Q’uo describes biases as a primitive or basic concept. Biases, they tell us, are a mark of Creatorhood, which include the biases of the One Logos in originating the universe as well as the original biases of the planet developed in first density. Q’uo tells us that biases are both acquired and also mysteriously latent within us; biases exist at the intersection between significance (or meaning or value) and desire (or yearning). Our experience of sequential time allows us to undergo accrual and transformations of biases. Q’uo concludes with a consideration of the differences in accrual of bias between the mind, body and spirit complexes.
In session 92, question 18, Ra says that “the infant’s significant self [and presumably any significant self]… is the harvest of biases of all previous incarnational experiences, [and this significant self] offers to this infant biases with which to meet new experience.” So the question is: what is the nature of these biases?
We are Q’uo. We greet you this evening in the love and the light of our One Creator. We have been asked about the nature of the biases that accrue to the self and constitute the harvest of experiences from lifetime to lifetime.
Before addressing this question, we would remind you to contemplate these topics for yourself, to take our words as offerings from those who are not greater or better or somehow more authoritative than you, for our perspective has limits and there are benefits to maintaining your own point of view. Certain things become apparent only within the incarnation, and we, from our position, cannot see everything that you see. So be advised that what we work with is a conversation across cultures, you might say. Therefore, employ your critical faculties and use the feeling of resonance as an indicator.
The accrual of bias is ubiquitous throughout the creation. It is difficult, therefore, to know where to begin. For example, the current octave of experiences, within which we all exist, is built from a set of biases accrued to the One Logos of this universe. In its previous octave it harvested the totality of its experience and came to certain conclusions about how the next octave should be constructed. That there are biases within the mind/body/spirit complex then can be thought of as a feature of the Logoic nature of the mind/body/spirit complex. To have biases is to have preferences. And only a Creator can have the kind of preferences that undergo the augmentation and transformation that biases do.
The essence of the question, if we understand it correctly, is where this wellspring of bias originates: where do they come from? And, moreover, what are they? So, we will attempt to structure at least this first part of our answer with these two questions. So where do the biases come from? We correct this instrument: we mean to begin with the other question. What is the nature of a bias?
First consider the emotional reactions that a mind/body/spirit complex might have to a scenario. Not every mind/body/spirit complex will feel the same emotions to the same degree in response to the same situations. So maybe we should begin with an example. Suppose that your parent has enforced a rule upon you as a child. Two obvious ways to respond, among the many, present themselves. The child might resent the rule and attempt to subvert it. The child might accept the rule but still wish it were otherwise. Of course, more possibilities are available: the child might agree with the rule; the child might resent the rule but still follow it. There are many different ways to react to the situation and the emotional response is one part of this reaction. When a child reacts with resentment, there will be some origin of that resentment. It will often be the kind of emotional resonance that traces back to a judgment of what matters. Entities walk into the experience already equipped with judgments about what matters, judgments about what kind of pursuits they will carry forth in life, about what manner of expression they prefer in these pursuits. The bias itself is a complex of not only the judgments that motivate or the judgments that establish the circumstance, the environment within which the child responds to the parent’s rule; the biases are a compound of these foundational judgments about what matters or what is to be pursued and a tendency or preference to respond to circumstances on the basis of these judgments. And because biases are so contextual, there are many, many biases that you’ll bring with you into an incarnation.
You might think of the nature of the biases as a map of interests or as a library or a catalog of ways of interacting with the world. And different events will trigger biases in different ways. So you can think of, if we go further back toward the beginning of an incarnation, the child, the very young child, the baby, that has a distinctive preference for one kind of experience for another. Suppose that at a very, very young age, the child prefers the tactile experience, say playing in the sand or pushing objects around or the feel of various instruments in the house. This child is expressing a preference for a certain kind of interaction with the environment. The child is already an agent apprised of goals, and in pursuing those goals, the child also has a set or a catalog, as we have said, of avenues through which it means to achieve those goals. And these avenues for achieving the goals are distinctive for the kinds of circumstances it faces.
