78.33 Questioner: It just seemed to me that since the planets were an outgrowth of the Logos and since the archetypical mind was the foundation for the experience that the planets of this Logos would be in some way related. We will certainly follow your suggestion.
I have been trying to get a foothold into an undistorted doorway, you might say, into the archetypical mind. It seems to me that everything that I have read having to do with archetypes is, to some degree or another, distorted by those who have written and the fact that our language is not really capable of description.
You have spoken of the Magician as a basic archetype and that this seems to have been carried through from the previous octave. Would this then be, if there is an order, the first archetypical concept of this Logos?
Ra: I am Ra. We would first respond to your confusion as regards the various writings upon the archetypical mind. You may well consider the very informative difference between a thing in itself and its relationships or functions. There is much study of archetype which is actually the study of functions, relationships, and correspondences. The study of planets, for instance, is an example of archetype seen as function. However, the archetypes are, first and most profoundly, things in themselves and the pondering of them and their purest relationships with each other should be the most useful foundation for the study of the archetypical mind.
We now address your query as to the archetype which is the Matrix of the Mind. As to its name, the name of Magician is understandable when you consider that consciousness is the great foundation, mystery, and revelation which makes this particular density possible. The self-conscious entity is full of the magic of that which is to come. It may be considered first, for the mind is the first of the complexes to be developed by the student of spiritual evolution.
Hide question numbers Show categories Show notes Show audio
Version (?): Lightly Edited, Relistened, Original, Audio
LL Research Transcripts: HTML, PDF
Differences: Relistened/Edited, Original/Edited (Answers only)
Back to top
The Law of One books are copyright ©1982, 1984, 1998 L/L Research. This site copyright ©2003–2018 Tobey Wheelock.
Questions? Comments? Email me: tw at law of one dot info.