Comments by "Peter deWolf" (@StoneShards) on "Occult Literature 185: Death and the Afterlife" video.

  1.  @mokenetgumshoe1064  <--Ah! The reason for existence! The "evolution" of the universe is merely the outward appearance of the resolution of the Cosmic Error. The short of it goes something like this: We are frozen in a cosmic moment of recognition/realization belonging to the Primordial Void, that chaos of all-potential that provides the backdrop of existence. In the beginning--literally--, It recognized the impossible: repetition in the state of the Void. Being utterly chaotic, only random organizational states should be possible. But the impossible happened: all tied up in this instantaneous recognition are principles of "reflection", then "memory", then "multiplicity/unity", then BANG, God (consciousness) is "born", from an error in cosmic nature, a mistake that explained itself in terms of "time". WE and our entire existence IS the process of experiencing to resolution this frozen stare-down of the Void and God, as they grapple with the incongruous state of recognition precipitated by the error. Time was, both, the manifestation of the error, and the mechanism of its solution; it had to be...contained. Existence is how Time contains the Error. We are an integral part of the resolution of this cosmic error. As loci of consciousness, we are agents, witting or unwitting, of the universe as it evolves to contain, and then absorb the Error. This cosmic maturation process is the purpose of ours and all existence--but NOT selfishly, not for our own benefit, but for the benefit of the Void. "Correction" of the Error is by the integration of consciousness, which is essentially the nature of the Error. But there's still no going back; no going back to an insensible Void comprising the totality of existence. In some form or manner or other, we're "here" to stay: "Time" is going to have to be incorporated into the style of the ongoing unfolding. No physical universe of time run amok, but gradated dimensionality, to serve the purpose better. Time is the primary prerequisite for Existence.
    2
  2. The "tuning mechanism" analogy is apt, but my take is a little different: Mind is one, there is only one Mind; we lay claim to "segments" of the "mind field" by virtue of our vibrational rate, which effectively "tunes" us into the segments of the mind field that resonate with "us", whatever vibrational state we've chosen for the moment. We, therefore, tune into Mind by setting up a resonance by thinking/feeling something; the mind field resonates sympathetically, forming a connection/awareness. When you pass a stranger on the street, your local mind fields are synced by your colocation: you can feel the other person, intimate his thoughts, due to your proximal colocation--you may even swap psychic parasites.
    1
  3.  jigga jaw  <--I like Max Heindel's "THE ROSICRUCIAN COSMO-CONCEPTION". Even though it's alternatively titled, "Mystic Christianity", there isn't much in it identifiable as "Christian", otherwise I wouldn't have bothered reading it. "Souls" incarnate repeatedly in order to master a basic level of reality: they practice building better and better bodies. "Mastery" is the watchword. The spiritual hierarchy that informs reality is vast enough to support the spiritual career ambitions of each and every extant entity. There are "orders" of evolution: human entities likely will not cross over into other orders of evolution, like that of the cosmic bodies (i.e. planetary and solar intelligences evolve via cosmic bodies, and the path of such evolution is difficult for humans to conceive). Everything, everywhere, is spiritually informed. The deities of the religionists are exemplars of the spiritual "teacher" collectives that operate in an illuminative function--for all manner of beings. Anybody can always make a mistake should they fail to pay sufficient attention to what they're doing. And mistake potential is critical for the learning process. I don't care for the "simulation" idea, for all it's messiness, as you indicated. I prefer the notion of a "construct" because it dispenses with any intimations of "fakery". A simulation is always a model of something that already exists; a construct is always an original production (yes, even if it's a copy). I have found that ideas carry their own baggage (i.e. associations, biases, etc.) that can complicate thinking unnecessarily. So I try to use ideas whose baggage is least inimical to the idea's extensibility. We're pretty much at the point in physics where the quantum reality is indistinguishable from consciousness.
    1