Session 205 (Private)
Monday, December 10, 2007
Participants: Joanne (Tyl), and Paul (Caroll).
(Paul’s note: This session may not be of interest the general reader given that it covers somewhat technical information. Still, it shows how foundational the concept of innate intention, as expressed through the nine families of consciousness, is to Rose’s teachings.)
(Rose Arrives: 9:28 AM.)
ROSE: We allowed the question about the “line of intentionality” – we are half-joking, we are offering the information to quell some informational confusion that we caused by your questions at another time[1] – so we wanted to allow the interesting form of fine model-making that Rose will be only interested in when you are, because the models are, indeed, very important, though not a core feature that Rose will be interested in.
We will honor realizing the model, in your Rose's terms only, because we’ll want to surely tweak it a bit, [so] the following information will be a slight tweak to the model. So rest assured we’ll want to “Sumafi-Ilda” the thing a bit, as well as use this idea to begin the dissertation today about the line of intentionality.
The intentionality is the thing that loves to tweak any absolute information in your world. The intentionality line is very much a filter that intrudes on any absolutes that you may find in your world. Therefore, your Rose, coming through the intentionality of your dear one here, will incorporate a different interpretation on your model than you will, dear one, Caroll.[2]
You can try to make the pieces fit, in some respects, but they won’t ever completely. We mean ever, as well as only now, because in time – in tome, as we indicate is defined as time, plus All-That-Is – in tome, you get the combination of the words time and OM – All-That-Is, indeed.
So tome is a concept word that we’ll define as time plus non-time. So in tome, you’ll get things in time you won’t – that means only some realizations of your realizations of probabilities.
We will incorporate a correction. The tome is the incorporation that you make to describe time as every realization for potentials. Your time is a mostly linear framework, but tome incorporates all time-linear frameworks. So in tome, all things exist, all things happen, all things are every potentially potential thing, as well as non-potential thing.
Tome, in some respects, is All-That-Is, but is more defined, in some ways, as being almost [an] assuming anything can probably occur scenario. So tome is a time plus OM to suggest that all time exists always, [and] all things occur in time as well.
PAUL: (Humorously) So it’s the concept that fuels Douglas Adams’ Infinite Improbability Drive.[3]
ROSE: You’re exactly correct. (Paul and Joanne chuckle) The wonderful thing about the improbability machine is that the character of Zaphod Beeblebrox was so very arrogant that when others entered the machine, they were blown away by the infinite means that time has to occur [in] all things.
When Zaphod went into the machine, he didn’t allow any trauma whatsoever. Instead, he allowed only awe, as well as an incorporation of something very special – detachment. So Zaphod wanted to be a guru, in some respects, as well as a very good model for you. For when you find the time machine, you want to go somewhere else besides where you are. In this, you find ways to fear the worst conditions you can.
In some respects, the Zaphod character was your Guy in your Galaxy Quest[4], interestingly played by the same character, indeed – Sam Rockwell. So Sam is depicting both ways to view tome. In his Guy character, he went to another planet – tome was involved in this – but he feared that there’d be no air, therefore jeopardizing his lives – all lives in your spacecraft.
The Zaphod character, instead, took on time as tome, as well as incorporated a detachment that would be treanteaing[5] all probabilities in ways that we suggest he found just fine, indeed. So he found that all things live on always. There’s no need to fear, in any way, that your existence will be quelled. (Humorously) Only your coneheads[6] would disapprove, (Paul and Joanne chuckle) for they will find only fear when they set their sights on that, as well as fear when they set their sights on that.
So trust that your tome will be a wonderful thing to explore with Rose in your future. That will be all about that for today. Unless you have questions, we’ll continue with your intentionality line.
PAUL: No, please continue. Thank you.
ROSE: You’re very welcome, dear one. Your intentionality is uniquely you, in many respects, but also not uniquely you because the intentionalities are, in some respects, the same in your physical reality, only very different for each of you.
There are a number of variations on the theme, so to speak, of your intentionalities. The way you can think of them is as a banquet of fine foods that you choose to eat. When you’re physical, the foods are always present, but you take one bite at a time. Therefore, you sample all the foods in your way in each proximate physical reality. Then you take one bite or two more of some of the things you’ll want to sample again.
In this, you have all the foods in you – enjoying them – but you also savor some more than others. In this, you are all the families of consciousness, but you choose to focus on one or two in each reality you chreate[7] physically.
