the Elias forum: Explore the transcript archive.










Thursday, January 16, 2003

<  Session 1246 (Private)  >

“Comparing Terminology”

“Exploring Evolution”

“Whales and Dolphins as Essence”

Participants: Mary (Michael) and Paul (Caroll).

Elias arrives at 12:22 PM. (Arrival time is 29 seconds.)

ELIAS: Good afternoon!

PAUL: Hello! How are you today?

ELIAS: As always, and yourself?

PAUL: As always! (Elias laughs) Which brings up my first question today. I had an impression a while ago, a week or so ago, and I wanted to ask you, from your perspective, every interaction that you and I have had, whether it’s in a group or privately, from your perspective is a simultaneity. (Elias nods) And that’s so cool! And it leads into some other questions I want to ask about today.

For me it’s been a year since we last spoke in person, and a lot has happened in my experience, in my creation, in my focus of attention. Yet here we are, a year later, and I just know in some sense from your focus of attention that this is all going on at the same time, and it has a serious impact on the information that you give out at any given time in some way that I don’t pretend to understand yet.

ELIAS: Correct.

PAUL: Wow. (Elias laughs) That’s just interesting.

ELIAS: But I am also aware of your sequence of moments and your linear time framework, or your perception of linear time, which generates an actual reality.

PAUL: Right, right. I’m wrestling with understanding these different levels of consciousness, and I want to talk about that today a little bit and see what we come up with.

ELIAS: Very well. (Smiling)

PAUL: I guess in general it’s a continuation of our dream mission discussions. (1) So I wanted to start with some theory and just put that out on the table and get your reaction to it and see where it’s close or not and get your comments on it.

But I wanted to – I brought a little map with me today, I talked to Mary about that, I want to refer to that too (Elias nods) – so I’m just talking about a map and a matrix, trying to get a very general, very, very simple, general overview of this matrix, I just wanted to say some things about that matrix and that. (2)

I want to use Seth’s levels of consciousness, what he calls the outer ego, the subconscious, and the inner ego as three distinct, nested, not really separate, parts of the spectrum of consciousness, as it relates to me, at least.

ELIAS: Very well.

PAUL: Another part of that is to put your concepts of objective and subjective right next to that. It maps to that, but you just have two, where Seth uses the three. But you admit and talk about a mediating or translation layer that we’ve talked about between deep subjectivity and the objective physical. So there is sort of a third thing implied in your objective and subjective terminology.

ELIAS: In a manner of speaking, yes.

PAUL: Yes. And this “manner of speaking” I want to explore, is what I’m trying to get at.

Another part of this matrix is looking at our physiology, what a beautiful thing it is, and the design and that there are basically, again, three major states of the focus of attention, which we could characterize as waking, dreaming, and sleeping (Elias nods), that kind of maps to this objective/subjective and Seth’s three-part also. (3)

ELIAS: Very well. I am understanding.

PAUL: I’m just putting this out there as a matrix to try and talk about. Then there’s just a fourth sort of column to discuss too, which takes a look at the focus of attention in time as it develops in time. While it’s all simultaneous, we acknowledge that this outer ego, this waking level, linear time level, there is a sequence. We have an acorn that goes to a sapling to a tree reality that we’re creating here.

ELIAS: Correct.

PAUL: Within that, what I just call “change-in-time” now instead of evolution — you call it becoming, this change in time sequence — you’ve described alternate selves. Others — researchers, whatever — talk about subpersonalities or multiple intelligences, which I think map to what you call alternate selves. (Elias nods) Just as an example of those, we have an emotional self, we have a linguistic intelligence or subpersonality — and I know I’m splitting hairs in a way that may or may not agree with your perspective and I want to hear your comment on that — but we have mathematical skills, we have the musical skill, we have inner senses in a broad canvas of how far we develop our inner senses during that change-in-time period and whatnot. (4) So that’s just an overview of this matrix that we’re looking at and exploring.

I guess I’ll just let you comment on that overview in terms of its accuracy. Am I getting it right, closer, accurate? (Elias chuckles) Am I distorting it, and what distortions do you see in that view? (Pause)

ELIAS: Not necessarily. You are, in your terms, developing your individual philosophy, so to speak.

PAUL: And a roadmap, a roadmap of the psyche, shall we say. (5)

ELIAS: Correct, which I am understanding. I may express to you that some of what you are expressing are intertwined and are not necessarily what may be viewed as a separate column, so to speak.

PAUL: Yes, and thank you for reminding me. That’s an absolutely inherent part of the matrix, that it’s holistically nested. So there’s no separation — just as my body is made up of atoms, molecules, organs, we can assign a separateness to them and look at them in terms of a veil of some kind, a boundary of some kind, and yet they exist within a whole; there is no separation between any of these columns.

ELIAS: Correct.

PAUL: Thank you for reminding me and pointing that out. (Both laugh) That’s a very important part of it.

ELIAS: Correct. For within your physical reality, it is easily associated with separation and therefore may become distorted in your recognition of these different qualities and expressions, but also separating them in inaccurate manners. For those such as you have described as your evaluating self, your communicating self, your emotional self, these are all expressions that lie within the objective and subjective awarenesses or expressions, and therefore are not separated from them but are expressions of them.

PAUL: So in that sense, just to use Seth’s model, this outer ego/subconscious/inner ego structure has all of these streams — this communicating self, mathematical self, kinesthetic body movement/athletic ability self — that covers all of these. In other words, it’s not just a function of the waking, outer ego, physical body, it’s really supported by this whole nested structure that’s invisible. There’s invisible aspects that we’re trying to discern and understand, in my terms.

ELIAS: Correct, which are the qualities and the expressions, which are those that you term to be invisible — expressions that are unseen in a physical sense, but are quite real and quite present and expressed.

PAUL: And affecting, influencing this change-in-time sequence that we all go through.

ELIAS: Correct, quite correct. In this, I may express to you a similarity. Although you are correct that I have offered two identifications as opposed to the three, but in other terms it may be viewed as three in a connected sense, for there is an incorporation of different terms but the meaning is basically the same.

PAUL: We’re talking about the same spectrum of consciousness. Whether we say it’s 100 degrees Centigrade or 212 degrees Fahrenheit, it doesn’t matter.

ELIAS: Correct.

PAUL: It does matter, but we need to be aware of those distinctions, because we can distort things if we get too locked into the terminology.

ELIAS: Yes, the terminology may be different, but it matters not.

PAUL: It’s covering the same spectrum. (6)

ELIAS: Yes. In this, I may express to you that there may be an identification of the objective awareness, the subjective awareness, and what you term to be in between, or the subconscious. In this, you may be identifying the action of communication, which in your terms, within your translation of thought, translates into the link between the two, of the objective and the subjective.

PAUL: So, if I didn’t state it earlier, I’ll state it again, then. In this Seth model of the subconscious, that’s a mediating layer, a layer of translation between two very distinct... I get cloudy. It’s not separated, but there are distinct regions of consciousness. I’m not sure if that contradicts your Regional Area terminology...?

ELIAS: I am understanding what you are expressing. Once again, we may be incorporating different terminology, but I am understanding. You are expressing quite similar to what I am expressing. They are different expressions of yourself as consciousness. One is objective, one is subjective; one is abstract, one is not. They move in harmony. Therefore, they are generating the same action but in different expressions, for their function is different.

The subjective awareness is not abstract. The subjective awareness is quite literal. The objective awareness is quite abstract and allows for your expression of creativity in physical manifestations. The avenues of communication are the between, the link, of these two awarenesses, which generates them as not separated and continuously connected. (7)

As you offered within another example of your waking state, your dreaming state, and your sleeping state, this is also quite similar, for the dreaming state is in actuality an allowance of the individual to be incorporating the action of the subjective and also engaging the objective awareness in the capacity of a translating tool, and therefore you generate imagery.

PAUL: Now just a question, a tangential question, perhaps. Seth provided information of “before the beginning,” in the beginning. I just call it a conscious creation myth, which is his abstract attempt to tell something that’s non-sequential in sequential terms. You’ve talked about Dream Walkers, he talks about Sleepwalkers, and there’s a bunch of concepts I just have to juggle and get right here.

This subconscious translating layer that you were just talking about — the avenues of communication — in the beginning, before the beginning maybe, somewhere in that time, that layer of consciousness was primary because the waking outer ego had not yet emerged. Is that an accurate statement in terms of our linear history in this dimension?


