This is the third time I have cycled around to some of this concept. This was part of the previous med but most of it didn’t get recorded. I remembered it later. But I’ve been through it twice before, so it isn’t new, just new context and ‘level’ of understanding. Cosmology model obviously.
“Mark,” I said as I was going to sleep, “I can do tons of stuff in dreams. Why can’t you just do massive work with me while I dream, and I wake up tomorrow and all this heart chakra stuff is taken care of?”
He sent the answer as meaning instead of words. It meant: because some of these changes need to work through the body which requires ‘time’.
“But why can’t you just push it through me?” I whined. “I mean, I know I’m avoiding it, running from you, in denial and all, but I also do want to grow. So why don’t you just push the growth?”
I suddenly remember Senior and the forced-evolution lesson: at a certain point of ‘autonomy’ it is no longer appropriate to force-change on a seeming-other or -inner.
“OK but still,” I argue, “I mean, if it’s going to happen anyway — ten years later when I finally get to it, or tonight if you just make it happen — then why not?”
I believe this following is the answer to that question.
Somethingness, which we will call light (the ancient concept-word’s true meaning), is the only fundamental, the ‘source.’
Light is not energy. Rather, energy is an emergent property of light.
What humans can measure and define via their biology and physics has no part of this. Humans have it backward. We think light is part of a certain larger spectrum of energy. That thing is only “luminosity visible to the human biological filter” within a spectrum of energy (a spectrum which is far greater than what humans can measure or even hypothesize). Light, in the true sense of the word, is something else. It is, in essence, something-ness. Source, as we know it.
In this more appropriate definition of the term, there is light without energy. There is no energy without light.
Identity is an emergent quality of energy. Infinitely groupable and divisible.
It is easiest to model this as an onion-of-energy. Nesting thin-layer spheres.
Identity is any layer or group, any slice or many spots. Identity is self-defining.
Identity is the sense of both integration and separation.
The sense-of-I-ness separate from the sense-of-other-ness.
The sense of singularity pulled from a connective collection of diversity.
An emerged identity can retain its sense-of-I-ness autonomously.
I-ness drives its own self-definition. It can modify itself.
It drives consolidation or expansion of the energy giving rise to itself.
Identity’s definition of ‘boundary’ creates both push and pull on both sides of its boundary.
It is both projective and receptive, where the word receptive is an active, not passive, force: gravity.
The boundary of identity creates a highly “resistant” property.
Identity resists incursions or extrusions. It maintains its own boundaries and definition.
Autonomy is an emergent property of identity.
Autonomy requires a certain density of associated energy to emerge.
Autonomy is borne when a ‘balance point’ beween I-ness and other-ness comes about.
This allows autonomy to exist “at” (and help identity define) the “boundary-line of self.”
Autonomy varies in seeming-degrees in the same way energy or brightness does.
Identity boundary interference will usually reduce or increase autonomy as a follow-on effect.
(Psychological effects such as ‘driving ambition’ versus ‘avoidance of change’ are an example.)
Change to encompassed energy or its scope may be driven by the autonomous identity.
Such change may also be driven by the larger environment (identity(s)) within which it exists.
Identity can create change within itself. But if changed is forced upon its content, its boundary/autonomy ‘resists.’
Energetic change forced within a smaller-identity by a larger-identity “burns through the resistance.”
The resistance IS identity and its autonomy. Forced-change dissolves the lesser/inner “sense-of-I-ness.”
The larger identity, when overriding the smaller boundaries-of-self/identity, “removes the illusion of separation.”
If identity does not voluntarily choose to operate under the Will of the larger identity, it is dissolved.
Sin is the deviation from ideal orbit, the resistance to divine (higher/larger) Will.
The eventual end-result of continued resistance is obliteration.
Or as the old religious phrase goes: the wages of sin are death.
Death: The ancient concept-word’s true meaning is a fundamental: non-existence.
Identity, if within the divine Will containing it, modifies-self but sense-of-self remains existent.
Identity’s “sense of separation” can continue, if its territory of energy is within resonance with larger containing identities.
Or as the old religious phrase goes: Eternal life.
Identity, nested in the light, continues.
IG cannot push change through me, because pushing through me literally helps dissolve the ‘me.’ The parts resisting are the parts which fundamentally define my boundaries of identity: my sense of self and Self’s autonomy. So while it would be changing the energy it would be destroying some degree of the identity holding it.
If it had to be done; if I would not change when he Willed it; then this would have to happen.
This morning I said to one of my archetypes: I know that I could force this myself. But I want you to do it. I want you to want to be part of my Will. I want you to choose to change. … I will override you if I must, but I honor you enough to want you to make the choice. It isn’t that you don’t have the right to make either choice, but it is the fact that you will cease to exist if you choose against me, and you will live on inside me if you choose for me. Make your decision.
I did get it sounded like ‘what god might say to a person in typical religion.’
But now I see: Mark makes clear: This is what HE is essentially saying to ME. I guess that’s why I was inspired to say it, rather than just having a meditation where I changed things without questioning it the way I did.
It had not occurred to me until that moment, this morning, that this is the lesson 3rd of 4 is always trying to teach me: there is no difference. When identities overlap, there isn’t. When I am pushing to evolve, the larger-identity is pulling me to do so. I am not operating in a vacuum. My ‘drive’ is a response to Mark’s ‘call.’ We are moving each other in the same directions at the same time for the same reasons.
If I were less autonomous, him forcing change in energy which is also-me would impact me less. The more autonomous I become, the more important it is that I voluntarily stay within the higher will.
It is not simply that I was ‘gifted’ inner guide #5 (Mark) because I had ‘reached’ some point where I was capable of perceiving his level of angelic-identity. He’s not a stuffed animal or a trophy, handed over because I passed some test. He is the larger-self. Until the later days of IG#4, for a couple decades I had thought of IG as a sort of servant, because when I began this work I thought it was “a psychological construct.”
Mark’s work with me is a function of service. But the dominant Will is his.
My love… my life and growth and change… under his Will.
He chose to connect with the identity-span I call me, within himself, and increase its luminance, as I am part of his own territory-of-identity. Just like I chose to connect with an archetype — an energetic identity — within my territory today.
For all I know, that archetype from this morning is an identity which in turn talked with every individual mote (many thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands) of energy I saw sort of ‘burning from darkness into transparent light’ around me and either convinced them to go with its Will or burned through their resistance if they didn’t.
It is clearer now why Sun showing me Mark’s “true nature” scared the hell out of me.