BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Temple >

Sloppy servitors

  
  

Page: (1)23

 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
10:15 / 24.01.07
What the heck is a servitor anyway? So you doodled your little statement of intent on the back of a takeaway menu and charged it until you decided it has grown up from a tiny weeny sigil into a fully-fledged thoughtform. What have you actually created? Is there now some new, independant entity flitting around on the astral plane? Is that an objective, verifiable fact--ie, could you get confirmation from others as to the existance and nature of the beastie? Or is there simply a statement of intent which you have externalised and are dealing with as if it were seperate from you? Is it an artificial intelligence or closer to a device driven by a control programme, like a robot in a car factory or a player piano?

If (and this is a big if) it is a seperate and independant entity, what are your responsibilities towards it? Is it ethical to create something just to do your magical dirty work, and then destroy it?

In answering the above, please show your working. Give references, and preferably back up your arguments with experience.
 
 
Haloquin
10:45 / 24.01.07
*This is all based on my personal experience and intuitions and thoughts on the matter.*

I think this depends on the intention when you make them, on the process and how they're made.

My immediate thought is that a short-term servitor could be made like an energetic robot, with one purpose. Like a one-use tool... eg a recyclable paint palette. In this case, why would it mind being dismantled?

In my experiences I've tended to deliberately build an energetic shape with a purpose. Some I've breathed life into... these I then would feel bad about suddenly dismantling and I tend to check up on them and make sure they're ok and happy. Others have been just shapes, although shapes that look like they should be alive and have a specific purpose, these I feel no responsibility for, beyond making sure I don't use them in a way that screws things up for people (like not leaving a knife in a place where a child might cut themselves, or someone might stand on it).

Presumably energised sigils manifest energetically in a particular form, but they would have been made with a specific purpose. So unless that purpose was to live and have a personality then my feeling is that this would be a tool not a being, and you would be under obligation only to treat them as such.

This could lead to an interesting thought on how a tool should be treated. Does a tool have a life? Do we have a specific obligation to tools as such? Can tools develop life?* Some seem to develop a personality, I often feel like my Tarot cards have a personality and are almost a being in their own right, which means I'd be rather opposed to taking the deck apart and using it for collage or just pretty pictures. Whereas I've a big pile of magazines waiting to be used for just that purpose.

I am definately of the opinion that it tends to depend on the specific circumstance. I need to have a think about the ethics of dismantling a "living" servitor, I wouldn't be happy with it, but I'm not sure if its ethical or not. Perhaps theres a correlation with animal sacrifice to be made? Or allowing something to die... is this killing it? Could a servitor be a willing sacrifice?

These thoughts are far too unformed so I'll have to come back to them when they have developed a little.


*I think I'm using the term life in a way that may be well expressed by animistic ideas, but I'm not sure, I don't know the technicalities.
 
 
Quantum
11:00 / 24.01.07
Here's some basic info on thoughtforms and egregores for a start, and an example of a spirit-helper and it's creation, and an article On the Aetiology of Spirits from philhine.org.

Do servitors have a natural lifespan I wonder?
 
 
Char Aina
14:45 / 24.01.07
would a servitor being dimsantled be a part of 'the way they live' in the same way that my death is a part of 'the way we live'?

as such, a part of the natural order?

how does a golem die? is that a useful example?
 
 
Princess
15:48 / 24.01.07
This is a sketchy rememberance, but aren't golem's decommisioned by changing the words on them. If I've got it right then the words the Cabbalist puts on them have to be removed/altered.
 
 
illmatic
18:42 / 24.01.07
Can anyone post evidence, drawn from their own experience of practicing magick and working with servitors, that suggsts that servitors are anything other than beliefs we chose to hold?
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
18:48 / 24.01.07
That would be nice, yes. It would be appreciated if we could please proceed without just assuming that servitors are really really real in the objective sense and actually look at how they work, if indeed they do work, plz thx.
 
 
Princess
18:55 / 24.01.07
Personally, I've found them to be little more than that. Though I have gotten results with servitors, and I have gotten into relationships with several, I would rarely (if ever) use them now. My communication with servitors almost always resulted in headaches, confusion and tiredness. These things are, for me, symptoms of thinking about something too hard. I think this is because I was struggling to come up with "spontaneous" sounding replies for my imaginary servitor to use. I started to notice that all my servitors, indeed, all the spirits, had the same personality. This leads me to believe that I was in conversations where I was having to supply both sides of the conversation.