PAUL: So therefore this inner ego — what we’re calling that deep, dreamless sleeping area of consciousness — is fundamental and primary and what we would say causal, in terms of source? I know I’m juggling concepts here into linear time. I know it’s causal, so I know the answer to that question but I’m not expressing it the right way.

Let me try and rephrase where I’m coming from. I’m talking about change-in-time, I’m talking about this dimension, and it’s however many billions of years old in this what you call blink-in...

ELIAS: Correct.

PAUL: …blink in, blink out (8) – and I want to try and get back to that too, so I’ve ramped up to a big level now, but we’ll see what happens.

(Elias smiles, and nods throughout) In terms of this blink and our change-in-time, according to Seth, he does give an order of emergence to, let’s just call it what we call the outer ego, because this lamp (points to lamp) has an outer ego also in the same way, it’s not essence, but in terms of consciousness, this basic three-part structure works for all things physical, correct?

ELIAS: Correct.

PAUL: Okay, cool. (Elias chuckles) Maybe I’ll get this one of these days! Anyway, so in terms of... I know it’s hard to think in linear terms and I’m kind of on a hamster wheel, but I’ll see how far we go with it. (Elias smiles)

In terms of change-in-time or evolution or becoming, Seth says that — and it makes sense — that parts of the biosphere would emerge first to generate a stable environment that allows for this. Then quote/unquote “higher” forms of life — bacteria, moving things, fish, early forms of life — would emerge also. Now, back to my opening question about you and this simultaneity — all of these things exist at the same time.

ELIAS: Correct.

PAUL: I have in this conceptualization that I’m trying to translate accurately. I keep getting a sense that as things emerge into time, it’s all together, it’s all right there, and yet little pieces... There is an order of play. (Elias nods) You’ve given sequence of the Dream Walkers with their intents regarding the shift, things like that, so you’re on the record with showing change-in-time, even from this subjective area. (9)

ELIAS: Correct. Do not discount the element of time within your physical dimension. For let me express to you, without the interplay of time, there is no physical matter. Therefore, to generate a physical reality, a physical dimension, you must be incorporating some type of configuration of time, not necessarily linear and not necessarily in the manner in that you configure time in this physical dimension. But also remember that this particular physical dimension is one of the most complex and diverse physical realities that exists within consciousness. Therefore, you also incorporate a complex expression of time to generate all of the physical manifestations that you do within this physical reality.

PAUL: So part of this time framework, as it manifests, as it emerges from — let’s just call it the singularity of the blink-out before the blink-in process — as it emerges, there’s an order of play of emergence.


PAUL: And so these belief systems that we have in evolution, even though there’s some that are very distorted, and pathologically so with a very negative effect in cultural terms, there’s still a grain, a gem, of truth to this flow in time and the emergence of life in this dimension. It has to be that way.


PAUL: It doesn’t just poof in, in other words.

ELIAS: Correct. In this, view your arts, which are, in a manner of speaking, a creative mirror of the design of your physical dimension.

Now; in composition of musical expressions, what do you express first?

PAUL: There are many ways of doing that, but for me personally I would get an idea, a seed.

ELIAS: And your idea incorporates what initially?

PAUL: A communication?

ELIAS: A melody. You begin with a melody, which is your subject, and you build around that subject, that central point, with your harmonies and your disharmonies, and you create the background, so to speak, subsequent to the initial melody.

Now; within your arts of painting, what do you create first?

PAUL: I’m not a painter, but the background, the base layer, some base layer that you start to build upon.

ELIAS: Correct. You move in a different direction. You generate the background first, and subsequent you insert your central subject matter.

Now; these two actions may be seemingly different. But in actuality, their sequence may be somewhat different but they are actually very similar. The subject in both compositions is the initial point, but what is expressed in the execution in one is the subject first and in one is the background first.

Now; in association with the design of your physical reality, both are in play simultaneously in association with the Dream Walkers. The Dream Walkers are the subject and exist, but are not physically manifest. The background is being created in association with the design of the reality.

Both are in play, so to speak, simultaneously, but what you view in what you associate as your evolution, or your sequence of events, is the development of the background first and the insertion of the main subject subsequent, which is your species. Your species was in play while the background was being developed, in your terms — but not necessarily entirely physically solidly manifest as you view yourselves now.

PAUL: So in terms of this matrix, we would say that this inner ego was existing previously and was there (Elias nods), fully waiting and working along with everything consciously...

ELIAS: Not waiting. Actively participating in designing the background, designing the physical manifestation of your world, experimenting with different types of physical manifestations, and in that experimentation, exploring the possibilities of physical manifestations and manipulating energy in a manner, in association with time, to be creating different types of physical expressions in what you term to be living and non-living, and in that experimentation allowing for a tremendous freedom in creativity — and in keeping with your associations which have, in your terms, carried through your history, generating a fascination with large manifestations, but also recognizing that large manifestations are not always as efficient.

PAUL: Are you referring to the dinosaurs?

ELIAS: In part.

PAUL: Yeah, huge, huge creatures — a lot of food, a lot of processing, the whole ecosystem.

ELIAS: Which generated quite an excitement in association with the Dream Walkers in manipulation of energy of consciousness to generate enormous physical manifestations within your physical dimension.

PAUL: So the Dream Walker layer, which I’ll just say is inner ego or below, wider perhaps even, is intimately primary in creating all of this.


PAUL: So essence, what you call essence, this personality tone within consciousness, all of consciousness, is instrumental, absolutely primary and causal in that sense of its primacy.


PAUL: It causes, and that’s just an amazing thing to remember.

ELIAS: It creates.

PAUL: Wow. (Elias chuckles) Thank you for that, by the way. That’s helpful. A couple of related questions, then, just to bring me back from billion year stretches. (Elias laughs)

So we’ve had this emergent, living, lovely thing — planet Earth — going through all of its wondrous, horrific, violent, lovely, glorious, creative change. An outer ego emerged in terms of mountains or oceans as they solidified in time. They are physical and they’re working as physical matter, and building. So those outer egos emerge first — so Seth is accurate in his order of play, so to speak — and then flora and fauna, perhaps — and I can check back to the actual words, I don’t remember it at the moment — emerges, solidifies, and that builds. That allows other emergent qualities of which eventually, in linear terms, mammals emerge from life forms.

So, and this is again, it’s a paradox in linear terms, because it’s not like the first Homo sapiens of our species just blinked in. It’s part of the singularity that emerges through all these. All of the stages are in me right now.

ELIAS: Correct! (10)

PAUL: All of those — the reptilian, the mammal, the plants — all of those things in this singularity are somehow in me, in this body...

ELIAS: Correct.

PAUL: ...nested somehow, inherently allowing me to be me in this moment, without which I couldn’t exist.

ELIAS: Correct.

PAUL: So there’s a sacred bond with this emergent quality to be aware of, and to...

ELIAS: For it is all you.

PAUL: For it is all us. (11) (Laughs) I might believe that one of these days! (Elias laughs) But I’m getting there, I’m getting there, and I thank you.

ELIAS: Allow yourself imaginatively to visualize the scenario in association with yourself and in association with what you think of as this grand picture of the Dream Walkers. In this, the action is the same. It is a desire of exploration, and in that exploration to create.

Now; in association with the Dream Walkers, it is an experimentation of different types of forms and an experimentation of emergence into more and more efficient forms that allow for the type of exploration that is expressed in desire in association with this physical dimension, and in this process, so to speak, also creating the blueprint of the reality.

PAUL: And Source Events are right there along with that?

ELIAS: Yes. And in this, creating your map of your design of this reality. (12)

Now; in your physical reality in this present now, you generate similar actions. You seek out physical locations upon your planet in which you shall dwell that are compatible, so to speak, with your energy signature — certain landscapes, certain types of climates, certain types of plants, certain creatures that you surround yourself with — and in this, you associate these different environments with different areas of your planet. In actuality, you move yourself to physical locations and in those physical locations you generate the type of environment that is resonating with your energy signature. But you designate in collectiveness different areas of your physical planet to be associated with different types of creations.

You do not incorporate in this physical location in which you dwell presently, you do not create kangaroos. You create deer. You create specific types of birds and bears and coyotes and rabbits and specific plants. In a different location of your planet, you create marsupials — quite unusual creatures. In other areas of your planet, you create tremendously lush plants — your rain forests, your jungles — and you also create treacherous creatures. All of which are expressions of your explorations and your choices in creating the environment that you desire, and which allows you your most efficient manner of exploring what you choose to explore in any particular focus.

PAUL: That made perfect sense. Thank you for that. Just a couple of questions about this emergence. It’s just a historical interest of mine. So, early humans, in terms of the Dream Walker manifestation, there were forms in which this noospheric outer ego had not yet emerged, correct?