Emotional reactions are one obvious form of bias as are the goal-oriented attitudes or the pursuits that enliven the child. The biases themselves that an individual walks into the incarnation with are related to the incarnational plan. They are part of the incarnational plan. But the plan itself is built up in consideration of those biases, of the tendencies to react to situations in thus and such a way, of the tendencies to pursue goals of thus and such a kind, and of the tendency to favor experiences, even neither emotional nor goal-oriented, but more of the aesthetic quality. In short, biases are intimately connected to what you might call values or value judgments. What a bias is traces back to the question of what a value is, though it seems with such a question one might have reached bedrock. So we turn to the other question: where do they come from?
The incarnational plan to augment biases is something of an irony, since the plan itself is developed in the consideration of a potential life path and the consideration of the biases the entity does not yet have but might like to acquire. The irony is that somehow, you must want to acquire biases that you do not have. That is to say, there is a kind of pursuit of the significance of values or the priority of your values that does not match your current priority. One would think that the current priority of values simply dictates the way things will be and it wouldn’t make sense to wish for a different priority of values. But the capacity for self-reflection, the distance of self from self allows for the ever-present possibility of wanting to be something more than you are, of wanting to draw out from yourself something more than you have yet drawn out. And this is the goal or the intention with which a life plan is constructed. So, in one sense, the origin of the biases is the decision or the preference or the mysterious pull toward one way of being as opposed to the current way of being that is felt — perhaps most acutely — between incarnations, when everything is laid bare.
But this simply pushes the question back. After all, the same question can be applied to this self between incarnations: where does it find its preferences? Where do they come from? We could trace the question back to the onset of the spirt complex, the sudden achievement of self-reflection, but, in this situation, the achievement of self-reflection is fledgling. So it is incumbent on the higher self to accost the fledgling mind/body/spirit complex with experiences, with catalyst that will draw out preferences. Where those preferences come from is part of the mystery of self. Why, when the higher self applies catalyst to the fledgling entity, does it react this way and not that? Why does the fledgling entity learn at one rate and another learn at a different rate? Again, we seem to reach bedrock. For these are different entities. They are different facets of the Creator, so one must expect that they will be different. Free will is the allowance that the Creator has afforded to each spark, each individualized part of itself to become itself without being directed from above. In the self becoming the self, does it choose? Or is it simply always what it is? We offer no answer.
So we lay out some of the mysterious qualities the accrual and development of biases and at this time we would like to develop and extend these thoughts to add to them through the instrument known as Steve. We are Q’uo.
I am Q’uo, and I am with this instrument.
We continue with the theme of bias in a way that we might be able to do were the biases of this group other than they are. For this group has a decided bias for that type of explanation which reaches to the uttermost limit of explanation. And while the limits are themselves ultimately shrouded in mystery, still it is a characteristic gesture to reach out the hand as far as it possibly can go.
And with that in mind, we would ask you to perform with us a little thought experiment. We would ask you to imagine yourself to be living within the Creator, to do so in a way in which you yourself are not differentiated from the Creator, which is to say, in such a way that you are the Creator.
And let us go one step further, and say that we have already skewed the image which we are inviting you to consider if we say of it that it is the Creator, for we wish to speak of this oceanic beingness at a point before which it became the Creator, at a point in which it is one gigantic mass of undifferentiated beingness. But not quite undifferentiated, for are those not currents of feeling (shall we call it), feeling currents which seem to differentiate themselves; one being a swirl in one direction, another swirling in another direction, so that in a germinal sense we may begin to speak of differentiations within a whole that is not yet in any way other than itself to itself.
And within this massive (may we call it massive when there is nothing to compare it to?) within this massive beingness there begins to arise something — what could it be? — something resembling meaning. And at the same time, something resembling yearning.
Now, we have proposed this thought experiment in an effort to discern how it might be that bias should arise as the fundamental component or dimension of the creation, that it is in fact now.
We would suggest to you that the creation itself would not be but for bias, but for a kind of bias that grows within the Creator before the Creator was a creator, so that the creation itself might be said to be the product of a bias. Of a bias for bias, that there might be such differentiation as to form the basis of an articulate reflection back to the Creator of these primordial swirls and eddies and currents that formerly existed in such an inchoate state that it was not possible to keep them steady enough to support a gaze.