This is not to say I think it's a useless technique. The idea of a servitor can be held up as a kind of weird mirror to your psyche. And distancing yourself from some aspects of your crazy-pile with personification could be useful. But I avoid it because I now I have a strong tendency to the imaginary/crap types of practice, and servitors encourage that in me.
 
 
Princess
18:57 / 24.01.07
Sorry, x-post again. That obviously to Eggs' question about "are they just beliefs we choose to hold?".
 
 
Char Aina
19:00 / 24.01.07
was that directed at me, mordant?
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
19:04 / 24.01.07
Not directed at anyone specifically, dude. I was just getting a strong feeling that the thread might be starting to head that way over the last two or three posts, and wanted to step in before it ended up pointed in the wrong direction. Possibly overzealous of me.
 
 
illmatic
19:06 / 24.01.07
Cheers Princess, that was very interesting. When you say I think this is because I was struggling to come up with "spontaneous" sounding replies for my imaginary servitor to use what do you mean? Did the form of working you tended to do take on the form of you chatting with the servitor (or yourself, as the case may be)?

As to my own experience, most never really seemed to get off the ground. I seemed to lose interest in the few I made after a few days, a sign I was doing something 'cos I thought I "should" (tick all them boxes on TEH chaoZmage CV!) rather than out of real need and interest.
 
 
Char Aina
19:10 / 24.01.07
well, i've never used a servitor.
i wouldnt build one without making sure it was in line with my ethics to do so, and at this point i have no idea.

i guess i'll sit back and watch while you thrash out whether they are real or imagined, and then pop back in when we're discussing the ethics of creating them.
 
 
trouser the trouserian
19:12 / 24.01.07
I expressed my general outlook on servitors in a response to LVX23 in this thread. Selectively quoting (with slight updates):

I generally tend to view servitors as a magical equivalent of a background program - something that - once launched/set up - you can basically forget about, although having said that, if some event occurrs which I have decided to interpret as a 'sign' of that servitors' activity, I focus on the servitor momentarily and say "thank you". I've had a 'book finding' servitor active for about 10-11 years now. So t'other day, popping into a bookshop just on the offchance of finding something worthwhile, I found myself thinking "There was something I thought I'd be interesting to read - what was it ... oh yes, the Hatha Yoga Pradipika. Now do they have a copy? Oh yes. Oh, it's a heavily commented edition. Don't want that one. Let's see if I can find an edition where it's just Sanskrit-English." After hunting around for about an hour I found a very slim volume which was just what I wanted. Now, both the initial "prompt" (me remembering a book I wanted to read) and the event of "finding" exactly the edition I wanted, I attribute to the activity of the book-finding servitor. This increases my 'confidence' in the servitor's ability to do its job. Just as an aside, the servitor seems to function most effectively when I am just browsing on the offchance (i.e. I'm in a 'drift' frame of mind) - if I'm actively seeking a particular title, I find that it's not much help.

What have I done here? I've taken an intention - "finding books" and decided to identify a bunch of criteria/events associated with that with the activity of an "autonomous" 'entity' which is little more than a name, a visualised image, and some associated behaviours that I carry out when I decide that the "servitor" has been effective. I don't consider it 'sentient' any more than I think of the FTP client on my desktop as being 'sentient', but equally, I consider it to be autonomous from me in much the same way that I'd consider a desktop application I'd written to be autonomous.

Now, if I share the script for that servitor, then anyone who wants to make the identification between it and "finding books" can do so, and we assume that the more people use it, the more effective at carrying out its instructions the "entity"* becomes. However, unless people let me know that they've been using it, there's no way that I can know this.

When I've been involved with creating group servitors, there's usually been some kind of means of collecting feedback on people's individual experiences with the servitor concerned - usually with the effect that striking successes are 'talked up' as 'proof' of the servitors' effectiveness, whilst 'failures' get quietly ignored. Admittedly, I've done this with my own servitors as well. So for group servitors, there's a process of selective attribution of meaning/significance going on amongst participants, which, IMO contributes to the overall experience.

* Thinking of the servitor as an independent entity can be of course, merely an ideational "convenience".
 