ELIAS: Correct.

PAUL: So, as an emergent quality of the entire environment, this was a necessary stage. I would not be here now without that sequence happening, correct, of an early human without an ego? Okay, it’s possible, anything is possible. (Laughs)

ELIAS: Not necessarily. This is the choice that has been engaged in experimentation.

PAUL: And again, that brings me back to this inner ego level as causal, (Elias nods) as making these choices and driving this thing somehow, in a way.

ELIAS: Correct.

PAUL: Which is very important to remember. So early humans, then, there was great experimentation in form and so on and so forth, and at some point this outer ego emerges. So sexual reproduction was already happening before this outer ego occurred. It had to.

ELIAS: Correct, for the design of your physical reality was already being processed.

PAUL: So, wow. So there is a grain of truth to the evolutionary belief systems of this sort of plant form into a fish into a land-based creature, into then mammals, dinosaurs and then humanoids. (Elias nods) They did evolve from... There’s linear and then there’s non-linear too, so that’s what is the toughest thing to reconcile.

ELIAS: I am understanding.

PAUL: (Laughing) I know YOU understand! I don’t! (Elias laughs) I’m trying to and I appreciate your patience!

ELIAS: This is an experimentation with the design of your physical dimension. What is the design of your physical dimension?

PAUL: You’re asking me? (Elias nods) Oh, I know that. Give me another leading question. I’m not, you mean...

ELIAS: What are the base elements of your physical reality?

PAUL: Oh — you’re talking about sexuality and emotion?

ELIAS: Correct! Which are what?

PAUL: A lot of fun and a lot of challenge.

ELIAS: What are they?

PAUL: I’m being humorous. Characteristics of consciousness.

ELIAS: They are the expressions of physical manifestation and communication. These are the base elements of your physical dimension, your physical reality, these two base expressions, physical manifestation and communication.

Now; in this, there is great experimentation with both of these base elements. In this process there is a development in the design of this physical reality, the blueprint of this physical reality, as duality, which is not to be confused with duplicity. This physical reality incorporates in its blueprint a duality. (13) This physical reality incorporates in its blueprint a duality. Therefore, ALL that you create within this physical reality incorporates two aspects, two expressions, which is what you develop in your beliefs in relation to opposites — which in actuality there are not genuinely opposites, but this is a contributing factor, so to speak, to that belief.

In this, as you generate this physical reality, it appears — for you do incorporate linear time as an aspect of your physical reality — that there is a development in an evolutionary fashion. I am not expressing that this is incorrect, for this is a manifestation of your perceptions, which is quite real.

PAUL: Of the outer ego, shall we say.

ELIAS: Correct, correct. Therefore, the OBJECTIVE physical manifestations are a sequence of developments, but it is also not necessarily that one manifestation develops into another manifestation. It is a continual experimentation of the subjective, manipulating links of consciousness in association with time to create different manifestations in physical matter.

PAUL: And did you just describe what might have been called natural selection? And I know that’s a very distorted belief system. (14)

ELIAS: In a manner of speaking.

PAUL: The way you just said it, that sentence before I asked my question — and I’ll check the tape — that integrates this inner ego/subconscious/outer ego chain of causality...

ELIAS: Correct.

PAUL: ...into what we would call natural selection in terms of emergence through time.

ELIAS: Quite.

PAUL: That is so cool!

ELIAS: For it is a continual experimentation of manipulating energy, which is consciousness, in different manners, and thusly in your terms selecting the preferred and the efficient. (15)

PAUL: Right, right. What a dance, what a magnificent dance.

ELIAS: Which the preferred IS the efficient.

PAUL: I just get a very beautiful feeling about this process. The tension and resolution and tension when those resolution cycles, it’s just beautiful. It’s this dance that we dance, and it’s a beautiful thing.

So, just back to this evolutionary change-in-time idea, human societies, then, as these outer egos emerged and manipulation in this environment settled down and personality could emerge... You do distinguish that focuses of essence have emotions but animals do not have emotions, plants do not have emotions, rocks do not have emotions. They have something...

ELIAS: Correct.

PAUL: They have a feeling tone, and they have an outer ego.

ELIAS: Correct.

PAUL: But that emergent quality has to get to this...

ELIAS: What is emotion?

PAUL: Feeling, sensation.

ELIAS: No. (Pause) Emotion is communication.

PAUL: Ah! (Laughs) I knew that!

ELIAS: That is your in between that you are discussing.

PAUL: Right, right, the mediating...

ELIAS: Emotion is the link. It is a communication avenue between the subjective awareness and the objective awareness, and it generates a signal, a feeling.

Now; in this, plants and creatures do not incorporate emotion, for it is unnecessary. They do not incorporate the translating mechanism that you incorporate of thought. Therefore, it is unnecessary to be incorporating this type of communication. They do not incorporate impressions or emotion or imagination. These are three avenues of communication that you incorporate but they do not, for it is unnecessary.

In association with a creature, they do not incorporate belief systems, and therefore they do not incorporate the belief of separation. Therefore, they do not manifest the separation of objective and subjective awarenesses, and therefore there is no necessity for emotion. For emotion is not a reaction, it is not a response, it is not a feeling. It generates a signal of a feeling to alert your attention.

Now; in this, I am not expressing and have not expressed previously that creatures do not express, and you interpret their expressions, as emotions. But they are not necessarily emotions. There is merely no separation between the objective and subjective awarenesses of a creature or a plant, and therefore it freely expresses what you incorporate as, shall we say, an extra step.

PAUL: From that, I wanted to ask about whales and dolphins. This is a very intriguing part of your information and this emergent quality of consciousness and time. So we have in my lifetime, according to your information say five, six years, and previous to that the whales and dolphins on this planet did not incorporate essence. (16)

ELIAS: Correct.

PAUL: Now, they did have an outer ego structure in their perception, but they did not have emotion, according to what you just said.

ELIAS: Correct.

PAUL: So that avenue of communication was not active. (Elias nods)

There’s something in this Dream Walker layer, inner ego layer, in its creativity and manipulation that — and the efficiency and the balance — that senses this population of form is emergent. It’s getting ready to take that next step, so to speak, and so this avenue of communication suddenly — emotion — arises in their consciousness. Is that accurate?

ELIAS: Yes, and you, in your terms within your lifetime, have allowed yourself to witness what you may term to be the evolution of consciousness, in choices and in that experimentation in what you term to be development.

For these creatures incorporated communication — not emotional communication inwardly prior to the choice to be incorporated as essence — but developing, in your terms, in choices to begin expressing a type of communication in association with objective awareness, developing a communication between each other objectively.

PAUL: When this population hit a critical threshold for this emergence in its tension to manifest — what we’ll just call critical mass — was it a simultaneity in an instant? (Snaps fingers) Or was it this mass was achieved in this nonphysical causal area, and so in time, in terms of linear time and sequence, it kind of sprinkles through the populations. Because you have adults, children through all different developmental cycles in the moment point, in the now, when this threshold is reached. So it’s affecting the pregnant ones, the unborn ones, the young ones, the adolescents, the adults. So how did that...?


PAUL: Was it a simultaneity?


PAUL: It was just a (snaps fingers). Within terms of time, it was a (snaps fingers) poof.


PAUL: And backing up, with human beings, in the populations of early human beings, the same (snaps fingers) process hit that population in terms of essence manifesting in that form?

ELIAS: In association with what you term to be human beings, your Homo sapiens, your species, from the moment that there was an emergence of one within your physical reality, it was the expression of essence.

PAUL: Did it pull the rest of the population towards essence, the expression of essence, the manifestation of this emotional communication layer that previously did not exist? Did that single individual who manifest that act as a trigger point for the rest of the population?

ELIAS: In a manner of speaking, yes. That was the moment point of the threshold of the Dream Walkers, which had already been in association with your linear time but not entirely physically manifest — in existence, but not entirely physically manifest.

Therefore, at the moment point of the first actual physical matter manifestation of your species was the spark point of the movement of essence — which the Dream Walkers were — the movement of essence into an actual physical manifestation within your physical dimension.

PAUL: All across the population.

ELIAS: Correct.

PAUL: The same way.

ELIAS: Correct.

PAUL: This is a crystal ball question, so you can answer it appropriately, accordingly. There have been other populations that exist too, that have this creative tension of emergence to manifest essence. It’s almost like at times you sense this whole thing is alive, it’s totally alive; yet this structure of focuses of essence, of attention, are not manifest and yet they yearn towards that. Everything yearns towards that in a way?

