’ to present it as something else or ‘eradicate’ its presence. It is rarely dangerous unless the history books are based on that practice and the young are being taught according to the distorted version of reality, they are being taught the beliefs or opinions rather than given facts to form their own understanding. Can we differentiate between the fact and the belief about the fact? Humans rarely see their history independently of its events or their beliefs about the events, circumstances or national occurrences. This incapacity will pose a hindrance to the elevation process.

The third factor influencing our collective behaviour is lack of adequate structures for the essences, which currently uphold history, beliefs and illusions, to exist irrespective or independently of the collective experience. This adds to already active fear and anxiety in societies which are undergoing change. Paradoxically, unless the level of fear and anxiety is decreased, the new structures will not be accessible for those who are most fitting to implement them, on a human level this includes political leaders or their successors.

Having written the above I will stress here that none of the factors influencing our collective behaviour plays any significant role in the ‘choosing of the elevated’. It is the clarity, discernment and vision with which we make decisions that will define our capacity, preparedness and fitting for the ascended state. I revisited some of the material presented last year in anticipation that it will serve as basis for the future writing in which I will expand on the topics of ‘race’ and education.

Related posts:

Third Field. Part 2. 22 May 2016, (*) Transformation vs Alchemisation, 20 Sep 2015