 
Princess
19:24 / 24.01.07
Yeah, the process of making them was vaguely formal. Insofar as I cast some semblance of a circle and then did some thing sufficently ritualistic inside it. After that though, the relationships tended to become conversational in nature. Often they would be tied to a pendant or an action, so they could be "summoned" by me. So much of it played into my fantasies of being special and different and I think having a special secret invisible friend who would be my slave and help me rule the world was a bit of an incentive to create the experience of having a servitor.

To be completely honest, I was the worst kind of _sTaRcHiLdKaOsWiKan!23_ on the planet at the time, so there is every chance that it was my n00bishness and lack of focus. There may well be a real servitors out there right now and my experience only goes to prove how suck-ass I was at making them. I was not, by any standard I'd use now, a practicioner. So maybe my POV is less than helpful in this thread.

Of the few successes I did have with them, they did tend to be with the one-shot, single use servitors. Typical stuff was astral alarm clocks and dream remembering. But with both those examples it could quite clearly be just a matter of self-suggestion before bed time.

Just to check, are we only talking about created servitors here? What about the long tradition of catching/taming wild spirits?
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
21:37 / 24.01.07
I think we should be careful to distinguish between the two, but there's cdertainly room in the thread for talking about other kinds of spirits who've been pressed into service. To be clear though I think we should try and reserve the term servitor for "created spirits" and use other terms for the latter.
 
 
EmberLeo
23:42 / 24.01.07
Also a question: Are we only talking about beings unattached to physical forms? I ask because I don't think I have any purely thought-form Servitors.

* I have some spirit allies that I understand to be totally sepparate from me both in creation and in action.

* I have some aspects of my self that I address sepparately for conceptual convenience, or because they're developed enough that it almost applies.

* I have Named objects that I have poured a great deal of energy into giving it some degree of sentient personality. (This I question, because Animism suggests that all I have really done is made friends with the spirit of the object as it existed already.)

* And then I have temporary constructs that I will use mid-working to hold onto what I've done so far so that I can switch tasks without losing the work, because I can't hold all the pieces in my conciousness at once. But those I never considered sentient at all, and I take 'em apart when I'm done with the working.

I'm happy to discuss the theory behind each of them, but I don't want to rot the thread with a huge dissertation if it's off topic...

--Ember--
 
 
Unconditional Love
08:02 / 25.01.07
So from what i am understanding they are intentionally created personified forms of the unconscious or habit like process, I wonder if the machine like analogy draws them down into a kind of mechanistic like consciousness. if so is it possible for sub domains of personal consciousness to become conscious themselves and appear as autonomus entities in there own right, while remaining part of the unconscious or collective conscious.

Or from another point of view, if animism is taken as the working practice, can areas of the practitioners consciousness gain a seperation to become independent forms inhabiting the practitioners consciousness.
 
 
Unconditional Love
08:15 / 25.01.07
I think i have reacted very emotionally in other threads because basically the idea of 'servitors equals slavery' sparks certain areas of my experience to come to life.

Having said that, is it actually healthy to relate to parts of the self based on functionality, ie to frame the consciousness as a tool, isnt this creating a kind of perception very similar to a deterministic and mechanistic outlook, i am not saying thats wrong, but i do wonder if it removes an organic perception of consciousness, although i expect the organic response to the act of creation is then to personify, so the process doesnt become so cut and paste.

I am trying to avoid the nature vs nurture here in regard to working method, but the very idea of employing a model of consciousness inplies that natural consciousness isnt being delt with, but consciousness percieved as a construct, a product of the creative sequences within rather than of consciousness itself.

Having said that i am reminded of the idea of living symbols as well how sacred alphabet structures have a life of there own, and come together to form a multi natured creature of sorts. How language and thought processes seem to have a life of there own.
 
 
Quantum
09:41 / 25.01.07
Are we only talking about beings unattached to physical forms? I ask because I don't think I have any purely thought-form Servitors. ember

I think we should keep it to created servitors specifically, lest we spiral out of control discussing the ramifications of mnemonics and power objects and gods.

Can we just go back to basics for a bit? I've no experience with servitors indicating they possess an autonomous consciousness. In my experience they are drones, certainly nowhere near as volitional as people I meet in my dreams. I've not worked with them very much, so take my opinion lightly, but I see servitors very much in the way Trouserian describes above, like programs or fire-and-forget missiles. They are a type of spirit that can be seen as a mental habit, whose independant and external existence is open to the same doubts as other spirits- i.e. it's difficult to ascertain whether it's all in your head.