ELIAS: No. I am understanding your thought process, but let me clarify. All that exists within your physical reality has been created by you. Therefore, all that exists within your reality, your entirety of your universe, is an aspect of you. It is a projection of you, through your perception.

Now; is it you? No. It is a projection of energy that you create a manifestation in association with, and it is all consciousness, for you are consciousness.

Now; in similar manner to the concept of fragmentation, which I am quite understanding that...

PAUL: (Laughing) That I don’t understand.

ELIAS: ...that none of you understand, but in similar manner to that concept, your creatures of your whales and your dolphins are a projection of you; therefore, they are an aspect of you.

Now; that aspect of you desires to be, in a manner of speaking, fragmented and therefore be essence. It is generated from you. It is not that these creatures have been inhabiting your planet, so to speak, separate and apart from yourself and in one moment have decided “I choose to be essence now.” No. They are already aspects of you.

They in themselves are not essence but they are consciousness. They merely are not incorporating an energy personality tone as do you, and therefore they are not generating other manifestations or other attentions simultaneous to themselves, for they are one of your attentions. That attention of you, in conjunction with you, expresses a desire to be a personality energy tone, and you, in agreement and in association with YOUR desire, express compliance with that. Therefore, in a manner of speaking, it is a type of fragmentation.

PAUL: Oh, that’s interesting. That’s helpful. That’s a nice bridging concept. So there are other populations that are yearning for this similar fragmentation. It’s part of the design of this dimension. (Elias nods) It has to be.

ELIAS: Correct.

PAUL: Interesting. Any predictions — I’m joking! — on, you know, like cats and dogs? I mean, god, they’ve got to be getting close. Elephants, chimps, orangutans, there’s so many species — are some of those in the next millennium yearning towards a fragmentation, becoming...?

ELIAS: Not within this present now, but...

PAUL: But who knows, tomorrow.

ELIAS: And this may be quite difficult, in actuality, to be offering predictions, for you are continuously changing and you continuously incorporate choice. Thus far, in your terms, you are expressing satisfaction with the design of your dimension and the design of what you create. I am understanding your expression in your inquisitiveness in relation to these creatures that you have mentioned, but also view how very efficiently you incorporate them into your reality, your association with them and your design with them in their reflection of you.

PAUL: Sure, and I go into the political level, too, in terms of complication — six billion of us manifest now, tremendously complex political situation of all these focuses of attention going through their acorn/sapling/tree development and relating with each other. So to add more populations to that, the probabilities must be, the calculations, whatever’s involved, it’s tremendously vast. There’s a pressure to maintain equanimity, I guess, as we go along. Yet, who knows, we get bored and poof! We go over here, and so it goes.

ELIAS: And as you continue, as I have stated previously, you also, in your terms of development, are moving in directions of expansion, which is the nature of consciousness also. In reflection of that, you choose to be expanding within your physical universe.

PAUL: Now just a couple more questions in this area. I know time is happening and I’ll squeeze in what I can. The whales and dolphins — they map to this outer ego/subconscious/inner ego developmental structure, unique to their species — not human, don’t humanize them...

ELIAS: Correct.

PAUL: ...but they will loosely follow this. This is in the blueprints...


PAUL: the design.


PAUL: It’s inherent in this dimension.


PAUL: So as those populations develop and evolve their social structures, there might be some similarities to human development. Because we have millions of years — well, let’s say tens of thousands of years — in terms of civilized populations that we can look at in our little framework that we are aware of...

ELIAS: Correct.

PAUL: So these populations of whales and dolphins will follow this general blueprint, and whatever creative choices get made, of course, get made.

ELIAS: Not necessarily in physical expressions, for they have chosen to be a different species and they have chosen to be incorporating a different type of environment, which also offers you information in association with this shift. It is no accident that this has been chosen within this time framework. This offers you an opportunity to view different expressions of essence within one physical dimension.

I have been expressing to you all from the onset of this forum, you all occupy the same space arrangement — ALL physical dimensions occupy the same space arrangement. In this, there are many essences that do not necessarily choose to be manifest within your physical dimension but are within other dimensions.

In that expression, this choice to be generating a different species within your physical reality which chooses quite different types of realities but incorporates the blueprint of this dimension offers you the opportunity to view different manifestations which are also essence, allowing you to more easily recognize and accept that you also incorporate other focuses of attention in other dimensions, which are not similar to yourself and generate quite different realities — but they are also you.

PAUL: That’s a big one. One more general question in this area, about the shift. If we can loosely say that this acorn/sapling/tree change-in-time structure in focuses of essence — human beings, whales, dolphins — goes through what we could just generally call a pre-conventional stage, a conventional stage, and a post-conventional stage. It’s very general...

ELIAS: I am understanding.

PAUL: Okay, it works for you. It seems as populations tend to get to the post-conventional stages, there’s more potential for a harmony and choices of least conflict or whatever. That make sense? That’s consonant?

ELIAS: Correct.

PAUL: So, is part of this shift — and this is coming from this inner ego, Dream Walker, causal source dimension — part of this shift, the nature of this shift, is to somehow get to — because the population’s growing — accelerate isn’t the right word, but to get people from this conventional to post-conventional stage at a younger age? Or to do the opposite and prolong it and to somehow...? What I’m sensing in this shift — and you just brought it up with the fact that there’s no accident with the whales and dolphins in this emergent quality — there’s something emergent in this shift, that’s what I’m trying to get at.

ELIAS: Correct.

PAUL: And does this little three-part thing — pre-conventional, conventional, post-conventional — how does this shift affect the population moving through that developmental stage? Does it accelerate it to get them to the post-conventional?


PAUL: So post-conventional development will happen sooner in large percentages of the population? (17)


PAUL: So we could say in this now, in this moment point, if we take a snapshot of all the focuses and where they’re at in that spectrum and just make a map of that, shall we say — which I won’t even pretend to try — it would tend to be very conventional with smaller percentages of the population at post-conventional.

ELIAS: Correct.

PAUL: But with this shift something is changing.

ELIAS: It is accelerating.

PAUL: To accelerate the developmental stages to post-conventional, and post-post- (Elias nods), and there’s others up the stream that await us...

ELIAS: Correct.

PAUL: all their magnificence.

ELIAS: Correct.

PAUL: Excellent! (Laughs)

ELIAS: And in this, do not confuse yourself in the idea that you are generating a utopia in association with this shift in consciousness. What you are creating is a wider awareness objectively and an intimate knowledge of yourselves that allows you the freedom to intentionally manipulate your energy in association with your choices, in association with your freedom, to generate what you want.

Now; understand, within any moment, although you all express that your ideal is to be generating a reality in which you express no conflict, but I may express to you, all of you within any given point have experienced within your focuses moments in which you choose intentionally to create conflict and you WANT to create conflict. Therefore, you are moving into more of an expression of LESS conflict, but this is not the point.

The point is that if you are creating conflict, you shall be aware that you are intentionally choosing that and not expressing blame to another individual or circumstances or situations, but recognizing that you yourselves have created it and that you chose it and that you want it.

PAUL: That’s a really good point to make, and I call it naïve utopianism. I suffered through it and occasionally lapse back into it myself, so I’m aware that it’s very important to point this out in the conversation we’re having, because “tomorrow is always better,” and “tomorrow the shift,” and tomorrow never comes!

ELIAS: Correct.

PAUL: Tomorrow is always tomorrow! All we have is this moment now. (18)

ELIAS: Correct, for tomorrow is always today.

PAUL: (Laughs) And yesterday too!

ELIAS: (Chuckling) And I may express to you, for the most part, generally speaking, in association with your sequence of moments, you do choose to be expressing less conflict, or the least amount of conflict, and you do choose to be expressing without conflict; but you do also at times express moments in which you do choose to be incorporating conflict.

PAUL: And there’s something inherent in this pre-conventional to conventional spectrum where we create conflict, because the sexual reproduction — the testosterone, the adolescence, that whole thing — focuses will continue to go through those stages.


PAUL: So there’s an inherent instability that they will continue to go through. However, you’re saying that there will be an acceleration across the mass populations towards these post-conventional stages of awareness and with all these streams.

ELIAS: Correct.

PAUL: And alternate selves will be pushing towards that post-conventional, which doesn’t lessen conflict, so in terms of warfare we’ll see more situations like the National Football League (19), rather than the War on Terrorism.

ELIAS: Correct.

PAUL: We can go out and break an arm off, and it’s horrific and all this and that, however it’s within a very ritualized format, where there’s rules.