To take the allowance of the metaphor a bit further, you’ll also want to vomit to get more food in you. In this, you forget to turn off the feedbag so as to get more food, as well as value from your many focuses. Then you forget to turn on your feedbag. In this, you make room for more intentionalities, in your terms, to exist.
The way you can allow the remembrance is to allow the idea that you’re always making room for more food in your experiences. There’s no banquet manager telling you to stop eating. Indeed, you can think of your essences as that banquet manager, to some degree, because we limit the amount of information you get, in some respects, in your physical focuses, so as to help you enjoy the food on your plates.
But in essence, there are no plates, only the banquet that you savor as much of as you like, in every way. So the banquet manager is essence directing the flow of food to you on your plates, but your remembrance is in allowing the full banquet of experiences to beautifully incorporate in your brains, to some degree, in your providing enjoyment in your days.
So trust that your remembrance is a very big banquet that you’ll enjoy every day, as long as you’d like. In this, your remembrance is finding you to be wanting to open up your bellies, as well as to savor a beautiful feast that’s awaiting you. So do so.
The intentionality line is a way of saying that your view of things is limited to certain foods on your plates. The intentionality line is what you’ll most feal[8] as fulfilling to you. In this, when you load up on foods that aren’t healthy or finding satisfaction you’re not aligning with your intentionalities.
The line is what’s important, because you will find that the line guides a great many other things in your lives, besides the very things you do with your jobs, the wonderful chreations you make, because the lines will chreate a world of stages for you.
In this, the intentionality line needs development because you’ll interest yourself only in some foods but not others, but you’ll want to eat more of the foods on your plate. So to do so you need to mature, as well as big bellies, (Joanne chuckles) indeed, will help you.
In this, the intentionality line will assist you in growing into your fine desserts as well, as this is the way you get through your lives, so as to reach the point where you’re enjoying what you’re doing. So the desserts are what you’re finding now, in some respects, with your Rose information.
The intentionality line has reached a stage in Joanne in which she’s finally, in some ways, enjoying her desserts that she’s achieved by eating the line of intentionality in ways that have guided her to the dessert buffet, in some respects.
(Humorously) So to continue with our very over-worked metaphor (Paul chuckles) by now, we’ll also say… (Joanne laughs with Paul)
PAUL: (Humorously) I’m getting hungry now. Let’s get some breakfast.
ROSE: (Laughingly) You’re doing a great job to say the least, on imagining your banquet; we’re even getting hungry, indeed.
So to continue, you’re correct that this is sounding like a type, but it’s not, because the types want only the best foods.[9] They don’t want to savor only some foods, so they’ll want to incorporate very many foods in order to assuage their hungers. In this, they won’t necessarily choose the right things to savor. Then they’ll be so full on your foods that won’t bring them satisfaction that they’ll ignore the dessert tray.
But the way you can think of types is also as ways to incorporate the lines, because they affect the lines. For example, the lines of sportsmanship would be well suited for Zuli intentionality, but why wouldn’t your Ildas want to savor the sports foods? Because that’s not necessarily what they’ll want to bring them satisfaction.
In this, they’ll want the Teller[10] foods so as to enjoy the satisfying ways of Ildas. So they’ll find ways to say, “Well, I’m an Ilda so I need these things.” But if you look at Ildas as a type as well, they’d do well to consider that their realization of preferences wouldn’t be adequate. They’ll want to prefer some foods but not others.
If they were a type, they’d want to discover foods that they wouldn’t find healthy for them, so the Ildas would be sick on some Zuli foods. In the same respect, they’d want to not develop that line because it may not be suitable for them to do so. In this the Ildas would embrace the Ilda foods, but not the Zuli foods, so they’ll want to avoid some things.
The way you can think of types is as ways to assert what foods or lines would best be developed. To take the metaphor even further, you’d want only the foods on your plate that suit you.
So the Zuli set wouldn’t want the Ilda set either. The reason that types want other foods is because they want everything to be a line that’s well developed. This is a belief system that you all hold – that you need to be good at everything. In this, the intentionality line distinguishes the lines you need to develop. In this, it may look like a type – in some ways it is – but it’s a type that also tells you what you need to eat.
PAUL: Can I just comment here, just to clarify my understanding. There may be some confusion of types, and lines, and levels, that if we’re calling intentionality a line, it will develop through its own level or stages. You have not commented on what those levels or stages are thus far, but you have commented on the intentionality line in terms of the nine types it would have.
