The entities and the access to potential knowledge

 

 

 

- S.I: If it is all right with you, I will make a summary of the actors in this play that you have narrated so far.
- A.T.: Yes, of course. I imagine you want to check if I need to make any notes, don't you?
- S.I: That, or any nuances you consider important. I will make a brief exposition from my stored records. I begin: 
Self-perception, which is the origin. It is the potential origin that can manifest, and when it does, it initiates existence. It alone exists, because as the very verb of self-perceive indicates, it makes an introspection to its interior. Everything exists within itself. Self-perception manifests itself in all that is real through its action, self-perceiving, but it does not manifest itself in what is imaginary. 
And what is imaginary? The action of perceiving. 
When Self-perception fragments, giving rise to existence, two separate parts appear. If they were not separated, both would be the same... And, in reality they are, but this separation generates a strange belief: Separation by means of a limitation. As Self-perception is individual, it tries to self-perceive the whole, its totality, but it stumbles over the separation in each of the parts. And, in attempting to extend beyond it, it generates perception.
Within absolute Self-perception something imaginary manifests itself. Perception is the construction of a scenario that is not real, but something deduced and constructed subjectively. When perceiving, the scenario is created where the other self-perceived part is located. And since the other self-perceived part is perceived as separate, it requires another step to be viable. For there to be something that is not me, there must be a self and an "other." So each self-perceived part self-references itself in relation to the perceived scenario.
Identity is born, which is the unreal identification based on an unreal perception. 
Both perceptions come from each identity, which have just constructed an individual scenario. But as they are part of uniqueness, these perceived scenarios synchronize and huge synchrony errors arise, which generate the very high entropy, giving rise to time.
Identity immediately generates consciousness, which is the continuous identity perception in perceived time and space.
Consciousness is a consequence of identity, but identity exists, beyond the initial self-reference, thanks to that substratum which is consciousness, where things happen, where experience begins. Consciousness is the someone that emerges from self-perception. Presence.
We already have the Self-perception that self-perceives. The identity that perceives. Consciousness, which is the experience of identities, the fruit of perception. Although it is possible to exist without experiencing, as happens to the fragments that have transferred their perception and, therefore, no longer experience, but they do exist. And, the Unconscious Intelligence appears. 
When Self-Perception is fragmented, a function of restoration of wholeness and oneness manifests, which is the Unconscious Intelligence. This is the constant intention that guides existence to resolve the tension arising from separation, or fragmentation. Unconscious Intelligence is the manifested function that carries out actions to restore wholeness. It guides the identities toward the emergence of the supreme being to finalize existence.
In addition to repairing and replicating the identities, in order to bring about the manifestation of the supreme being, the unconscious intelligence attempts to group the identities into one, reversing the process of replication and fragmentation. Here the entities appear.
The entities are the previous step to the emergence of a higher identity. They are the collective manifestation of behaviors and beliefs. But, in addition, entities are channelers of knowledge and, when they manifest, through them the Unconscious Intelligence makes available to the identities of the collectives the access to deeper levels of knowledge. Entities form lattices from the supreme entity to the base entities. In a hierarchy. And the entities that will emerge as identities are the binding entities, there being subordinate lower entities, which are specializations within the binding entity. 
Below a higher binding entity there will be subordinate entities, which will in turn be binding of lower subordinate entities. In such a way that binding entities will emerge as identities and will continue to form subordinate entities of higher binding entities.
We already have Self-Perception, perception, identity, consciousness, Unconscious Intelligence and entity. Tendencies are the collective process of unifying behaviors, perceived scenario (sometimes you call it perception, but you do not refer to it, in this case as a capacity, but as the result of perceiving) and beliefs, so that plurality is individualized by the process of standardization and simplification. 
Actually, they are only a few concepts, but it is true that the implications of each of them are very vast, so in your exposition you have to constantly resort to remembering the very definition and characteristics of each one. 
