Solo Moreno: The Reality of Unreality: Insights on Morphic Fields    
 The Reality of Unreality: Insights on Morphic Fields12 comments
21 Oct 2009 @ 12:45, by Jeffrey Trenton Crace

In Scientology, there is the triangle of Understanding, i.e. Affinity plus Reality plus Communication equals Understanding. As far as the reality leg of the triangle, this reality is created through agreements--even Hubbard said that. It is "agreed-upon reality." Another term for this "agreed-upon reality" is a morphic field, a field of agreement. These fields of agreement have particular characteristics. Not only are they created through agreements, but through disagreements within the field and also disagreements with those outside of the field.

It bears noting that just because something is real does not necessarily mean that it is true. Morphic fields are such an example; very real for many people but not necessarily true, true as in manifesting from Source. They are a substitute for manifesting actual creations in space. For instance, there is a clear and obvious field of agreement amongst Americans (in the United States). And a specific agreement amongst them is that they are "legally free." There is disagreement amongst them as to how they should maintain and ensure this so-called freedom; and there is collective disagreement with other nation-based morphic fields, which takes the form of disagreeing that other nations possess the so-called legal freedom that Americans possess.

Now one must ask oneself whether Americans are legally free in truth? The answer is that they are, by definition according to official legal documents such as the United States Constitution, in bondage. Factors to consider, like the nature of the Federal Reserve, the notion that treaties are the Supreme Law of the Land (despite the agreement that the Constitution holds status as such), and the 14th Amendment, are beyond the scope of this article.

The disagreements amongst Americans as to how they should ensure and maintain this agreed-upon freedom and the collective disagreements they hold in opposition to other nation-based groups both serve a specific purpose. Both internal and external disagreements serve to reinforce the solidity of the agreed-upon reality. They serve as justifiers, designed to further ensconce the agreed-upon reality. For instance, based upon the agreement that other nations do not possess the freedom that Americans possess, Americans decide to engage in freedom-obtaining military campaigns for the sake of other nations, under the guise that Americans are obtaining freedom for the other less-fortunate, slavery-ridden nations. Ironically, the true situation is that one sees slaves freeing slaves. The reinforcement this serves to the field of agreement amongst Americans takes this form, "If Americans weren't free, then why do they have such stellar ability and willingness to free others (historically, Iraqis, Afganis, Vietnamese)?" Also, as far as the internal disagreements, one can see a similar means for reinforcement, i.e. if Americans quibble and quibble and spend such excessive time and effort debating and discussing how to ensure and maintain their freedom, then it follows that they must be free.

Another example is the field of agreement that surrounds and pervades romantic relationships. Obviously, the primary agreement among most romantic couples, like Americans believing that they possess freedom, is that the couple possesses love. There is always discord amongst the two as to how they should go about expressing, maintaining, ensuring and reinforcing the agreed-upon love. Moreover, external disagreement, agreements against others, takes the form of romantic exclusivity. In other words, the couple can only love each other romantically and cannot love others romantically, and the result of such external agreement is jealousy. However, it bears noting that if a person loves another person, then the lover understands that if his or her beloved decides it is best for his or her beloved to be romantic with another person, then this is should not be of any concern to the lover. In other words, if I love someone, then I want what's best for that person and if that person is to be enriched and appreciated through relations with another person, my love does not exclude, deny or disallow such a movement.

In Scientology, there was another word for morphogenetic field, it was group mind. The term itself reveals much about the nature of these fields of agreement. The mind is designed to invent certainties. Group minds are linked minds, adding insult to injury by forming collective agreements around mind's invented certainties. The result is a very real, and perverted, unreality. An unreality that seems to stand at a cold and insuperable distance from infinite life. When I see the functioning of a morphic field, I see its members all alone in their inverted spaces; they firmly believe they are looking at the same thing but in fact they are all transfixed on the contents of their minds. There is no co-existence there. The answer is to spot the agreements that form morphic field, not to disagree with them as this only creates an oppositional field. The answer is to learn how to feel with conviction the difference between truth and lies that the mind feeds us.

[< Back] [Solo Moreno]



22 Oct 2009 @ 02:07 by mortimer : Well Said
They have a lot of triangles too. The cauldron sits on three legs. And like a mothers belly, its concave/convex, so it sends a powerful signal. Rumor its also the same shape of the Universe. Divination on three legs, cant do that with the opele. Buts that's another story for another time.