Now, you know that the various densities that exist within the creation each recapitulates in certain distinctive ways the process according to which the Creator has come to know itself. And, following, now, our thread to the effect that the creation itself is the product of bias, it makes sense to suppose that bias itself is imprinted within the creation as an essential constituent.
We have reviewed with you many of the dynamics of the way these biases function in third density, and it might seem a stretch of the imagination to project these biases all the way back to the original state of first density, for is not first density an inanimate condition?
Well, it is true that first density feature what are called the four elements: you have wind and fire, you have earth and water, and these work upon each other, the more active affecting the more receptive — wind and fire teaching, as we sometimes say, earth and water — but do these forces not function simply by way of a certain native beingness which is merely given to them, so that they represent a bias which the Creator has discovered within itself?
And we will say that there is some truth in this supposition: that creatures are created within the ebb and flow of propensities or biases already constituent of the fact of the creation.
Yes, yes, yes. Even free will finds itself motivated in ways that are to it a given. Now in first density we must say that what is given is merely a starting point, for the span of time and effort and aspiration from first density to seventh is substantial, is it not? And given that the development of bias is an essential part of the way the creation unfolds, one can expect that as free will acts in relation to environment, that more and more the product of the biases accrued will indeed be attributable to the action of free will itself, and less and less to the native starting point in the currents and eddies of first density.
Yes. How, then, does free will function in such a way that more complex beings can be compounded using this elemental consideration of bias? Well, may we suggest to you that it is fruitful to see bias as a consideration which comes about at the intersection between meaning and desire, and that this bias comes about at the origin of the distinction between meaning and desire.
You know that desire takes many forms, and even the word desire suggests a more advanced condition of that which, in its germinal state, is merely a kind of inclining, or a wanting to be more, a wanting to be back to an original condition from which it feels itself to have been exiled. But the thoughts which we have just adduced in order to describe and to articulate desire as a phenomenon unique to itself already makes reference to something which is of another nature, apparently, and that would be meaning. A desire must constitute itself in relation to a set of circumstances which it takes to have meaning, significance: yes, value.
What is meaning, taken in and of itself? What is it that makes something significant? In the oceanic totality of beingness in which the Creator dwelled for — shall we call it an eternity? — is there any possible measure of that indwelling of the Creator prior to the creation? And in that oceanic state, how would one come to say this or that or the other moment has significance? Does significance itself not suggest a tilt or nisus or orientation to framing in a differentiated way a portion of the creation such that it can be distinguished from another portion, the very distinction being a distinction of significance?
And now we would like to say that such distinctions are driven by the very desire which can only function in relation to such distinctions. And so the complexities of life, starting with first density and moving into second and into third, and, yes we can tell you, well beyond, are at every point and juncture rendered what they are by the kinds of biases that work in relation to significating desire. From tip to toe of the creation we have biases of this nature. The creation is a creation of bias to the very core.
Now that will constitute something of a digression in our account of the way biases work within third density in which the formation of a bias has a special role, shall we say, given the fact that third density is the density of Choice.
With this point, we would at this time transfer the contact to the one known as Jeremy. I am Q’uo.
We are those of Q’uo and we are with this instrument at this time to expand on the unique qualities that bias brings to the third density experience. This is a more focused way to talk about the dynamics that have been articulated in more totalizing senses throughout Creations upon Creations. We fear there is no complete way to vocalize this absolute bedrock aspect of beingness in manifestation itself, but we have given it, what this instrument would call, a good go.
And now we turn our gaze to you in your incarnative sequence of catalyst and experience. If you would permit us, my friends, let us look at what a life is, the juice of experience that is wrung out of it as one beats one’s heart a certain finite amount of times and recapitulates the Creator’s story in the most infinitesimal of microcosms: a moment of a life. Because bias is such a foundational nexus of that core dynamic of evolution which we refer to as desire, and that imprint upon the fabric on which beingness is projected, which we might call meaning, we would remind you that the consciousness that mediates these biases is primary.