I don't feel that creating conscious life is as easy as a quick ritual, but I also feel the way we treat things is important for our own integrity. So for example although I don't ascribe Gek any consciousness per se I treat him like a volitional entity (and am polite) because it's an effective heuristic strategy. To compare to a chess computer, I don't think it's an A.I. or has any desires, but it's useful to think 'He wants to take my queen!' in order to interact functionally with it. (Philosophically Dennett calls this the intentional stance)

Servitors are usually created to do a job AFAIK, and when it's complete they'll be redundant and forgotten. As Trouserian's example shows though, it could be an ongoing job that takes years or lifetimes to complete, so it's a rule of thumb, but they are usually short-lived. From the aetiology of spirits link;

We can, for example, identify short-life Spirits (such as Servitors) which are assembled from the identification of desire/purpose with a set of references such as a sigil, name, mantra and material base. Longer-life Spirits would be any entity identified within the context of a mythological belief system, or any entity associated with (either directly or tangentially) a particular locality or geographical feature.
 
 
jentacular dreams
09:57 / 25.01.07
Servitors are usually created to do a job AFAIK, and when it's complete they'll be redundant and forgotten.

What happens to them then? Are they then dormant, or do they just vanish? What about a servitor who/which was created to say 'protect this place'? Given that the job would never be complete....
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
10:14 / 25.01.07
You're supposed to dismantle them and reabsorb the 'energy' (whatever the Hell that means) that you used to create the servitor. I get the impression that hardly anyone bothers though.
 
 
trouser the trouserian
10:30 / 25.01.07
What happens to them then? Are they then dormant, or do they just vanish?

Well, if you go with the perspective of a servitor as a script then if you are not engaging with it - in the sense that you're attributing particular occurrences & events to its "activity", then it is "dormant". I recently started re-using a servitor which was formulated back in 1992 for the purpose of stimulating creative thought in response to problems - through the process of temporarily leaving the room where the problem is situated - and repeating the servitors' name for a few seconds - it's a distraction routine, in effect. I haven't given the servitor much attention as it were, for, ooh, about five years at least, yet when I performed the sequence yesterday afternoon, in relation to a particularly tricky Java problem on my G5, the servitor "gave" me the answer I needed.
 
 
Quantum
10:49 / 25.01.07
When you're not paying attention to a servitor, it's not like they retire to the etheric green room and share tea, waiting for next time. I mean for example, if a servitor is made to remind you of something, it will be inactive most of the time. I find it hard to imagine a place it could go, other than the back of your mind (although an astral tearoom full of off-duty spirits is an entertaining notion).
Thinking of the servitor as an independent being is handy, but that can go too far. When it's dormant/absent, it goes *away*, like a rainbow goes away when the sun goes in. Where does the rainbow go? Does it vanish or just lie dormant?
 
 
jentacular dreams
11:29 / 25.01.07
Hmm, I see. I was incorrectly thinking of them almost as an independant force, and was wondering if old servitors ever found new homes. To use trousers' example, was it possible that other people who might have a servitor for creative problem-solving thought were actually utilising the same servitor, albeit by different tools/rituals. Now I'm guessing not.

I suppose it would probably get too complicated if such meta-servitors did exist. Deliniation would be an issue.
 
 
trouser the trouserian
11:59 / 25.01.07
The belief that thoughts - once generated - become independent entities in their own right - became popular at the end of the 19th century, particularly in the writings of second-generation theosophists, notably Annie Besant and Charles Leabeater. Here's a couple of quotes from Annie Besant in her essay on Karma (1895):

“EVERY thought of man upon being evolved passes into the inner world, and becomes an active entity by associating itself, coalescing we might term it, with an elemental—that is to say, with one of the semi-intelligent forces of the kingdoms. It survives as an active intelligence—a creature of the mind's begetting—for a longer or shorter period proportionate with the original intensity of the cerebral action which generated it. Thus a good thought is perpetuated as an active, benefi­cent power, an evil one as a maleficent demon.

...thus it is that a man peoples his current in space with a world of his own, crowded with the offspring of his fancies, desires, impulses and passions. Angels and demons of our own creating throng round us on every side, makers of weal and woe to others, bringers of weal and woe to ourselves—verily, a karmic host.