ELIAS: Correct. As an example, you may experience with your partner — you choose for the most part, generally speaking, to move in association and in interaction with your partner without conflict — but, in moments, you may be quite aware that you are generating an intentional conflict with your partner, and your partner may express, “I am not wishing to engage conflict with you,” and you may express, “I wish to be engaging conflict!” And you shall drive yourself and express a satisfaction in generating an intentional argument.

PAUL: I believe more and more in doing that in the right times and places.

ELIAS: (Laughs) But the point is that you are intentionally and aware of creating this action, and you are not victim to it, and you are not expressing judgment or blame in association with the other individual. You KNOW what you are generating.

PAUL: Thank you very much for this. Do we have time for me to ask some questions for other people, just simple essence name things? I know time is a factor today, so I’ll leave it up to you.

ELIAS: You may incorporate a brace.

PAUL: Okay, thank you. It’s no big deal for these individuals. I’ll try to get through it, as always. My brother, Eric — his orientation, is it common?


PAUL: Great. And he holds an emotional focus?


PAUL: And he’s a final focus?


PAUL: And is he in transition currently?

ELIAS: Somewhat, yes.

PAUL: And when did that begin, roughly?

ELIAS: Approximately three years.

PAUL: Great, thank you. His wife, Susan, her orientation is intermediate?


PAUL: And she’s a continuing focus?


PAUL: And an emotional focus?


PAUL: And her essence belonging to and alignment.

ELIAS: And your impression?

PAUL: My impression, very good. And I had one, actually! (Elias laughs) Damn! It was something, Borledim. Gramada/Borledim.

ELIAS: Vold.

PAUL: Vold/Borledim. Oh! (Laughs and Elias chuckles) A lethal combination. Just joking, Susan!

Okay, moving on to another friend, Barrie. His belonging to and alignment — and my impression is Sumari/Sumafi.

ELIAS: Reverse.

PAUL: Ah! Wow, great. And common orientation?


PAUL: A final focus?


PAUL: An emotional focus?


PAUL: And I have a question from him that I would like to ask you. He says, “What were Dande’s reasons for wanting to die young and choosing to die at the particular time he did and in that particular way?” Which, for anyone who reads this, was in a hit-and-run car accident.

ELIAS: Which is expressed quite quickly and is a choice to be incorporating a movement quickly into transition and into a more rapid expression of shedding the objective awareness and the beliefs associated with this physical dimension, and to be moving into another expression within consciousness, associated with this physical dimension, in an expression of an action, which I have discussed previously, that some focuses choose to be incorporating in helpfulness in association with individuals within this physical dimension as they continue to be physically manifest. THIS IS NOT GUIDANCE. It is a choice to be expressing an energy which is helpful to individuals within the physical dimension as they choose to be disengaging.

PAUL: So this was in helpfulness for Barrie, in a sense, his early disengagement, because it was his son. Did I get that right?

ELIAS: Not merely this one individual — in general. Some essences choose in certain focuses to be moving into an expression of helpfulness in association with disengagement to other focuses.

PAUL: In nonphysical focus.

ELIAS: Correct.

PAUL: And his son leans towards that expression.

ELIAS: Correct.

PAUL: Okay, that’s a clarification, thank you. Thank you for that.

ELIAS: You are welcome.

PAUL: I have just one more to go.

ELIAS: Very well.

PAUL: And I appreciate your patience, as always — as always, old friend. For Alethia, an essence name. (Pause)

ELIAS: Azzi, A-Z-Z-I (ah-ZEE).

PAUL: Number of focuses?

ELIAS: Six hundred twenty-seven.

PAUL: Final focus?


PAUL: Intermediate orientation?


PAUL: Tumold belonging to, Sumafi aligned?


PAUL: These are her impressions, by the way, so I want to acknowledge that. Emotional focus?


PAUL: And her color tone, turquoise or aqua?

ELIAS: Aqua.

PAUL: And is her husband getting ready to disengage or is he in transition?

ELIAS: Transition.

PAUL: Great. That’s it, my friend. Thank you so much.

ELIAS: You are quite welcome.

PAUL: I just want to take a minute and express my gratitude and joy in these exchanges. It’s really wonderful.

ELIAS: (Smiling) I offer to you tremendous affection, my friend, as always, and anticipate our next meeting.

PAUL: Indeed!

ELIAS: You are a friend, and we shall continue!

PAUL: As always.

ELIAS: And I shall be encouraging in association with your journey.

PAUL: Excellent. I appreciate the help (laughs), always!

ELIAS: To you in tremendous fondness, my friend, Caroll. Au revoir.

PAUL: Au revoir.

Elias departs at 1:45 PM.


(1) Paul’s note: this refers to a series of private sessions from Fall 1999:

> 493, October 26, 1999
> 506, November 24, 1999
> 530, December 29, 1999

The dream mission is the exploration of subjective awareness (the inner self) – its structures and mechanics – and how we can learn to better access it from the waking state. It also involves learning more about dreaming, meditation, and other altered states. Here’s more:

PAUL: “I was talking to Mary before we started about her dream mission, and I realized – I had forgotten this – that she coined the term ‘dream mission,’ and you’ve used it a number of times in the sessions. I’m wondering if you would just comment on the term, on your perspective of the term ‘dream mission,’ and what it means.

ELIAS: “This is the terminology that Michael [Mary] has created which identifies an exploration of certain elements of consciousness that many of you within your physical dimension do not necessarily allow yourself to be engaging.

“And in this, as I have offered information previously in conjunction with the subjective and objective awarenesses and the reality that is created – with the participation of both, not singularly as an expression of either element of your reality – there has been created this dream mission, so to speak, in which you offer yourselves the opportunity to be moving in the direction of exploring your subjective awareness, the type of imagery that you create in conjunction with your subjective awareness, and how the imagery of your objective awareness moves in conjunction with the imagery of your subjective awareness.” [session 493, October 26, 1999]

ELIAS: “Let me express to you that movement into the area of the dream mission, which your individual of Doctor Jung has accessed much in this area also, is much more efficient and less distorted than movement into areas of accessing information and then creating interpretations for that information. In investigating of the dream mission, you may be offering yourself less of a distortion factor in accessing this type of information.

“Be remembering, though, that in any accessing of information in the direction of looking for blueprints, THERE ARE NO ABSOLUTES. And therefore, this may be remembered when creating your interpretations for information that you access.” [session 309, August 22, 1998]

Digests: find out more about the dream mission.

(2) 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. (I also referred to this map in my next session 1357, May 29, 2003).

These are photos of the actual map, taken with our cat, Rumi.

Integral Conscious Creation Maps

For an updated version see Integral Conscious Creation Maps (Holonic Personality).

(I use the term holonic personality to describe these multidimensional structures within the psyche [essence] discussed by Seth, Elias, Ken Wilber, and other perennial wisdom traditions. For more info on holons and holarchy see session 1357, May 29, 2003, endnote 4.)

(3) Paul’s note: the following compares the main aspects of multidimensional, holonic personality according to Seth, Elias, and Vedanta Hinduism. The three-part structure of Seth’s I referred to are in the first three rows:

Seth Elias Advaita/Vedanta
Outer ego Objective awareness Waking state (Gross Body)
Subconscious Meditating/translating region Waking/dreaming states (Gross/Subtle Bodies)
Inner ego Subjective awareness Dreaming state (Subtle Bodies)
Pyramid energy gestalts Pools of consciousness Deep Dreaming state (Causal Bodies)
All-That-Is All of consciousness Sahaja samadhi (Nondual)

The “fourth sort of column” I mentioned deals with the above mental structures and states as they change-in-time through physical stages. So I sometimes use the analogy of acorn, sapling, and tree to represent general physical stages.

(4) Paul’s note: the following compares what Elias calls alternate selves with American psychologist Howard Gardner’s multiple intelligences:

Elias (Alternate selves) Gardner (Multiple intelligences)
Emotional Self Emotional
Communicating Self Linguistic
Evaluating Self Mathematical
Etc. Etc.

Digests: find out more about alternate selves.

(5) Paul’s note: it’s interesting that Elias acknowledged that I’m developing a “philosophy.” For the past six years I’ve been researching evolutionary systems theories, psychology, philosophy, theology, and various channeled sources that have greatly expanded my understanding.

The main aspects that I’m exploring in this session include a preliminary roadmap of the psyche (essence) and All-That-Is, and later the cosmogenesis and evolution of our multiverse derived from the works of Seth, Elias, and Ken Wilber. Taken as a whole, I call this “philosophy” Integral Conscious Creation.