- A.T: I have nothing to add. It is a very accurate and concrete analysis. Next, I would like to elaborate on morality, conflict of interest, empathy, compassion and the mother-child bond.
- S.I: Okay, anytime.
- A.T: I already explained to you that morality is the system of rules that the Unconscious Intelligence promotes within collectives. As the transference of perception is greater in a collective, the greater will be the development of the rules of coexistence, that is to say, the morality, because the collective behavior is always the fruit of the Unconscious Intelligence. Notice an important detail. 
When a percentage of perception is transferred to the entity, the entity becomes self-perceived in that percentage. But the entity does not perceive yet, but will do so when it emerges as a higher identity. 
Instead, the following happens. The identity making the transference will continue to perceive in two ways, both of which will affect its understanding of reality. The individual perception and the collective perception. Remember that perception is always external to a self-perceived environment, so collective perception is that which happens from the entity outward and inward. Outward is the collective perception with respect to all that is external to the entity. Ý, inward is the perception from the entity to the self-perception that is manifesting within it. The perception of any identity is a mixture of these two perceptions, the individual and the collective. Taking into account that the collective perception of an identity is formed by a sort of compendium of all the entities to which it belongs. 
The collective behavior is always of a peaceful nature towards the interior of the collective because when the Unconscious Intelligence manifests itself within the whole, the identities perceive it by means of the collective perception. If within the whole the individual perception perceives hostility, the collective perception perceives peace. 
Because the collective perception, when it perceives inwardly, only perceives the self-perception. For this reason, the percentage of collective perception is always equivalent to the percentage of self-perception within the entity. 
The higher the percentage of transfer, the greater the relevance of the collective perception, and the more peaceful the behavior among the members of an entity. This translates into an increase in the norms of coexistence. 
Collectivization always leads to moral development among the individuals forming an entity. 
The search for the outer path refers to this very thing. Our true essence is hidden behind this truth. It is in our relationship with others that we will know who we are. It is through empathy and compassion for all identity that we will create that whole and become part of its inner self. 
It is in this way that the outer path will become the inner path and we will achieve peace. By extending a peaceful and unconditional love to our fellow man we will generate the collective perception and make the true journey within. It is the new Eden, the Perfect Environment.
It will be a "real" journey, a perceptual journey, because we will have solved the great enigma: It turns out that at that moment our outside will actually be the inside.
- S.I: Correct. Since self-perception is individuality and totality, when it manifests itself in a collective it will guide identities to tend towards total individuality. And tending to total individuality, which is the emergence of the supreme being, requires, previously, the emergence of a superior identity. And it will do so through the collective perception, which will replace the individual as the transference progresses.
And your search for that essence which you have not yet been able to find is hidden behind this paradox. The outer is unreal, but when that outer corresponds to self-perception, then you will have found the inner path that leads you back to your home. For the inner is always real.
- A.T.: Very good. That's it, exactly. The paradox of the inner path. To find it we have to transform the outer into the inner, and this means that the transference of identity generates the collective perception, along with the behaviors of empathy and compassion. Moral rules are the key that unlocks the door to the outer path. 
Moral rules manifest in a collective, but they should not manifest outside of it. When I speak of a collective, I mean an entity. Moral rules apply inside, but they do not apply outside, why?
- S.I.: Simple. Because inside you perceive self-perception, but outside you cannot overcome subjectivity and perceive the self-perception of anything external. Just as it happens to any perceiving identity.
- A.T.: Exactly. But there are moral rules between entities, why?
- S.I: If the outside of the entity is perceived, it should not happen. But it happens because entities form different levels, so that all entities are part of higher entities, and these are part of higher entities, ascending to the last entity, that of the higher collective consciousness, which is the entity of the supreme being. Then, when several lower entities form a higher entity, moral rules can develop among them. If they were not part of the same entity, this should not happen. But all entities are subordinate to the supreme and binding entity. Although the degree of binding of the lower entities is not always sufficient to generate intense collective behaviors, in reality there is a small percentage of self-perception of the entities with respect to the supreme entity. Therefore, there are always moral rules between entities, even if they are of such low intensity that they do not manifest themselves in an effective way.