Note that Besant is not talking about "magically-created" entities here - but any thought. She goes on to talk about the "life-period" of thoughts:

The life-period of these ensouled thought-forms depends first on their initial intensity, on the energy bestowed upon them by their human progenitor; and secondly on the nutriment supplied to them after their generation, by the repetition of the thought either by him or by others. Their life may be continually rein­forced by this repetition, and a thought which is brooded over, which forms the subject of repeated meditation, acquires great stability of form on the psychic plane. So again thought-forms of a similar character are attracted to each other and mutually strengthen each other, making a. form of great energy and intensity, active in this astral world.

For more in this vein, see Besant & Leadbeater's book "Thought-Forms" - available online here
 
 
Ticker
14:21 / 25.01.07
trouser, have you experienced any overlap between servitors and tulpas?
 
 
Princess
15:38 / 25.01.07
Realise that I'm not trouser, but I always thought that servitors were tulpas. Possibly this is because my reading on them was exclusively from kaos-lite pages. I've gone to the wiki of all knowledge and I can't tell how this would be any different.

Can anyone point me towards original, tibetan material on the subject? Or else explain the difference?
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
15:47 / 25.01.07
trouser and others make the interesting point here that the whole "tulpa" thing seems to have originated not in Tibetan mystical tradtion but in 19th-century Europe, courtesy of the works of Alexanda David-Neel.
 
 
trouser the trouserian
16:27 / 25.01.07
Tulpas, eh?

Funny you should bring that up. A couple of years ago, I became interested in the origin of tulpas and did a literature search (both on and off-line), talked to a friend of mine who is a Dzogchen practitioner and to a Tibetanologist (Geoffrey Samuel, who's book "Civilised Shamans" I'd reccomend, btw).

Virtually all the tales about Tulpas comes from two sources - either Alexandra David-Neel's accounts of her fantastic journeys in Tibet in the 1920s or from Evans-Wentz's "The Tibetan Book of the Great Liberation":

...'mediums' in the Occident can, while entranced, automatically and unconsciously create materializations which are much less palpable than the consciously produced Tul-pas [thought-forms], by exuding 'ectoplasm' from their own bodies. Similarly, as is suggested by instances of phantasms of the living reported by psychic research, a thought-form may be made to emanate from one human mind and be hallucinatorily perceived by another, although possessed of little or no palpableness."

Both Evans-Wentz and David-Neel were Theosophists, so I cannot help but wonder how far their accounts of Tulpas were influenced by the writings of Besant, Leadbeater, et al. Certainly, most Tibetanologists nowadays agree that Evans-Wentz's books owe more to his Theosophical leanings than to any great familiarity with Tibetan Buddhist material.

Also, there is some contention of the term itself. As far as I was able to discover, Tulpa is an anglicised spelling of sprul pa, which has a number of meanings in Tibetan, such as 'body', 'prescence', 'projection' or 'incarnation' or "emanational body" - which sounds as if it could refer to a projected thought-form, but is probably more likely to be a reference to the Buddhist Trikaya doctrine wherein the emanation body is the body (usually of a bodhisattva or the historical Buddha) which appears to the human senses. Indeed, this is how Mme Blavatsky uses the term in the earliest english reference to Tulpa I found, which is in Vol.3 of the Secret Doctrine.

In any case, apart from David-Neel's direct accounts, I have not been able to find any references to Tulpas in terms of primary/secondary sources, apart from some vague weebling about "Bon Shamanism" and so forth. It's generally assumed that tulpas are the same as servitors, and David-Neel's accounts are occasionally wheeled in to back up the assertion that if servitors are not carefully managed, they will "go out of control". In over 15 years of creating thought-forms & servitors, I can only say that I've never experienced this to be the case.

this article, which reviews the Western encounter with "Secret Tibet" may be of relevance here.
 
 
Papess
16:37 / 25.01.07
such as 'body', 'prescence', 'projection' or 'incarnation' or "emanational body" - which sounds as if it could refer to a projected thought-form, but is probably more likely to be a reference to the Buddhist Trikaya doctrine wherein the emanation body is the body (usually of a bodhisattva or the historical Buddha) which appears to the human senses.

Sounds more like a tulku.
 