For more info see What is Integral Conscious Creation?

(6) Paul’s note: it’s easy to get confused by surface level differences in semantics when comparing Seth, Elias, and other perennial wisdom sources (e.g., Vedanta Hinduism, etc.). So it’s worth noting here that Elias agrees that he covers the same spectrum of consciousness as Seth. Even though he uses his own terminology “the meaning is basically the same.” While there’s plenty of room to haggle over subtle differences, there’s still a high level of similarity between the two sources.

For example, here’s a simple comparison of different words used by Seth and Elias to describe the same general concepts:

Seth Elias
Consciousness units (CUs) Links of consciousness (LCs)
Frameworks of Consciousness (4) Regional Areas of Consciousness (4)
All-That-Is All-of-consciousness
Families of consciousness Essence families
Entity Essence
Sleepwalkers Dream Walkers

Intro: find out more about A Seth, Elias Comparative Overview.

(7) Paul’s note: we can now update the matrix (in endnote 3) to include Elias’ avenues of communication as the mediating or translating region between objective and subjective awareness:

Seth Elias Advaita/Vedanta
Outer ego Objective awareness Waking state (Gross Body)
Subconscious Avenues of communication Waking/dreaming states (Gross/Subtle Bodies)
Inner ego Subjective awareness Dreaming state (Subtle Bodies)
Pyramid energy gestalts Pools of consciousness Deep Dreaming state (Causal Bodies)
All-That-Is All of consciousness Sahaja samadhi (Nondual)

(8) Paul’s note: Elias talks about two distinct kinds of blinking in/out actions. First, is the incredibly fast quantum micro level (ten to the minus fifty-six second; see session 179, June 01, 1997). Second, is the incredibly slow macro level of billions of years (see session 262, January 25, 1998). Interestingly, this second kind is similar to the Yugas in Hindu cosmology that include million, billion, and quadrillion year cycles of manifestation. I referred to the second kind of blinking in this exchange.

Digests: find out more about blinking in and out.

(9) Paul’s note: I referred to the very evocative information given in 1997 in which Elias outlined a linear “order of play” of Dream Walker interaction in relation to what he calls the “shift in consciousness.”

Digests: find out more about the sequence of the Dream Walkers within the actions of their intents.

Digests: find out more about the shift in consciousness.

(10) Paul’s note: this “order of play” is offered in Dreams, “Evolution,” and Value Fulfillment, Vol. 1 (1986/1997), where Seth/Jane Roberts introduces a creation myth – what I call a “conscious creation myth” – that explains cosmogenesis in symbolic terms of what happened “before the beginning,” in the beginning, and thereafter, in terms of human involution/evolution on Earth.

Seth weaves many concepts into his creation storyline:

  • All-That-Is/consciousness units (CUs/causal field)
  • sleepwalkers/electromagnetic energy units (EEs/subtle field)
  • Frameworks 4, 3, 2 (subtle field)
  • the dream state (subtle field) functions as a “language of translation” for the waking state (physical field)
  • Framework 1 (physical field)
  • the paradoxical “before the beginning”
  • families of consciousness (innate intention)
  • the multidimensional psyche (outer ego, subconscious, inner ego)
  • the inner senses (deep intuitions/translogical hyperception)
  • reincarnation in the context of simultaneous time frameworks
  • probabilities

In the following excerpt, Seth shows that there was a “dreamtime” that was primary to the emergence and evolution of objective forms and functions to date – from matter (physiosphere), to bodies (biosphere), to self-reflexive minds (noosphere). In terms of objective awareness there was/is/will be a simultaneous nonphysical region of activity that always “precedes” physical forms. Therefore, less complex physical forms will by necessity precede the emergence of focuses of essence. In other words, Seth and Elias’ creation mythos support an important hypothesis in modern evolutionary theory: there was a hominid ancestor that was not yet a focus of essence but whose DNA we did inherit.

In nonlinear terms, then, this all happens in a vast spacious present. That is, the “dreamtime” is still happening all around and “inside” of us in terms of subjective awareness and no-time. However, in terms of objective awareness and linear time, there is a perceivable order of emergence. For example, Seth said that in our primordial past,

“While men had their dream bodies alone they enjoyed a remarkable freedom, of course, for those bodies did not have to be fed or clothed. They did not have to operate under the law of gravity. Men could wander as they wished about the landscape. They did not yet identify themselves to any great degree as being themselves separate from either the environment or other creatures. They knew themselves to be themselves, but their identities were not as closely allied with their forms as is now the case.

“The dream world was bound to waken, however, for that was the course it had set itself upon. This awakening, again, happened spontaneously, and yet with its own order. In the terms of this discussion the other creatures of the earth actually awakened before man did, and relatively speaking, their dream bodies formed themselves into physical ones before man’s did. The animals became physically effective, therefore, while to some degree man still lingered in that dream reality.

“The plants [i.e., biosphere] awakened before the animals [i.e., noosphere] – and there are reasons for these varying degrees of ‘wakefulness’ that have nothing to do basically with the differentiations of specieshood as defined by science from the outside but have to do with the inner affiliations of consciousness, and with species or families of consciousness [note: this is a reference to what Elias calls Dream Walkers in this session and what Seth calls sleepwalkers]. Those affiliations fell into being as all of the consciousnesses that were embarked upon physical reality divided up the almost unimaginable creative achievements that would be responsible for the physically effective world.” [session 899, February 06, 1980, DEV, Vol 1.]

Thus, Seth hints at an order of emergence in our ancient past (aspects of which exist simultaneously Now in subjective terms) that went roughly from matter (physiosphere) to bodies (biosphere) to self-reflexive minds (noosphere) that is consonant with the “order of play” I discuss with Elias in this session. What’s amazing is that these intersubjective perspectives are still missing from most contemporary evolutionary theory. The integral approach is thus designed to allow us to begin to fill in these blanks without throwing out the baby with the bathwater. That is, we don’t have to completely discard Darwin or anyone else, just expand and refine their limits since every model, theory, or storyline deals with partial snapshots of All-That-Is by default.

For example, it should be clearer that our contemporary sciences of archeology and anthropology still don’t recognize the fact that all potential species of flora and fauna inhabit the Earth in all moment points. However, while the physical, objective aspects are being measured and studied, the subjective aspects are still completely omitted because there isn’t a viable theory of consciousness within their paradigms that would open the doors of perception to explore them. Yet.

Finally, there’s an important distinction to make in the overall “order of play.” Namely, the physiosphere, biosphere, and noosphere each contain nested variations of the basic three-part mental structure explored earlier in the session:

  • Outer ego (physical construction region)
  • Mediating/Translation region (“subconscious” region)
  • Inner ego (nonphysical source region)

Put another way, all quantum fields (physiosphere) as they existed before a focus of essence emerged had a rudimentary outer ego, subconscious (translating region), and inner ego. As cellular life (biosphere) emerged, a new level of complexity manifested that transcended yet included the previous one. So all biospheric manifestations included elements of the physiosphere (atoms and molecules) yet formed a novel structure: cellular life forms. And on and on this process goes. Eventually, cellular life forms became so complex that a focus of essence (noosphere) emerged.

To summarize the “order of play” or emergence in Framework 1 terms:

  1. Quantum Fields = physiospheric outer ego, subconscious, inner ego
  2. Biological life forms (includes quantum fields) = biospheric outer ego, subconscious, inner ego
  3. Self-reflexive minds (includes quantum fields and biological life forms) = noospheric outer ego, subconscious, inner ego

Obviously, the type of nested outer ego structure will be quite different between a salt atom, a paramecium, and a human being, since each nest builds upon preceding structures and becomes increasingly sophisticated. Still, I find it quite beautiful that the basic functions and structures exist within each general region of emergence.

For more info on the holonic relationships between quantum fields (physiosphere), cellular life (biosphere), and self-reflexive minds (noosphere) see session 1357, May 29, 2003, endnote 4.

For more info on Seth’s mythos see Seth on “The Origins of the Universe and of the Species” – An Integral Conscious Creation Myth.

For Elias’ variation of Seth’s creation mythos see:

Digests: “before the beginning”.

Digests: Dream Walkers.

Digests: Source Events.

