The Four Domains, page 3
Memory and the Four Domains
7 The Holographic Nature of Memory and Time
One of the books that I read, not long ago, had as a basic premise that 'you only have the now'. That is; to get things done, you do it in the here and now. There is no other way to get traction, so to speak.
I am willing to stipulate that technically, in the physical domain, you only have the now. But it is key to understand; the physical domain does not (and probably cannot) operate on its own. Not, at least, where conscious and intact individuals are concerned. Mentally, emotionally, and spiritually there are memories- and there is suggested that there is physical memory as well.
Memory transcends time. A few minutes ago, I was walking through the library in the house I am living in, today, 1/8/2012. I know I am in the here and now. But that is a room where I used to play as a child, with my sisters. It is also the room where my son and my stepson used to play.
The afternoon sunlight is exactly the same as it was then. I can 'see' the children, 'hear' them laugh, I am experiencing the moan of the school bus brakes as it pulls to a stop and kids pile off to run in the driveway, eager to get home for snacks, relaxation, and play. The golden light holds it all, just as would a scent; evocative of times past in a vivid, transcendental fashion.
I would call it a resonance, but the immediacy of the memory suggests nothing so much as a hologram which; when illuminated by coherent light of the same frequency as the initial encoding, will reproduce a three-dimensional image.
8. Effects of the Source of a Memory Trigger on the Characteristics of the Memory
Continuing in this line of analysis is consideration of the characteristics of memory. (Here I am relating observations, not the results of an experiment).
I have observed that in situations as mentioned in #7 (above), memory evoked by an *external* trigger or stimulus (the characteristics of light, or a scent) seems very vivid indeed. A memory, in contrast, brought to conscious awareness by an *internal* trigger; by a thought process for example, or triggered as an extension of another memory; seems 'flatter', with less vividness and dimensionality to it. It is as if it were a photograph as opposed to a hologram. A static image, as it were, rather than an evoked playback.
That said, I have to acknowledge that even memories internally triggered can have very vivid *emotional* perceptions attached to them. But that seems to give them an atmosphere or a coloration, not free-standing, dynamic immediacy.
To attempt to evolve a terminology; externally triggered memory could be termed 'evoked' memory, while internally triggered memory could be termed 'associative' memory.
9. 12 25 17 More on the 4 domains
The ability of the heart is 'like' that of the senses, similar to the ability of the mind to perceive. Like the mind, it motivates, but it does not, in and of itself, 'do'. The workings of the heart- like the workings of the mind- are inward. The mind- the mental domain- depends on the body- the physical domain- to accomplish necessary physical work. It is as if the physical is the executive function for the mind.
Just so the heart- the emotional- depends on other domains to accomplish necessary work. The drives of the emotional can devolve onto the physical, calling up 'executive action' there- with results ranging from the sublime, through the ridiculous, and to the execrably worst of depths- 'the evil that 'men' do'.
(Biblical writings refer to the heart as 'desperately wicked' ('The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?' Jeremiah 17; 9). That is as may be- I am convinced that verse addresses evil, but does not begin to elaborate on just how magnificent and supreme- and good- the emotional landscape can be. The heart of a mother, the love of parents for their children, the sacrifices of people for their loved ones- the ability itself, to love God- these are NOT 'desperately wicked', and one who accepts this verse as an unavoidable condemnation is taking on a burden of guilt that is not merited. The heart can be bad- and it can be good. See to it that it is good.)
The heart- the emotional domain- can also interact with the spiritual domain-the domain with the greatest, most transcendental, sphere of influence.
One must inquire as to whether the workings of the spirit- and 'in the spirit'- are always 'good'.
I suppose that there is and must be a possibility of 'evil' in the spirit'- but when I think of the goodness and the greatness of the spiritual domain- the limitless nature- I cannot but see it going hand in hand with the greatest good of which I can conceive.
The concept of grace comes to mind, and how a 'sacrament' is defined as 'an outward and visible sign, of an inward and spiritual grace'. By means of this very definition is discovered a key to determining the 'good' nature of the working of the spirit.
This is a profound question, which goes to the heart of the Biblical myth of the Garden and the legend of 'The Fall'- the 'forbidden fruit'- that which was said to give the knowledge of good and evil. Granted, the illustration in the story of the guilty ur-humans hiding their nakedness with fig leaves is puerile in the extreme as an example of 'evil'. I think it was put there to reinforce the nudity taboo- but evil? I mean, cmon, really?
But that said, if one conceives of a nascent consciousness, a 'creature', 'created in God's image', which is, in its development, coming to the realization of things beyond the physical, then there must be, in good time but actually in short order, a means to evaluate the workings of the other domains. It is as much of an evolutionary strategy for survival as is any form of learning in any of the doamins. One learns not to try to breathe water, nor walk in fire, One learns about the effects of gravity, and environmental hazards. So, most clearly, the 'knowledge of good and evil' is strategically vital for survival in all the domains.
