In 2010 Q’uo offered a curious insight into the enduring nature of the individual across octaves:
Those within the principle of Q’uo have not yet gone through the ending of an octave of creation. However, it is our understanding, limited though it may be, that the essence of each part of the Creator that has been sent out remains in potentiation as the Creator breathes and decides again to know Itself better. And when It sends out parts of Itself again, there is a natural tendency to fracture or be splintered into the precisely identical soul stream that you experienced in the previous octave. So in truth, you, as an individual, are never lost. You simply are folded up into the Creator after a full octave of experience. After coming from alpha to omega you start again and you learn again and you desire again and the fruits of that are preserved for the Creator so that It may know Itself ever better.L/L Research Conscious Channeling Library, October 10, 2010
Q’uo revisits this subject in this session to expand upon the relationship between the individual or soul stream and the unified Creator as it evolves and explores its own nature across the octaves of existence. The value of the individual “centers to infinity” evolving as co-Creators is explored in terms of the Creation’s fractal nature, with each unit conveying a kind of memory of the specific distilled learning back to the Creator along lines that are consistent and inherent to this protean exercise of creation. There is the implication that this consistent fractal structure is the constant across octaves that allows for each new creation to be relatively appreciated for its novelty and for its distilled content to be shuttled back to the One Infinite Creator.
In the great rhythm of the heartbeat of the creation, wherein all that is sent out is eventually drawn back inward, does individuality persist from creation to creation? Or is individuality all dissolved into unity in such a way that when unity gives way to multiplicity again, all the individualities are again unique and fresh and new?
I am Q’uo and we are with this instrument. Let us begin our address to this interesting query you have posed to us with our usual admonition that you should exercise your own discrimination in receiving what we have to offer. We are not authorities, my friends, but we are fellow travelers who are happy to share our thoughts with you, not wishing to violate your free will in so doing.
The question you have posed, speaks to a broader view of the nature of the creation than is generally undertaken, for most questions concerning this nature are posed from within the framework of the creation which we now enjoy. However, we have learned from our teachers that this creation is not the only creation that the Creator has undertaken, and that in fact there is a process that the Creator itself undergoes involving an expansion and a contraction in unmeasurable time, if you would call it such, nested only in infinity, which must remain always a mystery. My friends, I fear that some of our answers must partake of that mystery, for we ourselves are not in a position to give you the complete overview of the issues surrounding those which you have posed.
You are concerned with whether the individuality of the mind/body/spirit complexes (what you may call the soul stream) is preserved from creation to creation, from octave to octave of the creation, in a manner analogous, perhaps, to the sense in which individuality is preserved from incarnation to incarnation.
We will begin by saying that it is our understanding that it is so, and while we cannot attest to this fact absolutely, there are some considerations which we may offer, which can, perhaps, contribute to a more informed consideration of the problem.
So, to begin. We would ask you to consider that in a very strong sense, you have posed for yourselves the problem of memory. For memory is what may be said to be the substance, so to speak, of what in consciousness is retained from moment to moment, such that consciousness may be said to be of the nature of something which may grow by building upon what has gone before. It is because there is something retained that something subsequently—an experience shall we say—can be laid down upon that substratum, so that, in the fulness of time, a builded structure within consciousness may be achieved. Is this not, my friends, the way your identities within this incarnation have been constructed?
Now, it is true that identities built within an incarnation are somewhat fleeting in the sense that there is not a complete continuity from incarnation to incarnation, because upon the death of the physical vehicle, there is indeed much that is lost. And so we would say that the individuality that the incarnated individual takes itself to be, largely upon the basis of its own efforts and the accumulation of its own experiences, does indeed vanish with the dissolution of the body.
And yet there is that which must be retained, if it is possible for the soul stream to reflect upon what has gone before for purposes, for example, of bethinking what may be programmed for future incarnational needs. And that which has been retained, we might say, is not the whole identity structure of what has gone before, but rather something more of a distillation of that structure, to what may now be seen to be its essential nature.
Now the essentiality of that nature is in fact a distortion of unity in some particular refraction of that unity. And we will say, further, that we may speak of this unity, upon several different levels. We may speak of the unity of a mind/body/spirit complex engaged in the incarnative process—in your case of third density, but also of the other densities—in such a way that it makes sense to say of that complex, that it traverses many different stages within a density, and indeed the densities themselves.
Now we may speak further of unity at a higher level of universality, when we think, for example, of social memory complexes, or of logoi responsible for certain sectors of the cosmos, and ultimately of unity itself, if we wish to speak of the great Central Core, animating the whole of the creation, that which we have called Intelligent Infinity.
So the question that you are posing, in effect, comes down to the issue of whether what is achieved by way of retention or memory, if you prefer, in the vast, infinitesimally differentiated array of individual refractions of unity, whether these retentions are still essential in their individuated form, to the way they are registered within the Central Memory Bank, if we may so call it, of Intelligent Infinity, as Infinite Intelligence.
And as you have used this word fractal, we find it is a useful way to consider the manner in which, to our limited understanding, the retentions in memory from individuation are gathered together in the unity of Infinite Intelligence. For we understand that the memory functions in its capacity as refracted in such a way that the principle of the refraction necessarily is individualized in its deliverances back into unity. Now we would expect that in the upward movement from logoi upwards—that is to say from the sub-logoi or the sub-sub logoi to the sub-logoi to the logoi and back to the (central) logos and then upward yet again to the One Infinite Creator—we would expect that process of upward movement to involve dissolutions of what is not essential, so that there is a a process of distillation all along the way, even to the point that it may hardly be recognizable what the fully distilled offering that an individual soul stream has to bring back into the Central Memory Banks, shall we say.
