Where does mind individually, and consciousness ultimately, originate? In the cosmos there is only one life, one consciousness, which masquerades under all the different forms of sentient beings. This one consciousness pierces up and down through all the states and planes of being and serves to uphold the memory, whether complete or incomplete, of each state’s experience. This suggests that our self-conscious mind is really a ray of cosmic mind. There is a mysterious vital life essence and force involved in the interaction of spirit or consciousness with matter. The cosmos has its memory and follows general pathways of formation based on previous existences, much as everything else does. Aided by memory, it somehow selects out of the infinite possibilities a new and improved imbodiment. When the first impulse emerges, we have cosmic ideation vibrating the first matter, manifesting in countless hierarchies of beings in endless gradations. Born of the one cosmic parent, monadic centers emerge as vital seeds of consciousness, as germs of its potential. They are little universes in the one universe.
Theosophy does not separate the world into organic and inorganic, for even the atoms are considered god-sparks. All beings are continuously their own creators and recorders, forming more perishable outer veils while retaining the indestructible thread-self that links all their various principles and monads through vast cycles of experience. We are monads or god-sparks currently evolving throughout the human stage. The deathless monad runs through all our imbodiments, for we have repeated many times the processes of birth and death. In fact, birth and death for most of humanity are more or less automatic, unconscious experiences as far as our everyday awareness is concerned. How do we think? We can start, for example, with desire which provides the impulse that causes the mind through will and imagination to project a stream of thoughts, which are living elemental beings. These thoughts take various forms which may result in different kinds of actions or creative results. This is another arena of responsibility, for in the astral light our thoughts circulate through other minds and affect them, but those that belong to us have our stamp and return to us again and again. So through these streams of thought we create habits of mind, which build our character and eventually our self-made destiny. The human mind is an ideator resonating with its past, selecting thoughts and making choices, anticipating and creating a pattern of unfolding. Perhaps we are reflecting in the small the operations of the divine mind which acts as the cosmic creator and architect. Some thoughts or patterns we create are limiting; others are liberating. The soul grows, and thoughts are reused and transformed by the mind, perhaps giving them a superior expression. Plato was right: with spiritual will and worthiness we can recollect the wisdom of the past and unlock the higher mind. We have the capacity of identifying with all beings, experiencing the oneness we share together in our spiritual consciousness, that continuous stream that is the indestructible thread-self. All that it was, is, or is becoming is our karma. Mind and memory are a permanent part of the reincarnating ego or human soul, and of the universe as well.
In the cosmos there are many physical, psychic, mental, and spiritual fields — self-organizing, whole, living systems. Every such field is holographic in that it contains the characteristics of every other field within itself. Rupert Sheldrake’s concepts of morphic fields and morphic resonance, for instance, are in many ways similar to some phenomena attributed to the astral light. All terrestrial entities can be considered fields belonging to our living earth, Gaia, and forming part of her constitution. The higher akasic fields resonate with every part of nature. Various happenings within the earth’s astral light are said to result in physical effects which include all natural and human phenomena, ranging from epidemics and earthquakes to wars and weather patterns. Gaia, again, is part of the fields which form the solar being and its constitution, and so on throughout the cosmos.
Like the earth, human beings each have auric fields and an astral body. The fifty trillion cells in our body, as well as the tissues and organs they form, each have their own identity and memory. Our mental and emotional fields influence every cell and atom of our being for better or worse. How we think and act affects not only humanity but Gaia as well through the astral light, the action of which is guided by active creative intelligences. For example, the automatic action of divine beings restores harmony, balancing the inner with the outer throughout nature.
AltExploit 
I can appreciate this type of view. I definitely approve of this kind of you more than I approve of Christian white racism. Lol
A couple of the things that I have not been able to reconcile to this panpsychim kind of view, is why does it seem to promote a goodness? It would seem that there would be any number of possibilities so far as ethical behavior for the spiritual type beings so to speak. I’m not sure why the universe functioning the way it it does as a kind of unity in operation manifested in various beings but particularly human beings, would not also manifest just as operationally people who like to rape six-year-old children, or slate peoples throats as they walk down a busy urban street.
Granted it seems preferable and nicer and more conducive to human beings thriving, but there always seems to be some sort of naturally equation to this kind of spiritual if you could noting the goodness and a general affinity for happiness of all beings. It really does kind aargue the problem of evil.
Your thoughts?