 
Ticker
16:49 / 25.01.07
trouser, you're a treasure. thanks.
 
 
trouser the trouserian
19:06 / 25.01.07
Sounds more like a tulku.

Indeed, and tulkus are often lumped in with tulpas. Here's Evans-Wentz again:

"Inasmuch as the mind creates the world of appearances, it can create any particular object desired. ... The process consists of giving palpable being to a visualization, in very much the same manner as an architect gives concrete expression in three dimensions to his abstract concepts after first having given them expression in the two-dimensions of his blue-print. The Tibetans call the One Mind's concretized visualization the Khorva (Hkhorva), equivalent to the Sanskrit Sangsara; that of an incarnate deity, like the Dalai or Tashi Lama, they call a Tul-ku (Sprul-sku), and that of a magician a Tul-pa (Sprul-pa), meaning a magically produced illusion or creation. A master of yoga can dissolve a Tul-pa as readily as he can create it; and his own illusory human body, or Tul-ku, he can likewise dissolve, and thus outwit Death. Sometimes, by means of this magic, one human form can be amalgamated with another, as in the instance of the wife of Marpa, guru of Milarepa, who ended her life by incorporating herself in the body of Marpa."

David-Neel also defines tulkus as "phantom bodies" in (I think) "Magic & Mystery in Tibet".
 
 
EmberLeo
21:52 / 25.01.07
I think we should keep it to created servitors specifically, lest we spiral out of control discussing the ramifications of mnemonics and power objects and gods.

Well, it's very arguable that Mallory is created, but leaving Rabbit et. al. out of it is easy.

You're supposed to dismantle them and reabsorb the 'energy' (whatever the Hell that means) that you used to create the servitor. I get the impression that hardly anyone bothers though.

Well, I bother for extremely short-term constructs (i.e. minutes, hours), but my longer-term constructs (meant to last at least days) usually either fade away before I would have wanted them to, and thus require renewal, or else I intentionally build deconstruction into their design. I'm not sure if that covers the same base as deconstruction from the outside in would.

And yeah, I've come from the perspective of programming scripts and intangible tools, rather than beings, so I don't have a habit of fretting over the desires and thoughts of the constructs. Which is why, I suppose, I've never called them "servants". I didn't call 'em servitors because I didn't know there was a technical term beyond "thought form" for them until I found Barbelith. I grew up calling them "bubbles", and what my father taught me was that it was a necessary aspect of their function that I design them to run without my active input - so all the instructions had to be built in before I pressed go. The assumption there was that if I had to maintain direct control over them once they were running, my doubt would kick in and destroy my work. So make the thing, set it running, and then disconnect and let it run. That's autonomy in action, but not in decision, so no conciousness to appease.

"Bubbles" includes the assumption that they simply pop when their time is up. However, that's not dormancy. When I need a new bubble, I have to make it from scratch. It simply doesn't take long because I have lots of practice. Similarly, I would describe the dissapearance and reappearance of rainbows as sepparate rainbows, rather than the same rainbow going away and returning. I don't think the significance matters regarding rainbows, really, but I suspect it matters rather a lot wrt Servitors.

Intuitively speaking, I'd draw the line there, actually. Servitors are thought forms that don't go away when they're inactive - they just lie dormant waiting for the next batch of action. Thought forms that go away the moment their immediate task is done are not Servitors. But that's an argument of labelling, not function.

--Ember--
 
 
Unconditional Love
07:38 / 26.01.07
Whats the characteristic difference between creating something to perform a task and say devotional action to get something to act on your behalf, what sets of motivations are involved and what differing emotional characteristics drive the actions to achieving the same goal.

Is there a distinct difference in method? or is it just two different approaches of many to fulfill a personal desire.

So for example does opening out the desire or need for something into a devotional pantheon that acts within certain precepts laid down by symbolism and mythological structure, change the nature of that desire? and the interactions with other spiritual presences to acquire that need, for example does that then make the question of desire or need a more communal response to an individuals request, many forces acting as a field of awareness to fulfill that need appropriately, perhaps.

Or are thought forms (servitors) acting in a similar field as suggested above, interacting with conscious consciousness, so servitors in a sense are already governed communally by the field of awareness and other emerging thought forms in there environment?
 
  

Page: (1)23

 
  
Add Your Reply