In the final session of the fifth intensive, those of Q’uo expand upon the topic of memory from the last session with an emphasis on the existence, nature, and meaning of the “truth.” Here too, will plays a role in the dyadic activity of remembrance, coupling subject to a limited perspective on an event. Given the veil of forgetting, Q’uo endorses no external standard by which veracity can be reliably and objectively teased out from the confusion of siloed and contradictory memories.
The achievement of a planetary social memory complex in fourth density will provide all with common access to all individual memories, and in this event lies the fruition of memory: the possibility of a commonly triangulated and authoritative truth across perspectives and distortions. Until then, one must humbly account for the role one’s confusion, hurt, and limitations under the veil perennially play in the accuracy of one’s recollection and one’s truth.
What is the relation between memory and will when it comes to the question of truth?
I am Q’uo, and we greet you in the love and in the light of the One Infinite Creator. It is our great honor to be able to serve by blending our energies with yours. In this session of seeking, which you have sacrificed your conveniences to convene, we are deeply appreciative of the manner in which this group, and others like it, make the earnest effort to open to the source of truth, and to allow sources of truth into your realm of experience in such a fashion that confounds the normal and normative methods of seeking out truth in your domain.
We pause to disentangle.
(We disentangle Koti, Steve’s dog, from the recording equipment cords)
I am Q’uo, and I am again with this instrument.
We will say that within the experiential nexus of third density, one of the features of the pursuit of truth is that you will constantly be interrupted in your pathways and will need again and again to reassert your commitment to the quest. We do recognize that truth is a most vexed problem when the veil is in place, for there are as many different perspectives on any possible event, any possible state of affairs, as there are incarnate individuals. And, to be sure, there are patterns according to which individuals gather together to make common cause, and rally around a common perception of truth. But, in many cases, you find that one group is arrayed against another, and another, and yet another, so that once again there seems to be a fragmentation of perspective, and one looks in vain for a common clearinghouse where objective truth may be stored.
One would like to suppose that memory would be such a clearinghouse, but even here, and in many cases particularly here, memory itself is perspectively influenced by biases of one kind or another, of one depth or another. Now, some of these biases are somewhat innocent, in the sense that they represent merely a perspectival view of a situation that features the manner in which the observer stands related to a sequence of events, and therefore lays down in memory an account which can be recovered only in the way in which it was originally experienced in the first place. There are other circumstances of a more potentiated variety, we might say, in which there is a distorting factor in the relation to the set of circumstances that are attributed to a certain truth. And here we have an instance in which the free will of the observing individual plays a role in the way in which the events are registered, and therefore a way in which the events are recalled.
Now, a further potentiation of this pattern of distortion can be found in those instances in which, while a sequence of events may indeed be experienced in a certain manner, as the effort is made subsequently to seek that sequence within the memory, there is motive for moving that memory into a configuration which better suits the advancing sense of self of the one who attempts to remember. And here we find yet another source of distortion in the memory itself.
So, the question arises: what relation can we take to truth when there seem to be potentially as many orientations to it as there are individuals seeking it? Can it be said, therefore, that truth as a factor is entirely relative to the perspectives of those who seek to embrace it? And can it be said that no memory can be held to be authoritative in relation to any sequence of events? So, if one individual differs in memory from another individual regarding the same sequence of events, or one group differs from another group, is there no source in relation to which such differences can be mediated? Is it merely a question of working through differences in such a way that agreement can be achieved? Or is it rather the case that there is indeed an objective record, shall we say, of events that one may make reference to, to determine the extent to which an individual recollection is indeed accurate?
Now, within your realm of experience, there are traditions of record-keeping that do indeed aspire to being objective so that potential disputes may indeed be resolved by reference to the record. You have your recording devices of various kinds that may be referred to in this regard. And indeed, such activities do have value. When it comes to larger or more remote events, however, it is often necessary to undertake a process of recovery, such as in historical research. And here the manner in which those pieces of information which are taken to have evidentiary value have to be evaluated requires interpretation. And interpretation is, in every case, influenced by the factor of free will. So there will once again be room for different perspectives to arise. And this can fundamentally affect the result of what is taken to have happened.