(11) Paul’s note: I had the following excerpt by Ken Wilber in mind when Elias verified these queries:

“When MacLean [who formulated the theory of the triune mammalian brain: reptilian, paleo-mammalian, and neo-mammalian regions] said that when humans lie on the couch for psychoanalysis, they lie down with a crocodile and a horse, that wasn’t the half of it: we lie down with the planets and the stars, the lakes and the rivers, the plankton and the oaks, the lizards and the birds, the rabbits and the apes–and, to repeat, not simply because they are our neighbors in our own universe, but because they are components in our own being, they are literally our bones and blood and marrow and guts and feelings and fears.” Sex, Ecology, Spirituality: The Spirit of Evolution (1995,2000) P. 109.

(12) Paul’s note: according to Elias, Source Events provide the “source energy” for Regional Area 1 constructions. They exist in Regional Area 2 (which is the same as Seth’s Framework 2).

Digests: find out more about Source Events.

Digests: find out more about Regional Area 2.

Also, note the similarity of Elias’ Source Events to Seth’s “master events” from Dreams, “Evolution,” and Value Fulfillment, Vol. 2 (1986,1997), p. 372. Interestingly, Source Events are similar to Ken Wilber’s “involutionary givens” in Excerpt A: An Integral Age at the Leading Edge.

Elias imparts in the preceding paragraph that the Dream Walker “region” of consciousness is causal in the sense that these holonic aspects create the actual “blueprints for reality” that exist within Regional Area 2. This is another general area of similarity with the Seth material. In The “Unknown” Reality, Vol. 1 (1977,1996), Seth/Jane Roberts introduces the concept of dream-art science as a potential methodology in which to explore the “blueprints for reality” from an expanded version of our waking, Framework 1 consciousness capable of exploring the “unknown” reality of Framework 2.

I believe that this endeavor is not only worthwhile, but a key to discovering, or more accurately “remembering,” how conscious creation actually works in space-time (objective awareness) and no-space-no-time (subjective awareness). This is also the goal of Elias’ “dream mission.”

Put another way, our current understanding of the relationship between Framework 1 and 2 is found in the field of physics (quantum mechanics). For example, David Bohm’s explicate and implicate orders. But upon closer examination we soon realize that this still deals with only the thin outer crust of quantum fields (physiosphere), and doesn’t adequately explain how bodies (biosphere) or minds (noosphere) work in Framework 1 terms alone! That would require the additional sciences of biology, developmental psychology, cultural anthropology, for example. To date, all of these disciplines exist in parallel at best, and more often in complete isolation from each other.

Seth’s dream-art science and Wilber’s integral approach outline, in a general way, the basic requirements to adequately study All-That-Is in a more holonic embrace:

> Quantum Fields (physiosphere/physics)
> Body (biosphere/biology)
> Mind (noosphere/psychology)
> Soul (psychoshere/theology)
> Spirit (theosphere/mysticism)

This conceptual foundation helps us to outline an integral approach that more adequately investigates the mechanics of conscious creation.

For more info see The Dream-Art Science Sessions (700-704), Abridged.

(13) Paul’s note: Elias makes a clear distinction between duality or pairs of opposites and duplicity, which is one of the ten foundational belief systems.

RODNEY: “Would you distinguish again the distinction between duality and duplicity?”

ELIAS: “I am aware that your new religion of your metaphysics moves in the direction of designating duality as the same as duplicity, but in actuality, I am quite careful in my choice of words that I offer to you in explanation of these belief systems and concepts.

“Duality is suggestive of two, or a double of elements. Duplicity, although it incorporates what you term to be opposites, it is not necessarily merely two. It is an incorporation of very different conflicting elements within you simultaneously, in opposition to each other. Duality does not always suggest conflict or opposing elements. You may hold duality in certain areas that may complement each other. Within duplicity, these elements of the belief system that you hold do not complement each other. They are opposing of each other and creating of conflict.”

RODNEY: “In other words, the north pole and the south pole are complementary ...”

ELIAS: “Correct.”

RODNEY: “... dualities.”

ELIAS: “Correct.”

RODNEY: “They are not in conflict.”

ELIAS: “They are not within conflict. Duplicity IS within conflict. It is a creation of conflict.”

“… And where you hold duplicity, you also hold conflict.” [session 328, October 03, 1998]

(14) Paul’s note: according to Charles Darwin’s original theory, circa 1859, natural selection is the theory and storyline used to rationalize biological mutations over vast spans of time from a purely materialistic perspective. That is, the theory never included a viable theory of consciousness, or interior aspects of subjective reality. Also, it has never been proven as fact, and has been heavily modified in the subsequent one hundred and fifty years by scientists in a variety of fields. Since Darwin’s theory did not include a working theory of consciousness, the entire subjective and intersubjective realms of reality were not included in his or many derivative theories. We can now see this as a glaring omission that leaves out half of the story of evolution – the subjective and intersubjective half that deals with consciousness.

However, as of this writing, the idea has been greatly expanded to include not only just biological processes, but social (interobjective), cultural (intersubjective), and mental (subjective) processes that work in complementary fashion. Ken Wilber, Allan Combs, Michael Murphy, and George Leonard are notable integral theorists working in this area.

Still, when Elias said, “continual experimentation of the subjective manipulating links of consciousness in association with time to create different manifestations in physical matter,” I had the immediate impression that he had just offered his own clarification that expanded these contemporary definitions from the perspective of the causal intersubjective region. That is, from the Regional Area 4 perspective that Elias claims is his natural focus of attention. (And, as he often says, aspects of all essences exist there as well.)

Put it all together and a multidimensional (holonic) picture begins to emerge in which we begin to see that virtually all contemporary evolutionary theories are still blinded by Regional Area 1 perceptive artifacts, namely, the dominance of the outer ego which sees itself as the center of all-of-consciousness to such extremes that it has reduced all subjective aspects of essence into objective things, processes, or “its.” Again, that’s only half of the story!

Therefore, we also want to integrate the view from the inside, so to speak. And Elias’ (and Seth’s) information further animates those missing perspectives. The integral approach holds the view that consciousness is causal, and specifically (Elias’) objective awareness, avenues of communication, subjective awareness or (Seth’s) outer ego, subconscious, and inner ego all work in concert to simultaneously co-create the four Regional Areas (or Frameworks) in holonic fashion. Therefore, any accurate story or theory of evolution in this Now must take into careful consideration both linear (space-time) and nonlinear (no-space-no-time), objective and subjective aspects of the psyche (essence) and All-That-Is.

Finally, it should become clear that Elias is not completely refuting our linear belief systems of evolution in this session, but making sure that we see them for what they are, namely, belief systems (memes) or artifacts of Regional Area 1 constructions.

(15) Paul’s note: Elias’ statement – “selecting the preferred and the efficient.” – is consonant with our contemporary sciences of complexity that have greatly expanded our understanding of evolutionary processes since the time of Darwin. Again, this is not to say that Darwin was 100% in error, he wasn’t. He was just dealing with a much smaller snapshot of All-That-Is that, with 20/20 hindsight, we now see as true but very, very partial.

However, the belief system of evolution has been refined in amazing and more accurate ways since the time of Darwin, like all authentic science. I’m not suggesting that current sciences of complexity will ever provide anything that approaches a complete picture without a working theory of consciousness, and again, an integral approach provides one.

For more information and a good example of how far we’ve come since Darwin, check out Ken Wilber’s Sex, Ecology, Spirituality: The Spirit of Evolution (1995, 2000). It integrates a viable theory of consciousness into a scientific, artistic, and moral context along with aspects of body, mind, and spirit. Wilber includes recent breakthroughs in evolutionary as well as perennial wisdom traditions (e.g., Buddhism, Taoism, Hinduism, Judaism, Islam, Christian, etc.). In terms of recent sciences, there are many wonderful refinements that greatly expand Darwin’s original theory. For example:

“The new sciences … are collectively known as the sciences of complexity–including General Systems Theory (Bertalanffy, Weiss), cybernetics (Wiener), nonequilibrium thermodynamics (Prigogine), cellular automata theory (von Neumann), catastrophe theory (Thom), autopoietic system theory (Maturana and Varela), dynamic systems theory (Shaw, Abraham), and chaos theories, among others.” (SES, p. 22)

All this to say that when Elias implies that the action of evolution “is a continual experimentation of manipulating energy, which is consciousness, in different manners, and thusly, in your terms, selecting the preferred and the efficient,” he offers further clues from his subjective perspective as to how this action of “efficient selection” occurs throughout various holonic structures within essence and its focuses in relation to Regional Area 1 constructs. And these may well form core evolutionary processes that we’ve barely begun to understand.

