Introduction by Jeremy Weiland
In this session from the Other Selves Working Group’s first channeling intensive, Q’uo elaborates on functional characteristics involved in three of the seven classifications used to study the archetypal mind. The significator provides a unifying concept of selfhood that derives elaboration from the mutual reinforcement of matrix and potentiator, variously synthesizing the activity/passivity and generation/reception dynamics that accrue from their respective masculine or feminine correspondences. In their answers to questions, Q’uo briefly touches on the choice archetype’s relationship to the significator, and finally they establish the primacy of free will relative to the archetypal mind, suggesting a mysterious, macrocosmic superstructure governing octaval evolution.
We are those of Q’uo and we are with this instrument. It is our pleasure to speak with this group once again. And we are grateful for the frequency of opportunity we have been given to do so. We will, of course, issue our standard disclaimer: that you use your own judgment to weigh our words. You have an agency in accepting information. Although we have our own perspective, which, in many ways, is wider than yours, we also lack your perspective, which, in many ways, is more apt to handle your concerns than ours. So measure our words with care.
We have been asked to speak on the topic of the archetype classifications: the matrix, the potentiator, and the significator. We might first comment that these terms are abstruse, themselves. Those of Ra selected them for the purpose of what those of Ra considered clarity. But Ra’s perspective is not yours and their choices are not perfect. So do not get too lost in meanings of abstruse terms, as this instrument is sometimes inclined to do.
We shall begin by observing that the classifications themselves are a three-fold array. That is, the harvest of the previous octave of experience was introduced into this octave of experience with significators, potentiators and matrices for all three of mind, body and spirit. The purpose of the classifications themselves is to signal or connote that there are similarities in function between certain concept complexes. Likewise, the so-called cycles of mind, body and spirit indicate the domains of application of these archetypes. Similarity of function does not mean, of course, identity of function. So when we speak to the functions or the natures of these classifications, bear in mind that we necessarily leave information out that would distinguish one significator from another, and so on.
We shall begin with the significator. The significator term is chosen for its use as identifying the self. It may seem odd to say that you have three selves, but perhaps it is equally odd to say that one is a mind/body/spirit complex. There is a certain mystery in the threefold unity, as so many Christians will attest. Consider self-reference. When you speak of yourself, you might describe yourself in terms of your body, such as when a child might complain of their sibling that the sibling keeps hitting the child. This, of course, is a bodily phenomenon. In this use of self, we see that the self is the body. Of course, the sibling is not hitting the mind or the spirit. Likewise, when you might say that there is something weighing on you, you do not mean that there is a heavy weight resting on your head. That would be too bodily. Here, perhaps, it is a mental weight, as when an unconscious concern gnaws the mind, bubbles up, occasionally percolates and perhaps gets suppressed, but yet consumes mental energy in an ongoing way. This drain on energy can feel like the weight. Or, conversely, in the spiritual sense, one might find that there is a loss of will or a loss of interest in continuing on, following the difficult path of the spirit. Here, we see that the concept of weight on the self is expressed as a frustration of life force. To walk the spiritual path is to attempt gradually and repeatedly to open, open, open to the infinite creator. The burden of doing so is felt, of course, throughout the mind/body/spirit complex. So the significator classification is self-referential.
There is a sense in which one might think of the significator as primary, as the first classification. The significator classification is meant to capture or relate the flow of self to self, the relationships within the self. Were there no significator classification, then the opposition between matrix and potentiator would be context-free. It would not be clear how one has a relation of self to self because the unity would not be apparent. Recall, of course, that the archetypes structure the illusion itself, not unlike the basic programming. You are familiar with the blueprint analogy. The blueprint is the original idea that is used to then structure the building. Likewise, the archetypal mind is the original idea that is the basis on which the illusion is manifest. It is the conceptualization. It is not to be thought of as the illusion itself. So when we speak of the significator as the self, we do not mean that your self is in fact an archetype. We mean that the significator concept complex informed the establishment of the self. You can think of your mind/body/spirit complex as crystallizing or growing into its current form and the information that governed that growth, that developed the various features of mind, body and spirit that you enjoy, as originating from a kind of genetic code. So the significator that we speak of is more like the genetic code than the self than you enjoy.
