What are we economizing on?

In @Jeremy 's podcast he asked this question that gets to the heart of why the universe is the way it is.

The confederation constantly talks about taking the most “efficient” or “quickest” path back to the creator but since we are already at one with the creator, and since there is infinite time and energy, why does it matter to take the “quickest” or most “efficient” path?

Ok so here’s my answer and I’m interested to hear the answers of others too

I think we are not economizing on time or energy. I think it’s meaning. Every experience of the creator, positive or negative, bliss or torture, could be boring to someone at some time

Boring is the opposite of meaning

So entities travel and take on the veil for various reasons but what all those reasons have in common is that the entity finds meaning in the journey

If your self can’t find meaning in some path, you just don’t take it. This also allows for the existence of regret–we want to do something (we find it meaningful) and then we suffer the consequences and regret it, and now find removing those consequences to be meaningful

So I guess it’s a short answer but I think the universe is a meaning generation machine, like a perpetual motion machine for meaning, and this means the universe is always seeking novelty but after every journey abroad you eventually start to miss home, and then you see more meaning in the journey back



I would say it does not matter, but it is an observation that most of the beings take this way.

I already did make the same assumption and did assume too, that the creation has been made for the same reason.
Creating such an fractal at least is the quickest and most efficient path to gather the experience of every possibility. The possibilities are only limited by the fantasy and the free will.


This is one of the most novel suggestions I’ve ever received responding to my long-standing question. It only is a matter of getting clear about what we actually “mean” by meaning, right? The way you address it seems to indicate a kind of experiential or emotional intensity, if I’m reading you right.

This might be able to be understood in energetic terms of a sort. Recall that the archetypal mind, according to those of Ra,

when penetrated lucidly, is a blueprint of the builded structure of all energy expenditures and all seeking, without distortion.

Perhaps by “efficiency” they generally mean to indicate the degree to which the manifestation of these energy expenditures realize the blueprint’s ideal without distortion. Of course, manifestation always entails distortion, but the more ideally we resonate these archetypes, the more “intense” and poignant our experiences.

I’m suggesting Yossarian is describing one side of this concept, and the archetypal mind looks at it from a slightly different angle. This would tie meaning into energetics in a rather sound way — please note that the Ra excerpt above actually starts out discussing efficiency anyway.

Thoughts? Not tied to this and I’m a bit suspicious how neat and tidy my explanation is.


I find this discussion wholly askew of my personal understanding, up to the point where I’m unsure what you are actually discussing. My view is as follows, by way of a two stage metaphor.

Imagine a pint beer glass full of muddy river water. After half a day or so, the murk is settled out, the water is clear, leaving a film of mud on the bottom of the glass. But now imagine that every 10 minutes you take a stirring rod and agitate the water for a few seconds. In that case the particulates will never fall out of solution.

So. if your goal is a vessel of fluid which has the highest level of coherence and shines with maximum light, it is most efficient not to persistently stir up the mud.

The second stage is this. Imagine the same glass with gobs of subtle light and sound energy. Again, the goal is for it to become an instrument of greatest coherence, light and love. The process here is not simply settling out, but also growth through personal endeavour, and so the energy within the beer glass creates various personal experiences from which to learn lessons in order to experiment with various patterns of coherence and purity. Over time it coheres into something like you and me, then given more time, it moves past this stage into greater coherence with more intense light and love.

Using this metaphor, the process of efficiently using catalyst, of efficient spiritual developement, economises nothing; rather, there may be a more rapid progression from relative incoherence towards levels of being which more fully jibe with greater experiences of Creation. Or, put more into Confederation-speak, efficiency is simply moving more swiftly to resemble the signal characteristic of the Original Vibration: embrace and oneness with All That Is.

1 Like

Very interesting thoughts. Thanks for sharing.

To me, the One Infinite Creator is infinitely seeking the best possible experience, but there is always a better one so the seeking never ends. So I would say that the Creator is optimizing on quality of experience. The best experience is defined as that which the Creator finds is best although there are certain patterns and attributes that are commonly found in better experiences:

  • Contrast between opposites
  • Resolution of conflict
  • Mystery
  • Growth and learning
  • Accomplishing difficult tasks

One may look at movies and games as examples of the types of things we find as better experiences. It’s also similar to seeking to create and listen to the best song. It’s difficult to define what makes one song better than another, but certain songs are just better than others to us at a particular time.

Applied to the efficiency of evolution, one can imagine that there are better experiences of an evolutionary path than others. For example, perhaps the experience of living in a slowly changing utopia for millions of years is less enjoyable than living in a highly polarized environment with lots of conflict and suffering that catalyzes faster growth. Although there is probably some balance to be sought between the two.