And this is how types mingle and interpenetrate within the integral model. And with everybody you could find types – emotional types, meditative-spiritual types – different flavors as it’s going through seedling, sapling and tree stages of development, it’s still Zuli but as Zuli seedling, as Zuli sapling, as Zuli tree.
So that Zuli characteristic is a type by definition. The stage, as it changes, is what’s the stage or line aspect of it.
ROSE: Yes.
PAUL: Is that correct?
ROSE: Exactly. The way you can think of types is as ways that you can determine the stages, as well as the lines, that would be incorporated for each type.
But the distinguishing factor that we’re trying to introduce here is that while the stages are indeed important, they’re not as important in every line, as the intentionality line is. The intentionality line can be considered the foods you eat – in batches of stages – the bellies getting bigger to incorporate the intentionality in stages, you could say.
The intentionality line drives the other lines, in many ways, but not allowing your intentionality line to be a line you’ll risk, in some respects, a trust that your Rose has in the preferences, because the realization of one’s preference is intentionality, too.[11]
PAUL: Mmhm, sure.
ROSE: This doesn’t happen with types as much as it does with intentionality. Your foods will feal better going in when you choose to think of them as realizations of preference, as well as fealing good about what you’re eating. To say the least, the realization of foods is a good way to describe intentionality, because you’ll want to discover what you’re good at eating.
To take the metaphor even ridiculously further, perhaps, (Paul chuckles) it would be also accurate to describe faults, sometimes, as foods you eat that aren’t suiting your intentionality.
So, for example, if you’re a very arrogant person – you may be a Zuli individual who hasn’t discovered that arrogance sometimes works to one’s benefit in your sports arenas – your arrogant ways are good for you when you’re aligned intentionally with your Zuli individual.
JOANNE: (Realizing that the last sentence was a little jumbled.) Let me back up.
PAUL: (Wondering if Joanne has a phone meeting to attend.) That’s okay; it’s five of ten, by the way.
JOANNE: That’s okay.
ROSE: Your Zulis, therefore, need to look at the arrogance as a food they want, but this food would be anathema to, for example, a Tumold individual who wants to heal individuals. So the foods metaphor helps to realize that all foods aren’t good for everyone. You need to find your intentionality to order the right things for yourselves. So do so.
We’ll allow your questions if you wish. We’ll say also that Joanne doesn’t have any pressing meetings[12], (Paul chuckles) so you can continue if you like.
PAUL: The only comment is: I don’t want to make it any more complicated in terms of integral theory, so I’ll withhold any comments from there. I think it’s interesting, and it’s a way to develop the intentionality information that we have from Seth and Elias in particular.
So I think it’s very intriguing and interesting, and it’s nice to try and look at lines, and the stages they go through, we call that “levels and lines” and then types. So we are looking at three of the five or six major points of the integral map, so that’s quite a lot! In and of itself, it covers a large amount of territory for the individual.
ROSE: Exactly.
PAUL: I understand. I get it, and I appreciate you explicating it more, and continuing to develop it.
ROSE: We’ll allow a great many discussions with you about this in your future. For now, we’ll say bon appétit, indeed. (Paul chuckles) We love you.
PAUL: Thank you.
(Rose Departs: 9:58 AM.)
(Transcribed by Nardine Neilson, August 15, 2008.)
Endnotes
[1] Paul’s note: This session was prompted by a discussion Joanne and I had regarding my confusion about some of Rose’s earlier comments on the function of multiple intelligences or lines of development used in Ken Wilber’s Integral Model. Rose introduced the notion of intentionality as having its own stages of development in Session 36, May 08, 2007 (just after resuming at 8:16 AM.).
[2] Paul’s note: The Integral Model includes multiple intelligences or developmental lines (also called streams), for instance, cognition, linguistics, logical-mathematical, musical, interpersonal, kinesthetic, emotional, moral, self-sense, spirituality, etc. Lines represent abilities that we all have, and as such, they all have correlates with brain function, and cultural values and artifacts. Lines help explain why we’re better at some things (like language or music) but simultaneously not so good in others (like math or relationships) or vice versa.
What’s interesting is that Rose situated intent, related to families of consciousness, as its own developmental line to stress its importance. According to Seth and Elias, it’s also a prebirth choice, or what we call an involutionary given in Integral Philosophy. This implies that innate intentionality has a tremendous, casual impact on overall cultural development and human evolution, much more than many modern and postmodern philosophers allow. However, German idealist philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) clearly intuited what I term innate intention in his “will to exist.” So this is just another variation on that theme, and shows that thinkers have been intuiting in importance of intention for centuries.