As we were saying, the dynamic flow of energy within the self, which is of course a microcosm of the whole creation since the creation is contained within each part, that dynamic flow is a holographic image. The significator, then contains more self within it, so to speak. It holographically reflects into itself. That is, within yourself you have further selves that then interact. What makes the significator concept complex especially intriguing is the development of the veiling: the self in relation to self as another. Now we do not mean to say that the matrix and potentiator are inside of the significator. This would be too material a way of thinking of something that is mental. It would not be possible to conceive of matrix without potentiator because the very concepts that constitute these complexes demand counterparts. The matrix, as the word suggests, must take something onto itself. A matrix is not complete alone, since the matrix must receive content. Otherwise, what is a matrix for? The potentiator bears; it is that content. So you can see, the microcosmic reflection of the infinite within the finite. Each mind/body/spirit complex has infinite content to deliver unto itself. The dynamic flow of potentiator into matrix, as you might imagine, necessitates time. Here, we see that space-time and time-space are built into the concept complexes themselves. Were there no time, there could be either no connection between matrix and potentiator or no separation between matrix and potentiator. The trick, the key was to have both connection and separation.
The flow of content from potentiator to matrix just is the evolution of the self. We have not been asked about the other classifications—for simplicity’s sake we believe. But, it would not be incorrect to say that the remaining classifications are added complexities to this basic foundational structure.
What does it mean for a matrix to receive content? Is the matrix itself, that is, is the self that receives, that becomes something else and has no content that is not given unto it—is that self a something? That is, is it a character or a personality? Well, consider the character who is wanting. The desire to be filled, to be fulfilled, the reaching or the longing of the matrix for expansion, for development, for growth characterizes that concept complex. It is not necessary, as you can see, for one to have the, we might say, painting already painted for there to be something upon which one might paint. And for that something to wish to be painted upon.
Even more mysterious, especially to this instrument, is the nature of the potentiator itself. This instrument asks, is the potentiator—in what sense is the potentiator the logos? We say, remember that the logos—we correct this instrument—remember that each portion of the creation is a logos, that the creative principle lies within each. But there cannot be a creation unless some portion accepts its responsibility as receiving the creative influence. This, perhaps, is paradoxical: anything that is a matrix could, one might say, have been a potentiator. (We remind you that you are not the archetypes; rather, you have grown out of them genetically.) So think of the portion of self that choose to become matrix as having accepted its role, though maybe it could have been potentiator. So you see, it is not incorrect to say that everything is logos, but it is also not incorrect to say that there is a portion of self that manifests the creative principle by choices unknown to you. Insofar as each portion of the universe is logos, each portion has awareness; it has choice, free will, which, of course, is prior to creation. We do not mean free will in the veiled sense. This, of course, is constructed carefully for the sake of developing your illusion. We mean free will in the sense that each portion of the creation is allowed to be itself without imposition from any other portion of the creation. So, constituting your self that is the significator, the unity of self, there is, within that unity of self, a consensual split between the source of creative content, the generative flow, the abundance of the infinite that lies coiled up within each portion, even the smallest portion, of the creation; and there is that portion of the self that has consensually taken the position of receiving that generative flow, that the creator might come to experience the progression, the sequence of becoming, of knowing itself through this strange time-filled illusion.
We are aware, also, of the surprising relationship between matrix and potentiator and the masculine and feminine polarities. Why, after all, should there be a masculine matrix if the matrix receives? This might baffle your conceptions of masculine and feminine. Now it would be too much to ask in this moment to relate the features of masculine and feminine. Those of Ra have recommended to you the contemplation of these polarities. Those of Ra have also commented as the basic nature of masculine and feminine, that the masculine is active and the feminine passive. That is, one of these polarities is self-moving and perhaps does not suffer to await. The other is patient and prefers not to extend beyond itself but to be, so to speak, desired. Now it would be a mistake to say that desire is as you know it—we correct this instrument—it would be a mistake to say that desire as you know it is applicable at the broader macrocosmic levels. This is not the kind of thing we mean. Rather, we are attempting to articulate the nature of activity and passivity. We should also comment that among your peoples, there is a glorification of activity and a denigration of passivity. These evaluations are foreign to us. There is great virtue in waiting and, in fact, we believe your peoples and even those within this group would benefit from appreciating this. In any case, where there is waiting, there must be that which is awaited. Hence, the difference between the active and passive. We will allow this distinction for now to characterize masculine and feminine, again for the sake of simplicity. There are, of course, more comments to be made.
To return to the question of the surprising relationship between matrix and potentiator and masculine and feminine, we might say that to receive is not identical to waiting and to generate is not identical to being active. Hence, you can see the four-fold possibilities: the active generative, the passive generative, the active reception, the passive reception. So, though surprising, it is not, of course, inconceivable. And though you might want to associate the receptivity with the feminine and the generative nature with the masculine, we suggest it would be helpful to be mindful of what your distinctions are supposed to be doing. If a distinction does not serve; if a definition confuses rather than illuminates, perhaps you might release it. The concepts of masculine and feminine in your world, among your peoples are confused. Many believe traits, concepts, behaviors, even superficial outward forms of dress are characteristically masculine or feminine. As you know, of course, these things are mere traditions and on different planetary spheres, there are different associations. So, when using these distinctions, attempt to drive to the heart of what is being communicated, of what is being studied.