Here is a video resource that I feel would be helpful on this topic:


I get what you’re saying @Jonathan. For what it’s worth I feel we’re all gesturing at the same concepts and you should blame the words, not the authors, for any clumsiness or askewness. I aspire each and every day to meet your criteria for proper discussion, and I guess I’ll have to go back to the drawing board! :wink:

There’s a separate question that’s material to a theoretical approach here that hasn’t yet been addressed by any of us, which is: why is efficiency preferable at all? Why is economy desirable when there is no scarcity?

I’d offer the idea that there must be a kind of test being run by the logos in each creation/octave. The standard of the archetype provides an immutable ideal against which to measure the Creator’s manifest expression. It’s not very satisfying but it at least offers something like a normative standard.

For example, Boeing engineers bend the wings of the planes slowly until they break. The point isn’t for the engineering to make it so that the wings never break. The point is for them to be able to predict exactly when they break. That shows the engineers that they actually understand the principles behind the engineering of the wings, and that there isn’t some errant variable they don’t understand.

Similarly, I’m proposing that the archetypal mind is a kind of speculative artifact that then shows the Creator what it does and doesn’t understand about itself. Both are important discoveries, but they require a standard against which to measure the novel energy expenditures that actually obtain in Creation. After all, the next archetypal mind in the next octave will incorporate lessons from the previous.

But there’s always more mystery to uncover! So there’s more than one possibility of what this efficiency means. It could be proving out the balance of the present archetypal mind, but it could also be some other thing entirely, or both in some weird synthesis I can’t imagine.

Here’s to less askew attempts at understanding!


In my opinion, there’s little chance for convergence here where one is approaching the topic like a 3D economist and the other like a 4D artiste. Alas!

I really don’t see economisation or scarcity as issues here. If one learns to follow the delights of one’s heart into the realm of artistic self-creation, then the upward spiraling light reveals the “yellow brick road,” if you will. If not, then perhaps one prefers murk and stagnation? Suit yourself. It’s a clear personal choice which is beclouded in dense personal & social murk, to be sure, but I can’t lay blame upon the words.

Well I just disagree. Sounds like this thread isn’t on a topic of interest to you. That’s ok! The folks who are interested can discuss it. There’s plenty of threads here I avoid.

I have also often read: all is well.

In this eternal all-present moment in which everything - infinity - exists, and all is well here, what is the significance of “more efficient” or “better”? When all experiences are equally valuable, and all is well, what does it matter what one being manifests, chooses? And yet, it feels very much like it matters to me. I am pulled strongly along one trajectory.

The thoughts and ideas that flutter about in my head, none of these satisfy my desire for answers. I find myself, instead, at the door step of intuition. I accept I can not know; I entertain myself by speculating. I listen to that deep intuition, instead; lean into it, turn toward it. It feels right – this drawing toward unconditional Love, and sense of Unity within Infinity. I do not understand it and can barely put it into words.

Given that, I intuit/speculate the universe is the way it is because of a cosmic sense of balance.


I guess you’re right. It seems evident to me that if one does not take hints about the lessons being offered and that the hints then become more brutal, then it is simply smarter and more efficient to deal with the lessons sooner rather than later. I don’t see any complication there. Likewise, when one gets beyond that stage to one of creative freedom, It seems similarly evident that there is no reason to dilly-dally. One may as well travel along apace. So, yeah, it looks like I landed in an incompatible thread.

1 Like

This is pretty at odds with my view of how we achieve lightness and spiritual progress

This metaphor seems like a purity approach, where you achieve purity by elimination or avoidance of that substance deemed impure

I think the alternative is to accept the mud, forgive if, live it, and have faith while submerged in the muddy water

then you see the creator in the mud and it stops being mud

I think this entire metaphor suggests repression

certain parts of mind, life, feeling, self are deemed impure and kept away. I don’t think this is the recommended approach

1 Like

Not at all, you are distorting the metaphor to mirror your own biases. Settling out does not equal repression. " That which is not needed falls away". (Ra: 18.5) Choosing whether or not to continuously stir up the mud is, indeed, a reflection of the process of acceptance and love.

Your posting above might be a good example of the stirring process. One views catalyst as representing personal distortions, then stirs it up, hoping to get a better view of it…endlessly…

Maybe this will help “clarify” the matter? Q’uo from OCT 17, 2009.