22 Oct 2009 @ 03:39 by mortimer : one question
Are you certain you wrote the text in this article?  

22 Oct 2009 @ 05:21 by solomoreno : Did I write this article?!?
Absolutely. It was an exercise for me, to explore why morphic fields need internal and external disagreements.  

22 Oct 2009 @ 05:48 by mortimer : Absolutely Cool
Well you hit that one spot on. I had not notice that.  

22 Oct 2009 @ 05:58 by mortimer : Perverted Certainty?
State of certainty depends on disposition of character?  

22 Oct 2009 @ 13:34 by mortimer : Nations and Morphic Fields
I especially like the talk about nations, which clearly show the internal disagreements.

Seems the American Indian calls the morphic fields nations, they recognize many nations and use the term in oral history---wakan tanka...the one legged, the four legged, the winged, insect and sea, all nations. Also the four direction of the medicine wheel and the four colors of man. And they even have, the star nations.

The savages got the Constitution from the Indians -

What really happen to Michael? Pop stars are not supposed to make songs like that - {}

The sooner it reaches critical mass the sooner it reverses polarity.

Seems to me, you cant really ignore morphic fields. Its like somebody farted in the room and now everybody has to deal with it.
Ignoring a morphic field is a form of disagreement.  

22 Oct 2009 @ 17:00 by solomoreno : Yes!
"Ignoring morphic fields is a form of a disagreement." That's true. Chris Melchior talks about the importance of concurring with morphic fields, as opposed to agreeing or disagreeing.

A lot of the raw data about MFs, I learned from Ed Dawson, including the notion that they include internal and external disagreements. Although I've never heard anyone say that these serve as justifiers. They also serve as PROOF, which is a highly aberrative item. The need for proof always points to an untruth. Truth doesn't need proof--truth is.  

22 Oct 2009 @ 19:29 by mortimer : Justified?
Last time I checked T4R is closed door, some type of members only club.

Concur: to be of the same opinion; agree

Dawson is very perceptive and obviously high level of comprehension.

Proof is aberration? Surely Dawson did not say that. Or there is some specific context which I fail to understand. Proof is the results and that's the truth. Look out your window lately?  

23 Oct 2009 @ 00:58 by solomoreno : No...
If you had actually DONE the word clearing instead of thinking about it, you would see that to concur and to agree are different. There are almost no true synonyms anyways.

Dawson is operating at a very high level. He's shown me the finest grace.

Dawson did not say that proof is aberrative--Filbert did.

Look out my window? All I see are persistent lies;)  

23 Oct 2009 @ 03:54 by mortimer : hmmm
Pure Ifa. I don't know anything about that word clearing.
Air, water and food? all lies? ;}

"as a practitioner of Ifá I'm simply a pragmatist"~Sandor

Bang on Mr Sandor, bang on!

Mother Nature is pragmatic.  

23 Oct 2009 @ 07:46 by solomoreno : Ifa is great, but...
Maybe it's time to open your mind to other approaches.

I know a little Ifa myself;) I just got back from seeing Max in Brazil!  

23 Oct 2009 @ 08:14 by mortimer : Ifa is Pragmatic
Word clearing, in Ifa that may include a coconut and a glass of water. Why, because it works. Ifa is all about the proof. And the proof is in the long term results. I looked through the old mans eyes and the view was much older than the old man. The most beautiful worldview i had ever seen. I am in love with the view and that's something I'm not willing to compromise. I play with electronic music, time spent and I know my conga playing is compromised. But my Ifa has not been compromised.

Did you do any drumming while in Brazil?  

Other entries in
20 Nov 2010 @ 18:40: A New Koan: Pigs Can Fly
11 Sep 2010 @ 17:48: The Sharpest Image
22 Jul 2010 @ 13:16: Cartographers of No Man's Land
20 Jul 2010 @ 04:01: Burn the Motes From Thine Eye
15 Dec 2009 @ 16:36: Notes On How To Act
7 Dec 2009 @ 15:17: Two to Tango
13 Nov 2009 @ 04:07: Schizophrenia, or The New You
8 Nov 2009 @ 01:09: You Gave Destruction A Bad Name
28 Oct 2009 @ 13:44: The Anointment of Noah Drake: "The Eclipse"
26 Oct 2009 @ 16:19: The Anointment of Noah Drake: "Our Mother the Mind"

[< Back] [Solo Moreno] [PermaLink]?