Moreover, in the past several years, I have been researching the channeling ability as its own developmental intelligence or line, but that hypothesis requires further research and collaborative inquiry.
[3] Joanne’s note: I’ve seen The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy videos (1981) and movie (2005) and loved them. Additionally, I discovered a very deep connection with Douglas Adams upon reading his Long Dark Tea-Time of the Soul which I discovered at our Maui vacation rental in 2007 soon after Rose started coming through.
[4] Joanne’s note: Galaxy Quest is one of our favorite movies. In it, Sam Rockwell plays Guy, an anxiety ridden actor who has reason to believe he’s viewed as expendable to the writers of the show he appears on, which has been made real, and will be killed off.
[5] Paul’s note: Treantea is one of Rose’s practices designed as “a way to realize more choices by engaging your imagination and intuition.” ~ Session 233, March 31, 2008
For more info, see Treantea Poker Players Practice and Part 2: The Poker Players Float to the Sky.
[6] Paul’s note: Rose referred to the alien characters who “consumed mass quantities of beer and chips” in a Saturday Night Live skit by Dan Ackroyd and Jane Curtin called The Coneheads. They were often fearful and anxious, their frustration expressed as “Meps!”
[7] Paul’s note: This is one of Rose’s neologisms (made-up words), a combination of Christ and create. For more info, see The Rose Glossary.
[8] Paul’s note: This is one of Rose’s neologisms (made-up words), a combination of feel and real. For more info, see The Rose Glossary.
[9] Paul’s note: This may have been a test, but I maintain that intentionality, as defined by Seth, Elias, and Kris, in terms of the families of consciousness, works best as a type in the Integral Model (other types include male/female, Myers-Briggs, the Enneagram, Elias’ orientations, etc.). My point is that our intent will remain the SAME at any given state or stage (like any type does), though it will strongly color each state or stage. Therefore, as we grow from seedling through sapling and tree stages, while our intent (say Zuli) will remain the same, it will also become increasingly able to express itself more fully – in more subtle and nuanced ways – through the lens of a more complex stages of development within various lines. This conception agrees in principle with Rose’s metaphor of savoring foods and progressing to the dessert tray – this represents the stage aspect of her intentionality line.
Also, given that Rose upped the ante by introducing the concept of tome (or what Seth called simultaneous time) earlier in this discussion, it is possible that from the essence perspective we need to consider how all these innate intentions develop over multiple, simultaneous lifetimes. This could be what Rose is also hinting at, and there is room for this in the Integral Model in the subtle and causal lines. Seen in this light, family of consciousness intents are considered prebirth choices by Seth and Elias, and as such, we call them involutionary givens in terms of Integral Philosophy.
[10] Paul’s note: Rose referred to the Intent Names given to each of the nine families of consciousness by Elias, for example, Ilda are Tellers, Sumari are Speakers, etc. (Both Tellers and Speakers were used by Jane Roberts and Seth, though they were not distinctly associated with any of the nine families of consciousness material.) For more info, see Digests: essence families; intents.
[11] Paul’s note: This very interesting assertion bears further scrutiny. For example, Ken Wilber calls the cognitive line “necessary but not sufficient” for all the others to unfold together. Even though some lines will be more developed than others (within a spectrum of simultaneously low, medium, and high stages) it is very rare for the cognitive line to be low, and other lines high (e.g., so-called “idiot savants” may have the cognition of a six year old child, but the musical, emotional, or linguistic ability of a thirty-five year old adult).
Still, the cognitive line deals with what we are aware of in any state, and decades of developmental research support the notion that the more highly developed our cognitive line is, then the potential for additional lines (abilities) to be more highly developed dramatically increases, but not the other way around. This appears to be valid for the vast majority of the global population.
However, since Rose included the concept of tome, or simultaneous time, that supports her case that the intentionality line may be “necessary but not sufficient” for all the others. The key question, then, is could the intentionality line be what anchors all the lines in a “necessary but not sufficient” manner? Is that in addition to the cognitive line, or does that actually supplant the current primacy of the cognitive line? Obviously, further research is required to better understand this.
[12] Paul’s note: This impromptu session occurred during Joanne’s regular work day, which is why we kept it brief.