Beyond all things you came here to serve the light. And the way that you serve the light in this classroom of Planet Earth is to allow the light to flow through you. So you may think of your life, if you will, as that of an instrumentalist who is tuning her instrument so that it can be played in sweet tune and beautiful harmony.

The clearer the instrument, the clearer the light which flows through. The more refined the tuning, the sweeter the tune.

1 Like

I wasn’t referring to those metaphors though, I was talking about your metaphor

First we have “that which is not needed falls away” which is kind of like a snake shedding its skin. Once the old skin “falls away” there is no worry about it coming back

In your metaphor of the muddy water, once the mud has settled at the bottom, you have to paddle carefully in the clear top part of the water and avoid ever doing something that might stir up the water or you’re back to square one

The muddy water metaphor reflects a swimmer who is not resilient. They are not at ease. They are vigilant and on guard ensuring they never kick their flippers too low and stir up the mud. This is how STS operates, they have to carefully control their energy since they rely on yellow ray to power the opening of indigo

STO on the other hand is characterized by lightness and ease, peace, equanimity and resilience and freedom. STO doesn’t worry about stirring anything up but rather accepts what the creator has designed and trusts that no mud could ever separate them

You also reference the confederation metaphor of the “instrument” which is their favourite metaphor. But anyway I don’t have an issue with the instrument metaphor, it’s specifically the muddy water one that seems based on power and control, repression and purity

I mean trying to take brown muddy water and rejecting the brown through “not stirring” so you can have clear water – and then spending all your time avoiding stirring – this is a very well known spiritual path

It’s called the purity or spiritual hygiene approach

It’s even in the words themselves: mud makes you dirty. Cleaning or avoiding mud is hygiene or purity

It’s not recommended by the confederation. Instead, the confederation says the entity should experience everything they desire fearlessly with faith, see the creator in everything, bless and accept everything, and let the creator guide their path never fearing any mud

So anyway I am not “projecting my personal bias” I am specifically considering your metaphor and what it suggests about how to live, and what it suggests is an old testament “reject the unclean” approach to life

In psychoanalysis we would say that the person who came up with this metaphor leads a restricted life that avoids many things in an effort to achieve “purity” – this would be a rigid person with few relationships that is always tip toeing around to avoid being thrown off balance by any worldly phenomena. This type of person becomes more and more rigid and restricted over time, striving to control everything that happens to them, and having panic reactions anytime something doesn’t go exactly how they need it to go

1 Like

I’m sorry, but this all your distortion. I never mentioned paddling nor swimming. I was speaking about clarity of consciousness: no more, no less. If one’s being is stable and poised, consciousness has more clarity; if one is “stirred up,” consciousness is unstable. If the lower areas are blocked or overcharged, then the higher centers of consciousness are consequently under powered. The concept is quite simple.

For example, if you are driving down a road and an oncoming vehicle coats your windshield with mud, do you become one with the mud and crash the car, or do you accept the mud, then use the wipers to remove it, thereby “purifying” (if you like that term) your perceptual apparatus? If one’s perception is less obscured by base emotion and more influenced by refined emotion (as defined by Confederation sources–and you can look this up yourself if you like), then one’s conscious awareness has more clarity. What about this is complex, conceptually speaking?

FYI, it is grossly inappropriate to psychoanalise people in an internet forum.

So yes by talking about paddling or swimming I’m expanding on the concept you introduced of “stirring”

So if we want to discuss your metaphor without any creative expansion, then in your metaphor, the self is holding the spoon and has to be careful not to “stir”

Anyway, I am performing literary analysis on your metaphor. Metaphors are pretty rich

But if you are interested you can pause for a moment to see my point and then address that, which is that you (now repeatedly) are using metaphors that – unlike the confederation – continually sound more like the Book of Leviticus

Maybe I’m totally wrong, sure, but to continually say shit like this:

Is rude to the point of comedy

you are a parody of a new ager when you do this. Telling everyone who disagrees with you that they are projecting, bringing their own distortions, blah blah blah. Like can you have an adult conversation without this BS for one minute?

Psychoanalysis does not mean psychoanalyze. Psychoanalysis has a rich tradition in literary interpretation, where you use the principles of psychoanalysis to understand metaphors

That is what I’m doing, I’m not psychoanalyzing you, that would require a couch

Thanks, this helps a lot. Since there are magic practices around controlling your energy, creating shields, and being very deliberate in how you direct your energy. But it just didn’t feel comfortable to me, too effortful, perhaps that stuff is more STS sided.

I like the mud analogy too, it’s like we’re entering the mud without fear and bringing love to it.