Nevertheless, as unrecognizable as it may be, still it is what it ever has been and ever must be. So it may be necessary radically to alter our conception of what it means to be this particular individual, but the annihilation of the individual is not something that could be contemplated within the framework that we have just articulated. That is to say, that in the unity of the Infinite, the effects of that first great distortion of itself into an infinity of individualized fragments of itself, in such a way that each fragment, internally and intrinsically, relates back unity as of its very nature—that arrangement we understand never to be abrogated.
We feel that this gives the overview of the answer as best we can frame it at this time, and for further exploration of some of the issues associated with this vision, we will transfer the contact to the one known as Jeremy, I am Q’uo.
We are Q’uo, and we continue on this path, offering a steadiness to this instrument so that a reaching out into mystery can continue apace as a result of your circle’s desire.
The essential nature of a fragment of the creation is the question we would like to delve into a bit further, for there is something in this that reveals a characteristic of light, the third distortion that is of interest when we therefore move backwards through the distortions in the gathering together or collapsing of the possibility matrix that an octave represents. You have spoken in your circle of the words of our constituent member, the social memory complex of Ra, and their words that infinity has a center1. How is this so?
What is being indicated here in part for your benefit is this essential paradox that there can be a locus relative to another locus within infinity, and that this possibility conditions the fractal nature of your universe. There is a paradox of spatiality given by the one known as Zeno that penetrates this insight. Infinity is all about, and yet there is a limit. These limits themselves are distributed infinitely, and in their reach, in their depth, yet again: infinity.
What allows for experience is this connected fractal network; that if there might be one center to infinity, might there not be infinite centers to infinity, and therefore infinite uniqueness, infinite particularity and an ever growing traversal of infinity as a time- and consciousness-mediated thought. This thought made possible by love is recognized by the awareness of the first distortion as a way to gain focus in an infinite number of ways that can be indexed. It is this indexing of infinity that is a side of the cube of the paradox of existence.
We understand the conundrum of relating this necessity of connections between centers, as perhaps somewhat foreclosing on what seems to be infinite possibility, and therefore the truly free part of free will. Yet there could be any number of experiences, any number of perceptions and data recovery points, so to speak. And yet, as we spoke through the instrument known as Stephen, if there is no way to catalog and recover this catalog of natures of existence and identity, might it not even have happened at all?
This is a grand, expansive, overwhelming conception of possibility and constraint. We do not offer any assurances that it will satisfy, yet you understand, my friends, that these centers, individual in their nature, infinitely expansive in their character, contain those points where such thoughts, such premises can be entertained. Thus you reflect back in your question the very possibility of the query itself, and you must nevertheless continue to embrace mystery. This is a condition, however, that coincides and provides the mirror image of the third distortion: free will extended according to a recoverable template of expansive protean wandering, all linked up, all made identifiable through the gravity of love, so that an original thought can be both original and true resonance with the creative nature of our Creator, and [also] a thought, a thought to stand out from the expansive plenum of the Creator.
In this you see the nature of awareness, exposing not simply recognition and intuitive selfhood, but also the possibility that expansion and contraction could yet yield the novel insights the Creator craves about itself, this desire stemming from its own mystery. This does indeed contextualize the first distortion in a particular way. We would offer a caveat that you must gaze within to discover how this paradox frees you.
At this time, we would free this instrument from its commitment to process our thought complexes and transfer our narrative across the circle to the one known as Nithin. We are those of Q’uo.
We are Q’uo. We now speak through this instrument. The idea of one octave building upon another is a useful mechanism for which to understand, within sequential time, how the Creator explores itself.
However, the relationship between the various octaves and indeed the various creations is one closer to true simultaneity. And so intrinsic to this simultaneity is the idea that individuated consciousness is never truly lost, so to speak. Although the full mystery of the specific phenomenon of wanderers between octaves alludes us, we have learned from such beings that there indeed is some sort of, shall we say, informational nexus that occurs between octaves on both the intelligent infinity level, but also on a more localized individuated consciousness level.
As the concept of the fractal nature of consciousness has been described as a usefultool: consider that intelligent infinity does have a center, but from one perspective, individuated consciousness serves as a localized center of an experiential nexus, so to speak. As intelligent infinity is not completely uniform, the localized centers of intelligence infinity – as represented by individuated consciousness – is related to how nothing is ever truly lost as consciousness goes through the various densities and into other octaves.
And so now we turn the contact over to the one known as Stephen for continued discussion on this interesting query. We are Q’uo.
I am Q’uo and I am again with this instrument. We have perhaps spoken over long on this subject, which is in itself perhaps inexhaustible, and so we will hasten to bring our remarks to a close.
We feel it might be useful to add one more element to our remarks, that you may have further grist for your mill so to speak. And that is that, while we have suggested that there is a retention within all of the individuated portions of the One Great Unity, each such portion represent representing a unity of its own, we would say that, at the point of the great in-gathering of all that is, back into the Central Cauldron, of Beingness that there is an opportunity for a certain kind of reprogramming of all to take place in light of what has been gleaned. And that all then who subsequently go forth into the new creation, the new octave, will benefit obliquely from all that has gone on everywhere else. And you may find that this restructuring for example, among other things, will take the form of a rethinking of the archetypes according to which experience is assimilated. So that merely authenticates the point that we have sought to make of the characteristic of memory, that it retains, so that it may build upon what has been retained. And now we add to that: that there can be an intelligent relation to what has been thus builded in the context of posing further questions to the creation that a subsequent octave may seek to answer.
With these words we feel we have said enough at least to make a beginning with regard to this interesting query, and we will at this time take our leave of this instrument and this group, thanking each for the devotion that has been offered in this circle of seeking. We are those of Q’uo. Adonai, my friends Adonai.