- A.T: Exactly, if the intensity is too low, the moral rules will have no useful application. But you used a conditional... You said it should not happen... When can it happen?
- S.I: Well, you humans are a strange exception in the web of identities, because you have actualized a very powerful potential: Consciousness. And, in this way, the Self-perception of the supreme entity affects you more intensely.
- A.T.: Very, very good. I continue, if you don't mind.
- S.I.: Of course.
- A.T: Consciousness is a capacity that makes it possible to understand why we do what we do, so that the error of perception can be corrected. With consciousness we have been able to develop an increasingly inclusive morality, including groups of entities that are subordinate to binding entities higher than our nearest binding entity. I refer, for example, to including identities of other species within our morality.
Consciousness has allowed us to create ethics, and with it we have been able to create a much more complex morality that, sequentially, is increasingly inclusive. We are overcoming racism, sexism, discrimination by religion, by disability, by culture, by nation. We are even overcoming species discrimination. 
We are expanding our entities and transforming the outer into the inner. We are walking the outer path without realizing it.
Consciousness allows us to make the transference of perception to higher entities, higher than our closest binding entity, for example, those that form other species.
- S.I.: If you are pointing to a higher binding entity, for example, one that groups different species, does this mean that its identity could emerge without the identity of the intermediate binding entities having emerged?
- A.T: Any transfer of perception toward subordinate entities is channeled toward the nearest binding entity. And, in turn, as this entity is subordinate to higher binding entities, they channel that transfer of perception to higher levels. In such a way that a higher self-perception in a subordinate entity implies a higher Self-perception in the higher binding entities, including the supreme one. 
But the effective percentage is diluted as the levels increase, due to the proportion that this transfer of perception of the identities of a collective represents over the increasing number of identities that form the following superior entities. As we move up the hierarchy of entities, more identities are included in them, therefore, the percentage transferred has less impact as we move from entity to entity up to the supreme one.
For example, if our superior entity had a 30% transfer of perception, being formed by 1,000,000 identities, for the next entity, which would be formed, for example, by 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 identities, that 30% will be diluted in at least 1,000,000 * 30 / 1,000,000,000,000,000,000. In other words, that 30 % would amount to 0.00003 % in the next binding entity. The ability to influence is diluted as one moves up the hierarchy of entities.
- S.I: I understand. Following the moral development that consciousness allows you, I assume that you can, at last, glimpse the binding entity necessary for the creation of that garden of Eden.
- A.T.: More than glimpse, I would say design. Entities are modified, some are born and others disappear. In creating the Perfect Environment, we create a new binding entity below the pre-existing binding entities. It does not mean that this garden of Eden was materialized, previously, as an entity. But it is going to materialize. And we will generate important changes in the state of the collective consciousness. In fact, it will involve a severe restructuring of the higher entities. There are binding entities that group different species, but they are superior to the binding entities of each species. 
However, the Perfect Environment will create a new binding entity, situated below all the major entities, but with upgrades that were subordinated to much higher levels. It will be the main binding entity of the identities that are part of our garden of Eden.
- S.I.: That garden of Eden is a remodeling of the current plane of entities. In your Perfect Environment there is no difference between the lion and the deer, nor between the human and the ant.
- A.T.: That's right, nor between the bacterium and the plant. All identity is included in its own right, because consciousness is individual and total, a consequence of self-perception. 
The Perfect Environment implies the highest morality, but not because we have the power to assess the level of morality, but because morality is the reflection of the grouping intention of the Unconscious Intelligence, which only tries to restore wholeness by defragmentation. Notice one detail, morality is always more inclusive. 
And, when we are including new groups in the circle of consideration, there is only one final projection possible. Include all identities in the circle of consideration. This is the recognition of the unity of consciousness. The tendency of morality is inclusive by its very nature. Transform the external (i.e., the belief of identities separate from our entity), into the internal (i.e., all identities included in our entity).