Some thoughts around that: Chaos itself is a thought construct, of the same character by which we might say that we are able to intuit truths of the universe. But we should be careful as to what we impose versus what we intuit.
It would seem that the issue is whether or not we are able to form or otherwise have a link to this functioning universe by which to be able to come to true concept-experiences of it. In other words: Can we trust what we intuit?
Without going into all the facets involved here, I skip to the punch:
If the universe is outside out concept of function, either finite or infinite (for these too are intuited), then it is possible that the universe functions in such a manner to allow contradictions; this would seem to be the case since we also intuit contradictions but out manner is to reject the resultant contents of contradiction; we say that there is no content within contradiction. It is possible, though, that the universe has contradictions that hold content.
It would seem then that if this be the case, due to the fact that the possibility has been intuited that we can also have a knowledge of the content of contradiction. This content could then be understood as a kind of field, perhaps of the sort of ‘subtle for of non-locality’, as actual wave understood in its waviness, but one that does not then reduce or have further interactions (as a function) with other waves, other fields (Im totally expressing my layman ship of physics ;)). For, the interaction between such fields would then itself be another field exclusive from the derivative two except in as much as we develop another function; each instance implying a whole could probably not be understood outside of its particularity (particle), what Francois Laruelle might call ‘corpuscular’.
Wave as wave (qua) would seem to denote that there is a possible universal structural operation that develops a thinking being (human) as part of its operational function that functions primarily ‘within’ contradiction, within the event whereby particles arrive, as such sustaining and recording the unfolding of random occurrences of particles as a sensibility, a history. But similarly, due to the non-local aspect of wave functions, there are also possibilities of being human that do not fall ‘into’ the necessary particle designation of contradiction, but that, by real definition, exist in a state that is ‘different’ than what most human beings reckon as human.
The possibility of this discrepancy thus might be evident in certain religious figures, but also philosophical figures, such as Hieddgger, Badou, Derrida, Delueze, Wittgenstien, Laruelle. For these authors evidence a certain irreconcilability that they sustain even while contradicting themselves through the common discourse.
What exactly is meant here by contradictions having content?
Not totally sure right now how we could express it, but i feel that ti might be similar to how (from the perspective of) classical physics might view quantum or how quantum might be expressed by the classical.
You mean the square of opposition? A similar approach is used in the case of the problem of identity and individuality of particles in quantum mechanics: according to some views, identity and individuality are lost for quantum particles. Non-reflexive logics are logics developed to reflect that fact, and are strong enough to accommodate the development of a non-reflexive version of quantum mechanics, that is, the theory is built again with the respective metaphysical principles already embedded in the underlying logic.
I think that reply right there needs further development. 👍🏽 i have a taste on my pallatte of what that means, but most of it is just … not formulated yet.
One of the points (of topic) that must be unpacked is the recurrence of particularity, which is to say that even as we might say ‘not particle’ that element is yet still a particle by virtue of our having to conceptualize it in a certain frame.
This sounds to me like particle losing a particular quality in certain frames or fields. (Identity is lost for quantum particles).
Could you elaborate what ‘non-relexive logics’ is? Having to do with forces maybe? (Strong enough) ?
And; if a ‘metapysic principles are already embedded’ — that seems to me to mean functioning, operational, and therefore unnoticable from the position that is operating. This is consistent, then, with the notions of intrinsic and extrinsic mythology.
Non-reflexive logics are logics in which the principle of identity does not hold in general. In quantum mechanics there are difficulties regarding the interpretation of ‘particles’ and their identity, also known in the literature as ‘the problem of indistinguishable particles’.
The scientific use of the term particle originates in classical mechanics, where the very idea of particles is that they can be pointed at! A classical particle is always individualized by having a unique position at each moment. Defining particles in quantum mechanics, in such a way that they cannot be pointed at, not even in the classical limit, seems a strange thing to do. Why call something a ‘particle’, when it has no connection to the particles we know from classical mechanics? Of course we can give a name to a theoretical term in QM, but if we call it ‘particle’ we should be very careful, because this suggests a connection to the particles we already have an intuition of, resulting from daily life and classical mechanics. Using the term ‘particle’ in such a way that they are all in the same state gives rise to philosophical worries. The indistinguishability may be seen as one of the mysteries or peculiarities of QM. The resolution lies in non-reflexive logic.
[…] HERE is a repost of a recent post by ALT Exploit, that I commented on. […]