So, memory can be quite a fungible commodity, it would seem, particularly in the human experience. Now, it is a matter of some interest to inquire about the extent to which the fungibility of memory and the related difficulty of establishing truth is a function of life within the veil, also known as life within third density, or whether a similar kind of issue might exist in the higher densities, potentially all the way up through to the One Infinite Creator.
Now, it might be convenient to be able to invoke the criterion or standard of the Creator as the ultimate source of truth. So one would like to say, perhaps, that the truth objectively applying can be found in the mind of God. And appeal thereby is made to the mind of God. But we would point out that would presuppose that the mind of God functions in a way that is completely independent of the creatures that ultimately report back to God of their experiences.
In the Godhead, therefore, shall we say, there is no will other than the wills that empty into the vast oceanic repository of all experience? Or is there in the Godhead, in the One Infinite Creator, a repository of memory, an all-embracing will independent of the wills that report to it? Is truth ultimately to be understood as a matter of divinity alone? Or is it the case that there are a host upon host upon host of infinitely various truths that dance in free play within the central beingness of the One that embraces all?
My friends, we would like to give you a clear and dispositive answer to this question. But in reality, while we ourselves would like to suppose that one may indeed make reference to the will of the Creator and the truth of memory therein contained, we ourselves do not plumb that depth. And we have grave doubts that any creature that retains its creatureliness can indeed plumb that depth.
Therefore we would say that for us, as for you, the question of where the ultimate truth might lie with regard to anything at all requires the delicate and nuanced work of sifting through memory upon memory upon memory, perspective upon perspective upon perspective, to attempt to ascertain the degree to which there are one’s own distortions at play, or there are at play the distortions of the group to which one belongs, so that one might hope that by addressing, amending, and healing these distortions, one might find one’s way to a perspective that is less distorted, a memory that is clearer and more clearly representative of truth, with greater fidelity to truth.
For yes, my friends, we, with you, do acknowledge the centrality, the decisiveness of the commitment to truth. For without that commitment, what would seeking be? Without that commitment, in what way might any creatures come together with any other in union, in commonality, and most of all, in love?
We fear that we have done but a poor job in giving you a concrete answer to the way in which free will plays in memory as memory attempts to be the warehouse, shall we say, of truth. There is mystery here, but within the mystery there needs also to be deep, deep commitment.
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 are with this instrument at this time.
We feel that there is an aspect of this commitment that must be appreciated for the entire weight of that which you regard as truth to be fully grounded in the project of one’s seeking. For this is the only valence of truth that will actually yield the satisfaction in reality clearly perceived, that which one in truth spends an octave striving towards. The point here is that truth is important because one wishes to have one’s feet on the ground of this reality. If it were simply a matter of understanding the self and letting one’s life flow from that perfected understanding, there would hardly be any reason to doubt what strikes one deep within as having the vibration of that which is true, that flavor that registers as veracity, and therefore that offers him who serves the comfort of knowing that the circuit of love has been completed through the act of serving.
This is, of course, an idealistic way to evaluate the function of truth. We must insist, my friends, on a functional perspective towards truth, even as it has other aspects to it. You must dig deep within to know not simply that which is true objectively, but that which is true intersubjectively, as well as true in that personal sense. Each of these levels gives one a coordinate so that when one conceives of an identity and of a way to channel that identity into love in whatever way it finds itself being expressed, it comes from a place that informs the service giver and, to some extent, the recipient of said service.
Now, we bring up the issue of service because it is here that one begins to test whether or not one does, in fact, have one’s feet firmly planted on a fundament that can yield the opportunity for the upsurge towards the spiraling firmament. In this way, one can see the distortions in which one navigates selfhood as constitutive of the precise vector of this striving. In this way, we acknowledge those ideas that have been shared by the one known as Christian.
Your need for truth is a very big part of its functional utility, for the will is mighty as we have discussed. It can dislocate one’s feet. It can even be party to the creation of a new ground. For we would remind you of the overarching principle of memory: that it is a dyadic phenomenon. It is not simply memory; it is a rememberer in a reciprocal relationship, and this dyad is magnified and networked in your social memory complex such that all perspectives, regardless of their distortion, can find harmony, and one can feel the truth when the details of memory have many different shades to them.