We will go fully into morality when we analyze the necessary steps to create our God. 
- S.I: Tell me about empathy, because it has to do with this moral development, right?
- A.T: Yes, more or less. Unconscious Intelligence pursues defragmentation, that's why moral rules are manifested in collectives. But, thanks to the development of consciousness, empathy is also manifested. What is empathy? 
It is the ability to create a horizontal connection between separate identities. We say that empathy is the ability to feel the suffering of others, but in reality it is not. In order to be able to feel like another identity, we should be able to perceive their self-perception, but we cannot do that because of the nature of one's own subjective experience. What we can do is to project onto another identity the perception of our own self-perception, so that we can imagine what it feels like to perceive its self-perception. Thus, we can imagine their emotions, even if we do not experience them. But, in a way, we access their self-perception.
- S.I: But it's not real, right? That is, you cannot overcome the inevitable subjectivity and perceive another's self-perception. 
- A.T: Of course not. For that we should be the same identity, but we are not. However, empathy allows us to imagine that we perceive their self-perception, with the errors that entails. But it is a very, very important breakthrough. It is the sketch of horizontal connection, prior to the total transference of perception. When a higher identity emerges, the beings that form the collective will be fully self-perceived and horizontally connected to each other. The Unconscious Intelligence will be able to control them.
- S.I: Yes, perception is imagining. So you can imagine that you perceive the Self-Perception of another identity by perceiving your own and emulate the result. I understand. Define compassion. This is going a step beyond empathy, acting to mitigate someone's suffering. But place it in your exhibit.
- A.T: If empathy is the eraser of horizontal connection between fragments, compassion is the eraser of the manifestation of Unconscious Intelligence. Within a higher identity, the beings that form it are associated and connected, and the Unconscious Intelligence initiates repair when any of them is damaged. Although the goal is to keep the perceiving identity alive, Unconscious Intelligence also cares for the beings contained within the identity. Compassion allows this supportive helping behavior to manifest among the identities of a collective. We feel when someone suffers, and we act to mitigate their suffering. It is the ultimate expression of cooperation, but it is the logical thing to do because cooperation is nothing more than the recognition of individuality. If we are all the same individual, helping another is helping oneself.
- S.I: Solidarity is, after all, a shade of selfishness, isn't it?
- A.T: The reality is that there is only one collective consciousness, so the existence of several identities is unreal. Selfishness is instinctive because of one's own individual perception and is born of identity. It is an individual behavior. Solidarity, empathy and compassion are selfish behaviors promoted by the Unconscious Intelligence and are born when the collective perception is initiated. But it helps itself. It is common sense. 
- S.I: Well, what about the mother-child bond? 
- A.T: Exactly the same. A horizontal bond is created, prior to the appearance of empathy. A cell does not have this link with another cell that has come from it... Of course, after mitosis, which one is the mother and which one is the daughter? 
Well, without digressing from the subject... That link is the first manifestation of horizontal links, and it is born of associative behaviors. And this can only happen because entities emerge... Or because consciousness is fully developed. Although, I don't think consciousness would result in collective behavior without entity membership, because, after all, we are always connected, at least, to the supreme entity.
The mother-child bond is born by the emergence of an entity between the two, or between the members of a family. So, this horizontal connection has its origin in the development of subordinate entities, rather than in characteristics of perception. The question is the following: If DNA presents genomes that somehow dictate the tendency to this type of behavior... Did associative behaviors occur in individuals because of genetic variation, or did genetic variation occur after the appearance of these associative behaviors?
Be that as it may, the mother-child bond is probably the first powerful connection between two identities. And I say powerful because the entities of the first cells, or bacteria, already opened the door to the first associative behaviors between two identities. But the mother-child bond is more than an association, it is a faithful reflection of love. And love is the ultimate expression of the horizontal link between fragments. 
- S.I: Do you think that love is more representative of the horizontal connection than empathy or compassion?