This consciousness, my friends, is a focus; it is an attenuation of what is vast and oceanic, so that, by singling out the holographic atom of this meaning, certain aspects of the Creator are cast into stark relief. This is a basic design which has a cumulative nature to it, where these apparently discontinuous flows of energy are checked, significated, and piled up, true; but we must never forget to include all that is on the periphery of the focus when we speak in such absolute terms.
We recognize the confusing nature of this dance. Its confusing nature issues from, once again, the theme of third density: for you to remain trained on comparative minutiae in a drama that is elongated through the medium of time, which, after all, allows for the transformations that give biases their distinctiveness and therefore, can give meaning its multivarious projections and distillations such that an exploration of an infinite vista can at least be appreciated in some way.
You are the agents of that appreciation. And so, it seems to you in incarnation with the veil between you and this vast periphery, that the biases happen to you, that these biases define you, and you, somehow, don’t quite define them.
We will pause to deepen this instrument’s state.
(10 second pause)
We are those of Q’uo and will continue.
This is where things get tricky to articulate, for what you are experiencing is one possibility of biases accruing in a certain way, instead of some other way that may be occurring elsewhere in the mind of the Creator in totality. We don’t think this is very helpful to you in understanding bias, except to understand that time provides for the ability, for the limitation of focused attention, for love to discover meaning in all of its facets.
It is in the archetypal mind, in fact, that biases can be understood as, perhaps (we struggle for the term) barriers or directing constructs that corral basic expenditures of thought and energy into the particularities that this life we spoke of, this element of third density creatorship consists of. We agree with this instrument’s reflection that this level of detail begins to seem superfluous to the challenges and project of life behind the veil. We can only say that in this question, you have unlocked a door, my friends. We applaud you.
And since you are in this life, running your fingers along this material, we suggest this: that you take stock of the biases that you have been able to identify in yourself, and that you make a greater effort, perhaps, to employ them in the study of this archetypal mind, so that the abstraction that denotes such study can be coupled with the meaning and more deeply the feeling that this material of life makes possible. For you see, my friends, you are the Creator, but in your individuality you have been given a gift beyond measure, and this gift is one of the more poignant expressions of the second distortion.
We have unfortunately exhausted this instrument’s ability to plumb these depths, but he is grateful for the company, and feels that this mention of love is reassuring when the intellect is taxed so heavily. Therefore, he leans on his circle and releases the contact with our permission. And so, we would return this contact to the one known as Joseph in love and in light.
We are Q’uo and we are once again with this instrument. We would continue on the theme of the biases as they figure in the conspicuous archetypal classification that we have called the Significator.
We note that at no point should the territory be confused with the map. Remember that the archetypes are the structural description of how the evolution or the process of marching one’s way through third density is to function. So applying the archetype to one’s life requires that one hearken to the part of the self that abides by the natural laws, you might say, laid down in the archetypal mind.
The archetype of the Significator includes within itself the concept of being a repository of biases. This is part of the purpose of the name “significator,” for the Significator applies significance and in the application of significance feels drawn toward that which is significant or, as is usually the case, drawn by that which is significant.
In the mind, the significance accorded is to the relation that one might have within the narrative or…we struggle for the word but, unfortunately “meaningful” is perhaps appropriate here. But meaningful in the other sense: not meaningful as significant, but meaningful as a kind of underlying content as you might ask “what does it mean?” when some occurs. The biases that accrue to the significant self are the expression of the self’s application of significance to the world, its projection of that significance. And, in projecting significance, discovering for itself the will or the intention to live as an actor within this significant stream of events.
Now the body, too, has its biases. And the application of significance for the body is not a matter of finding meaning in the world in the usual sense. Rather, the body wants to enjoy an efficient flow of energy. The body seeks a baseline level of activity that can be stabilized. And any changes applied to the body will lead it to seek the restabilization. So the body’s form of desires, the most obvious of which you might call cravings, the less obvious of which you might consider to be the comforts or discomforts, the unpleasantness or the pleasantness of any particular bodily configuration or any particular manifestation of the environment within which your body exists. So, in the case of the body complex, the significant self projects the appeal of a stability in which the body is capable of enacting what is asked for from it, while maintaining that stability. This is why each has a distinctive set of physical and environmental preferences. This is why it would make little sense to attempt to identify the one best or most healthy or most efficacious or whatever kind of judgment you might like — way of engaging in a bodily experience. Comfort and craving will look different to each.