We believe this will suffice for an answer to the question. We hope we have offered some illumination. We would now take queries.
Jeremy: Q’uo, I have a query. Could you speak briefly on the relationship between the choice archetype and the significator?
We are those of Q’uo and we thank you for your query. You have asked us to speak on another archetype without classification. It is perhaps relevant to consider the unclassified nature of this archetype, the choice. Recall that we have pointed to the strange nature of describing self in a three-fold way. Is the self not one? This strange nature becomes ever more poignant with the veiling of the self from self. In the significator, the division created that allows opposition between the active and passive, between the generative and receptive, magnifies the separation of the illusion you enjoy. With this magnification of separation, you can see the importance of building into the illusion itself a further unification. The choice is that further unification. We would not say that one should conceptualize the choice archetype as having a relationship to the significator that mirrors the significator’s relationship to the matrix and potentiator, as if there were an even broader self within which there are subdivisions. You can see the apparent parallel. We do not wish to deny it, but the purpose of the choice archetype, the Fool, as so many of your peoples call it, is to ground the totality of the illusion. There is, recall, a new range of options, a new environment of experience that appears when the veiling is enacted. Where, once, there was simply the discovery of self through desire to know self, that is, the matrix longs to be filled, to be fertilized by the potentiator. Whereas once this was the domain or the environment of evolution, now with the veiling, there is a new range of experience available. Now, there is the possibility of choosing among forms of confusion, among forms of complex separation and reintegration, of thinking of self as not self, of thinking of other as not self. The choice archetype is meant to characterize the expanse, the potentials for constituting and discovering self, for forging the statue in the fire. What is new in the free will that you enjoy is the possibility of choice. No longer is it merely becoming what you are without obstruction. Now, free will requires decision, deciding what you will be, when faced with the mystery of opposition between self and self. Thus, the choice may be thought of as a self-reflective archetype: it stands outside the classification structure. We hope that this is sufficient to answer your query. We are Q’uo. Is there a further query?
Steve: Yes Q’uo, I have one. This in some respects I think builds upon the last, by going a little further back into origins, if we might put it that way. One of the notable features of the cosmology offered in the Law of One is that of a creator which develops or evolves and it is said there that the first distortion of intelligent infinity is free will. What I am curious about is how one might situate the development or the origin of the original archetypes insofar as they constitute a resource for the creator in its process of evolution. How that development stands related to the initial act of self-distortion which is what gives rise to free will and from that point, I presume, the whole of the creation. In short, if I could put it another way, is there an archetypal articulation within the godhead prior to free will? Or is free will itself prior to that articulation?
We are those of Q’uo and we thank you for your query. We believe we grasp the question. We should first qualify our answer by observing that you are asking about the creation prior to this octave. Our knowledge is limited; however, the first distortion of free will is the first distortion. It is the initial mystery from which all creation sprang. It is prior to complexity and hence prior to concept complexes. In this sense, we can affirm that free will comes, though this is a misnomer since the priority is not temporal, but it comes before the archetype. So we recommend considering archetypes as further refinements or as imbued with the previously existing concept or distortion of free will.
Now, perhaps there is another aspect of the question that you might appreciate: we speak to the question of a governing structure or a process of evolution that is blueprinted so to speak at the even higher macrocosmic level. And it would seem that this is, in some way, so. After all, the densities and the energy centers are seven-fold. Why are they seven-fold? We do not answer this, but here you see a structure, though not properly archetypal in the same way as the archetypal mind is. Now we remind you that the creation is developed, is expanded through a process of trial and error. To subsume trial and error under a further governing structure begs the question of where that structure came from. Was it developed through trial and error? And if not, why is it as it is? Again, our perspective is limited, so we leave you with these questions. Will this suffice for an answer?
Is there another query?
We are those of Q’uo. We are grateful for the opportunity to speak to this circle and through this instrument, who at this moment is critical of his own performance. We shall remind everyone of the importance of accepting where you are as you are, that there is no simple jest in the statement that all is well, even if it may be important for you to feel that all is not well. So, to the best of your ability be at peace. Rejoice in your efforts to serve, accept your limitations, continue in your seeking, in your study, in your efforts at discipline. There are no mistakes, so enjoy the surprises. We thank you again and we take our departure in the love and the light of the one creator. Adonai.