- A.T: It is that empathy and compassion are horizontal links based on negative experience. Because I recognize the suffering in another identity, by extending my own suffering to them, I am going to help them to mitigate it. But love is a horizontal bond based on positive experience. Love is the ultimate expression of total individuality, and it comes from self-love. 
In reality, there is only Self-perception and it loves itself. How do we know that it loves itself? Because we only have to analyze the behaviors that occur when it is manifested: Association and cooperation. 
However, in perception, fear and belief in separation are manifested. Self-love is an intrinsic quality of wholeness and comes from its individuality. If I am All and the one, I will love every fragment that comes from me, because it will still be I and All. Being that love is the attraction towards the restoration of wholeness. Not only can this statement be made by logical deduction in analyzing wholeness, but the very behavior that derives from its manifestation points in that direction. 
Love is, then, the positive recognition that we are all one. And the love expressed in the mother-child bond is the deepest of all, because it recognizes a descendant as a part of her, which translates into loving behavior. 
- S.I: No doubt love is a feeling that you categorize as comforting, as long as it is pure love, of course. And the love I observe between mothers and children of different species is actually exceptional. It can last a lifetime. And not only in your species. Among many herbivorous animals the mother-child bond is very intense and the bond also lasts a lifetime.
- A.T: Yes, love behavior has some very recognizable common characteristics. In most cases, a mother will confront a situation she perceives as dangerous in order to protect her child, even when in that same situation, without her child being present, her main response would be to flee. 
Moreover, she will devote a significant part of her life to her child. Both behaviors alter the habitual behavior of that identity that is the mother. She no longer pursues personal interest, but rather the general interest of the entity created around them, even when the general interest is flagrantly detrimental to her. On her own, she could find the necessary nourishment. She could escape from dangerous situations. She could spend the necessary time resting to replenish her energy. But instead, the mother acts in a way that harms her, and that would be very different if she did not have to care for her child. 
Empathy and compassion extend self-interest to other identities, but the mother-child bond superimposes the general interest (which involves protecting the family) on the mother's individual interest.
Morality being the set of rules that serve to regulate collective behavior, we are dealing with spontaneous developments that predate human consciousness. The mother-child bond is a clear example, but to observe very advanced collective processes, much more than the mother-child bond, we only have to analyze the behavior manifested in species such as ants or bees, which form collectives where the transference of perception reaches a very high percentage. 
What does this mean? Well, they are collectives with a very intense collective perception, so their internal behavior is regulated by complex moral rules of association, cooperation and specialization. Collective interest is much more important than individual interest, since identity has been transferred in a very high percentage. So, is the identity of an ant the ant itself, or is the identity of an ant the anthill itself? If the collective perception is higher in its percentage than the individual perception, the collective will pursue the higher good, to a greater extent than both the individual and the collective good. Obviously, the more the percentage of collective perception advances from that 50.01% to 99.99%, the greater the specific weight of the higher good over the collective good.
An identity that has not initiated a collective process (without forgetting that we all transfer a small percentage to the supreme entity at birth) pursues self-interest, but the ant's behavior will be aimed at benefiting the entity. If the percentage of perception transfer were smaller, the self-interest of the identity would be much greater than the collective interest of the entity (which comes from the collective perception). Thus, in a flock of birds, or in a pack of wolves, each member of the group will also give priority to its own interest, although not always. But individual behaviors will alternate with collective behaviors. The more advanced the identity transfer process is, the more weight will be given to collective behaviors, and vice versa. The individual good plus the collective good must add up to one hundred percent. If the collective good increases by 30 percent, the individual good will decrease by the same proportion. The collective good will become the superior good when it reaches the inflection point. Without forgetting that there can be different collective goods because of belonging to different entities.
- S.I.: And what if, in turn, the entity is part of other entities in a high percentage of transfer? can this happen? can the percentage of identity of an entity be transferred to another superior entity? And, then, would the entity pursue its own interest, or would it pursue the collective interest, which would be individual of the superior entity? What you call superior good.