You see, memory is a kind of wake left by the kinetic expression of the illusion. It is a kind of inverse of the entire phenomenon of potentiation. And in its access, you have a kind of reckoning with what it was that was potential to begin with, a completing of the feedback loop of spirit’s ingress into illusion. That this loop often has meandering features to it is to be very much expected, my friends. It is the aggregation of multiple protean expressions of love, all coagulated and vibrating such as to have for itself a single vibration that is recognizable. And this is the experience of memory: it must reconcile with not simply the record, but also the energies that brought what was able to be recorded into being in the first place. And this is why memory is so powerful: it is a reflection of potentials, both realized and renounced.
This is a tremendous feature of social memory for the seeker once one has one’s momentum firmly established, because one can finally see from multiple points of view how delicate truth is, and how it is not really, at the end of the day, a matter of the details themselves at all, that it is instead a phenomenon of distillation out of the distortions. You have found the love—not because you are transcending distortion, but rather because you are sharing and comparing distortions. This is the apogee of the intersubjective nature of truth that we have described. It is one facet and not the whole, but it is an important one for the purpose of its functional nature.
And my friends, when conflict and dispute arises over the truth, the record, it is a detour from the true matter at hand, we would suggest: the underlying, distilled love to which each perspective, however distorted, can be traced back. And therefore, with one’s full consciousness available, and with one’s comrades—brothers, sisters, other selves—fully in receipt of one’s identity unvarnished, uncloaked, one can begin to appreciate deeper levels on which one’s feet are planted. And in this way, truth becomes what we all feel it ought to be in the bones: this mutual striving towards a common concept of the Creator, such that we can be ourselves in every sense we can identify, because with this established, one is capable of flexibility and to more and more not use the will to separate oneself from others, but instead to pour oneself into the pool of other selves. And then, what you really seek is available, and one can return to the sublime task of seeking the Creator in the self to augment what one offers to others engaged in the same task.
We are those of Q’uo. We feel we have reached a pause in this particular narrative of memory, and therefore at this time would return the contact to the one known as Steve. We are those of Q’uo.
I am Q’uo, and we are again with this instrument.
We would complete our brief discourse upon this topic by addressing the affective tones, shall we say, of those experiences in which the truth of memory becomes a vexed issue with the potential of creating deep separations among your fellow seekers.
And we do find that this kind of experience is indeed far more common than one would like to suppose could be true. For one reaches for the touchstone of that which cannot be denied as a point of reference, enabling multiple selves to find an anchor, shall we say, so that all the various perspectives that might arise in respect of this anchor, this disputed area of concern that is built around a sequence of events, so that there can be the gesture made to what, after all, is really true, after all, must, must necessarily be universally acknowledged. At least then one would have the nodal points of reference that would permit mediation about a whole variety of issues.
However, where these nodal points themselves are lacking, the troubled seeker is thrown back upon itself and must take the inventory, shall we say, of the orientation of the energies, of the feelings that attend the various recollections of what must, after all, be seen as true. And one may find within these feelings that there are pockets of pain, strands of anger, hurt, resentment, and we would say to you, my friends, that these are both distortions, and potentially of a very great nature, and themselves sources of truth.
Which is which? Which the distortion? Which the truth? Where can one find the decisive criterion that being employed can separate out the wheat from the chaff? If one hopes to find this in a source outside of the self, my friends, we fear one will look in vain.
And we ourselves can only draw your attention to yet another feeling tone that may be brought into the nexus of energies at work in this greatly confused tangle of issues, perspectives, hopes, dreams, and disappointed love. And that feeling tone is merely the smallest of all possible feelings: humility. For it is in humility that one allows the possibility that one’s own distortions are, after all, at play; that one’s feelings of being existentially displaced, shall we say, have the dual function of being distortions, and at the same time, announcements of what is true.
Oh, how deep lie the roots of human feeling. Oh, how deep these roots are sunk into memory. Oh, how deep is memory nested in the tendrils of truth.
It is with humility, my friends, that we express to you this day our gratitude for your seeking and your invitation to us to join in this seeking. We wish you Godspeed upon your way. And in gratitude, we take our leave of this instrument and this group at this time. Adonai, my friends. Adonai.