Scale that up to over six billion focuses in this Now, and we can begin to imagine how “exceedingly complex” the holonic action of conscious creation is in Regional Area 1 alone! The contemporary sciences listed above add their own puzzle pieces to our increased objective understanding of how things work and thus complement both Seth and Elias’ more story-like versions of “before the beginning,” in the beginning, and thereafter.

The significant point, again, is that Elias provides a subjective or more fully informed interior perspective on the process of evolution that acknowledges the importance of linear time and its constructions, but also reminds us that there is a vast inner realm of choice and action that we are only beginning to become objectively aware of that is intimately involved in conscious creation and co-creation. This is a natural outcome of the action of what Elias calls the “shift in consciousness” and part and parcel of my intent in formulating “integral conscious creation” that includes Wilber’s subjective, intersubjective, and objective aspects of the psyche (essence).

For more info see What is Integral Conscious Creation?

(16) Paul’s note: according to Elias, whales, dolphins (and porpoises by implication of belonging to the same species) recently took an evolutionary leap and became manifest focuses of essence, just like homo sapiens, though they are a unique species called cetaceans.

BOBBI: “I have actually several questions here about dolphins and whales. You had said a while ago that they had made a decision to become essence.”

ELIAS: “Correct.”

BOBBI: “This raises a lot of questions in my mind then. If they are essence now, does that mean that we, as essence, can have a focus as a dolphin or a whale?” (Pause)

ELIAS: “If you are so choosing.”

BOBBI: “Okay. They are on this planet ... but are they part of this dimension? Is their experience as essence, in that capacity of being a whale, would that be considered part of this dimension?”

ELIAS: “Yes.”

BOBBI: “So their experiences are based on emotion and sexual orientation also?”

ELIAS: “Yes.”

BOBBI: “Oh, really! I also have questions about when that change occurred, from a group of consciousness to essence. Were new essences formed in that action, or were essences waiting there for that decision and they sort of stepped in, or how did that occur?”

ELIAS: “New essences have been formed; yes, you are correct.”

BOBBI: “Oh, really! So that would be a way that essence is created?”

ELIAS: “Within the action of fragmentation and the development, in a manner of speaking ... this is, of course, figuratively speaking, in relation to nonphysical aspects of consciousness and their translation into an explanation presently.

(Slowly) “As essences merge, the element that may be fragmented is an element which desires to be fragmented, holding specific qualities of those essences which it is fragmented of.

“Now; be remembering that each new essence, in a manner of speaking, holds all of the qualities of the fragmenting essence, but also creates a type of emphasis upon certain qualities that it chooses to be exploring.

(Slowly) “And as essence is consciousness and consciousness is essence, those qualities of essence which are consciousness – which create the manifestations in your physical dimension of these particular creatures – have chosen to be fragmented into their own expression of essence.

“Be remembering also, I have expressed to you, your creatures are a creation of you. They are consciousness; they are also a creation of you. They are not essence in themselves. They are a manifestation of you as essence; a projection of consciousness that is designated to specific functions and forms within your physical dimension. But as not essence in themselves, they also do not necessarily align with or manifest the base qualities of this particular physical reality and dimension as you as essence have designed it.

“Therefore, a tree does not necessarily manifest its reality incorporating the base elements of expression of emotion and sexuality. YOU identify the tree through elements of sexuality and emotion, but the tree does not necessarily identify itself in this manner, for it is a creation of yours. But it is also an expression of consciousness, and in this, the qualities of that tree in consciousness are held by you as essence.

“Now; in the choice of certain expressed qualities of essence, those being the qualities of consciousness that move together and create the physical manifestations of those creatures which you identify as dolphins and whales ... have expressed the desire to be creating new essences, holding those qualities of essence as their particular direction of attention, in a manner of speaking.

“And in this, through the mergence of essences, there is an action of fragmentation which occurs, which has thusly created new expressions of essence which are already manifest within your physical dimension as these expressions of dolphins and whales.” [session 556, February 09, 2000]

Digests: find out more about creature consciousness.

Also, the action of fragmentation is something that occurs within causal subjective awareness (the inner ego) and offers further clues to the mechanics of conscious creation and co-creation within those aspects of essence.

Digests: find out more about fragmentation.

(17) Paul’s note: developmental psychologists (e.g., Piaget, Kohlberg, Loevinger, Graves, Gilligan, Cook-Greuter, Beck, Kegan, etc.) have mapped various stages of human growth (or change-in-time) for over fifty years. In terms of overall development, there is rough consensus that humans develop from what can be generally called preconventional to conventional to postconventional stages in first, second, and third world cultures and are thus universal to homo sapiens on this planet.

These stages include various intelligences or abilities that have been further broken down into subsets, for example, morals, cognition, emotions, sexual, self-needs, self-identity, logical-mathematic, linguistic, musical, etc. Each provides a snapshot of overall personal development that is “necessary but not sufficient.” That is, no single intelligence is the main one, even though many researchers still make the mistake of believing their research shows the most important one, as Piaget did with cognition. It is the view of Wilber’s Integral Psychology, and I agree, that there are many ways of looking at personal development, but each provides a “necessary but not sufficient” snapshot of the total focus personality.

Returning to the stages, then, let’s take a brief look at cognition as it develops through preconventional, conventional, and postconventional stages. Preconventional cognition believes that the moon is literally made out of cheese, or that if I cover my own eyes, then you can’t see me. In other words, it’s impossible for me to take the role of other or walk a mile in someone’s shoes.

Conventional cognition can take the role of other. It also uses early forms of reason and intellect but often reaches conclusions like the Renaissance Archbishop who stated that since the human body has seven orifices, that is why God created seven planets to revolve around the Earth. That is, the human body and outer ego are still the central filters. Perception is still driven by egocentric (self) or ethnocentric (family, tribe, country, etc.) filters.

Postconventional cognition realizes that quantum fields aren’t solid or permanent constructs. It also becomes aware that there is an underlying nonphysical domain from which physical manifestation emerges and returns to. That is, I as an individual belong to something far greater than my outer egoic sense of self. Perception thus begins to become worldcentric.

Also, since Elias claims that all species of whale, dolphin, (and porpoise) are now “focuses of essence,” then these basic developmental stages would apply to them as well, acknowledging that their physiological, cultural, social, and geopolitical aqua-differences may include some interesting variations that we aren’t yet aware of. Put another way, since expressions of essence on this planet now include homo sapiens and cetaceans, they will use similar patterns of development laid down by previous generations that rely on the same “blueprints for reality.” But there is no dream-art science research being done yet in this area, because that would include some kind of dream archeology and dream anthropology, for example, that further explores the blueprints in Framework 2 in conjunction with the Framework 1 constructions.

All this to say that it makes sense when Elias suggests that a key outcome the “shift in consciousness” is to move or transform large quantities of the human (and by implication whale, dolphin, and porpoise) populations into postconventional stages of development and beyond. In this context, then, we can develop new scientific research methods to track emergent probable futures and see just how this will be accomplished (given the fact that something like 80% of the focuses in this Now are at preconventional or conventional and the fact that every focus begins at stage 1 – preconventional – and develops from there).

(18) Paul’s note: “naïve utopianism” is the belief system that the grass will always be greener on the other side of the fence, and that tomorrow will somehow always be better today. And of course, tomorrow always remains just that – tomorrow! A more accurate view is that as the emergent complexity in Regional Area 1 terms increases and more humans, whales, dolphins, porpoises and who knows what else manifest, there will be new and amazing creations, inventions, discoveries and interdependencies.

However, we need to balance that developmental view with the notion that each new epoch of cultural development has side effects that carry the potentials for new pathologies and dis-eases. For example, it is now understood that many problems created by humans at a certain stage of development, complexity, and belief systems can not be solved at that level (i.e., pollution, deforestation, weapons of mass destruction, slavery, poverty, woman’s, gay and lesbian rights, etc.).

As Albert Einstein said, “the significant problems we face can never be solved at the level of thinking that created them.” And so, in very general systemic terms, new levels of complexity emerge that provide a wider awareness that can take in more factors and come up with efficient new solutions. That’s the good news!

The bad news, of course, is that there is always the potential for complementary forms of pathology, dis-ease, or collective dysfunction at any stage as long as we’re dealing with physical constructions in space-time. All of this is to say that there is no predetermined end point to this action of evolution or consciousness changing-in-time/no-time. (However, this session does raise the question about what Source Events lead to the “blink out” that ends the current meta-cycle of manifestation referred to in endnote 8.)

(19) Paul’s note: NFL stands for the National Football League – the version of football played in the U.S.A.

< Previous session | Go to the top | Next session >

© 2003 Mary Ennis, All Rights Reserved.