However, notice that the biases of the body complex are sourced from two distinct places. The first source of the body complex’s biases is the genetic. And, while you have some agency in choosing your genetic origin, that agency is limited: after all, upon incarnation, there are only so many options available. And, in general, one must choose from what is on hand. The second source of biases in the body complex springs from the biases of the mind complex. After all, the body will take on the configurations required of it by the mind. And whatever else the body might have been comfortable engaging in, the demands of the mind complex push it into a certain kind of environment, and so the body must adapt. And biases change as the requirements for stability and an efficient stability in particular change. But, once again, each is unique. If what the mind commands is athleticism of the body, then the body will adapt in its own way. And what the body needs in order to be athletic in the demanded way will vary based largely on what’s available in the environment and the genetic biases that the mind itself has little ability to affect.
Naturally, the significant self also has a spiritual component and, while an incarnating third density entity may not necessarily have spiritual biases – depending on how youthful that entity is in the grand scheme – over the course of repeated incarnations, spiritual biases develop. These biases are less multifarious than those of the mind and body. Though the spirit itself contains an infinitude, the locus of the spiritual bias is largely a matter of how the spirit is to be used: whether in the self-integrated, radiating fashion or the hierarchical, absorbing fashion. The question, for biases of the spirit, is how the entity will trace its way back to the Creator. There are many different ways that that path can be traced, but, because of a paucity in vocabulary, it is difficult to describe the variations of wending through the spirit complex to find one’s way back to the infinite. Thus, the most prominent form of bias will be the polarity. And it is perhaps for this reason that it is easy to think or common to respond to changes in an entities ethical disposition as changes in the very nature or identity of the entity. You might say, if you discover a person to be more self-serving than you had ever dreamed, that such a person is not who you thought they were. We suggest to you that this is a most interesting kind of thing to say about another person, and indicates the way that the choice of polarity in third density reaches all the way down into the very substance, the very nature of the self. Thus, we call this the significant self.
We will close with one final remark. And it is this: you have chosen a difficult topic to speak upon and we do not expect our responses to fully satisfy. But there is and should be no expectation of full satisfaction. After all, the quest continues.
We would ask, at this time, if there are any questions before we take our leave. We are Q’uo.
Questioner: Q’uo, I have one question. Do you have any thoughts on what of this mind-boggling information we might apply in our lives right now, or is this mostly mechanics?
We are Q’uo. We believe we understand the question. It seems to us that making sense of mechanics has a practical function, but the practical function of making sense of mechanics is subtle and for this reason, most upon your planetary sphere will not be especially drawn to a study of these kinds of concepts in the process of their attempt to making the choice. So it is well to keep in mind that the seeking in which you are engaged is a fleshing out of the subtleties. It is the extra credit, you might say.
Now, having said that, there is value in making sense or at least isolating the very most foundational concepts. You might have equally well asked us to engage in a discourse on the nature of existence. And the answers you would get might well have equally boggled the mind. But, to the mind that is confused, it doesn’t matter if the confusion is over a topic that most would not find interesting. To the mind confused, that which confuses needs resolution. For if one were to not find resolution of confusion, then it can enter into other arenas of the life.
Even so, practically speaking, we encourage you to implement the concepts of significance, or meaning, and desire as related to one another and as a foundational nature or a foundational part of your nature. Does it have practical use to know what the significant self is? We believe so, but to describe the ways such information is practical would be an overwhelming task, due to the centrality of these concepts or the fundamentality of these concepts. Again, consider the concept of existence. Is this answer satisfactory?
Questioner: Well it may not satisfy everyone, but it satisfies me. Thank you, Q’uo.
We are Q’uo. We are most pleased. Are there any other questions?
Questioner: I have one Q’uo, but I’m going to postpone it in view of the exhaustion of the group.
We are Q’uo. This instrument thanks you. Then we shall take our leave. It has been our pleasure to commune with you once again, and we hope to return to this circle soon. In the love and the light of the One Creator, we take our leave. We are Q’uo. Adonai.