So, given that, why tell the ur-humans that they must not eat that fruit? Were they somehow 'not ready'? Were they being kept as pets? It is a strange question indeed. But one must acknowledge such tales are common to many of the Creation myths and the stories of humans coming to grips with the 'Creators'. Prometheus comes to mind. Many, many tales have been told, of human curiosity and persistence bringing punishment- but also bringing advancement.
In a nod to the events of 2017, one might consider these.
1. 'She was warned, but she persisted'. And if, as in many cases, trouble follows, there may yet be reasons it was good that the human in question did persist. Perilous explorations are best undertaken with full engagement of our species capacity for deep understanding.
2. If a goal- an 'end' is sought, (oh, for example, to 'Make America Great Again') one can NOT neglect the fullest possible (or practicable) assessment of the potential consequences of the means. The end does NOT justify the means. The end is the end, and the means are the means. If the means are unacceptable, then another better method must be evolved to obtain the desired end- or the end must be modified. No over-simplifications, No 'bumper sticker ethics', no ignoring the 'elephant in the room'.
The ability of the heart is 'like' that of the senses, similar to the ability of the mind to perceive. Like the mind, it motivates, but it does not, in and of itself, 'do'. The workings of the heart- like the workings of the mind- are inward. The mind- the mental domain- depends on the body- the physical domain- to accomplish necessary physical work. It is as if the physical is the executive function for the mind.
Just so the heart- the emotional- depends on other domains to accomplish necessary work. The drives of the emotional can devolve onto the physical, calling up 'executive action' there- with results ranging from the sublime, through the ridiculous, and to the execrably worst of depths- 'the evil that 'men' do'.
(Biblical writings refer to the heart as 'desperately wicked' ('The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?' Jeremiah 17; 9). That is as may be- I am convinced that verse addresses evil, but does not begin to elaborate on just how magnificent and supreme- and good- the emotional landscape can be. The heart of a mother, the love of parents for their children, the sacrifices of people for their loved ones- the ability itself, to love God- these are NOT 'desperately wicked', and one who accepts this verse as an unavoidable condemnation is taking on a burden of guilt that is not merited. The heart can be bad- and it can be good. See to it that it is good.)
The heart- the emotional domain- can also interact with the spiritual domain-the domain with the greatest, most transcendental, sphere of influence.
One must inquire as to whether the workings of the spirit- and 'in the spirit'- are always 'good'.
I suppose that there is and must be a possibility of 'evil' in the spirit'- but when I think of the goodness and the greatness of the spiritual domain- the limitless nature- I cannot but see it going hand in hand with the greatest good of which I can conceive.
The concept of grace comes to mind, and how a 'sacrament' is defined as 'an outward and visible sign, of an inward and spiritual grace'. By means of this very definition is discovered a key to determining the 'good' nature of the working of the spirit.
This is a profound question, which goes to the heart of the Biblical myth of the Garden and the legend of 'The Fall'- the 'forbidden fruit'- that which was said to give the knowledge of good and evil. Granted, the illustration in the story of the guilty ur-humans hiding their nakedness with fig leaves is puerile in the extreme as an example of 'evil'. I think it was put there to reinforce the nudity taboo- but evil? I mean, cmon, really?
But that said, if one conceives of a nascent consciousness, a 'creature', 'created in God's image', which is, in its development, coming to the realization of things beyond the physical, then there must be, in good time but actually in short order, a means to evaluate the workings of the other domains. It is as much of an evolutionary strategy for survival as is any form of learning in any of the doamins. One learns not to try to breathe water, nor walk in fire, One learns about the effects of gravity, and environmental hazards. So, most clearly, the 'knowledge of good and evil' is strategically vital for survival in all the domains.
So, given that, why tell the ur-humans that they must not eat that fruit? Were they somehow 'not ready'? Were they being kept as pets? It is a strange question indeed. But one must acknowledge such tales are common to many of the Creation myths and the stories of humans coming to grips with the 'Creators'. Prometheus comes to mind. Many, many tales have been told, of human curiosity and persistence bringing punishment- but also bringing advancement.
In a nod to the events of 2017, one might consider these.
1. 'She was warned, but she persisted'. And if, as in many cases, trouble follows, there may yet be reasons it was good that the human in question did persist. Perilous explorations are best undertaken with full engagement of our species capacity for deep understanding.
2. If a goal- an 'end' is sought, (oh, for example, to 'Make America Great Again') one can NOT neglect the fullest possible (or practicable) assessment of the potential consequences of the means. The end does NOT justify the means. The end is the end, and the means are the means. If the means are unacceptable, then another better method must be evolved to obtain the desired end- or the end must be modified. No over-simplifications, No 'bumper sticker ethics', no ignoring the 'elephant in the room'.