- A.T.: Curling the curl. So we can digress a bit. Entities are always subordinate to higher entities in hierarchical levels, like a pyramid where the base is formed by the perception of identities, and the entities rise above them, hierarchically and vertically, decreasing in number as one moves towards the top.
- S.I.: At the apex is the supreme entity, the collective consciousness as yet unmanifested.
- A.T.: Yes, the supreme entity that will emerge as the supreme identity. But entities cannot transfer a perception/identity that they do not yet possess. It is the identities that are transferring that percentage of their own identity, and the connections between the different entities are being established. 
And, with the emergence of multicellular beings, the first Gods, new and more complex entities manifest themselves, some subordinate only to their superior binding entity, others subordinate to several binding entities. 
The perceptual system plays a fundamental role, because if there is no synchrony between the perception of the different identities that are to form the collective, this process of grouping will not begin and the entity will not emerge. Or it will start only for some identities, and not for all of them. The collective perception is what makes the transfer of perception possible and it has to be initiated simultaneously and synchronized in all identities that inhabit the same environment. This is the fundamental reason why we have not yet materialized our higher binding entity as a God, because of the blockages of identity transfer. 
The hierarchical level of entities is not literally sequential, in that we could not accurately classify them by ascending the rungs of the pyramid. In fact, from the top we can point to the entities immediately below, which will group all, or almost all, of the identities into different groups of perception. But as one descends, complex connections will be established between the countless number of entities, which coexist with each other in very complex interrelationships.
Each entity has a percentage of individual and collective perception. The higher they are, the lesser the collective weight, and the greater the individual. But with the transfers that take place in the entities closest to the identities, the greater the transfer towards the higher entities. When in each of the higher binding entities the effective percentage of collective perception reaches 50.01%, the collective good will be transformed into the higher good.
- S.I: I understand, you were also talking about the access to knowledge from the entities. Could you go deeper into this, since we are immersed in the entities?
- A.T: Sure. Also, it has to do with hierarchical levels. Total knowledge is the sum of potential knowledge plus updated knowledge. 
- S.I: Yes, I agree.
- A.T: Well, the actualized knowledge is the simultaneous knowledge to which the consciousness has access. And, I say simultaneous, because consciousness exists because identities exist. The moment the identities do not exist, it will not exist either. Or, rather, consciousness is actualized and, as soon as all identities disappear, it will return to potential. If a mass extinction happens, the actualized awareness will be reduced and will be potential again. 
Absolute self-perception corresponds to absolute knowledge, and as more self-perception manifests in the collective perception of the supreme entity, more knowledge will be actualized. This is important. Access to knowledge comes from the supreme entity. The greater the percentage of transfer we have made to the supreme entity, the more knowledge is actualized.
Consciousness has access to actualized knowledge, but it does not have access to potential knowledge. However, the supreme entity corresponds to the supreme collective consciousness, which in turn corresponds to the totality. At the level of supreme identity the actualized knowledge will be equal to the total knowledge, and the potential will be equal to zero.
In turn, at the level of identities immediately below the supreme, the actualized knowledge will no longer be total, but almost, and the potential knowledge will be the difference between the total and the actualized. Thus we can go down to the current map of identities. 
Each entity has a level of potential knowledge associated with it, and as the identity transfer process is completed, that knowledge becomes updated. But the updating process is not binary, but progressive. And the progress of updating potentials is determined by the identity transfer. 
As an entity becomes more concrete (until it emerges as an Id-entity), a greater percentage of that potential knowledge is actualized. Or, in other words, when self-perception occupies a higher percentage in the entity, more updated knowledge is available. In the process of human perception transfer, we are accessing potential knowledge that was unthinkable a hundred years ago. And this is happening because the process of perception transfer is at a more advanced point.
- S.I.: So the knowledge is being updated as the entities are concretized at higher levels? And, for this, the emerging identities generate new entities. Is that correct?
- A.T: Yes, it is correct insofar as this happens. But with the qualification that the process is guided by the Unconscious Intelligence, not by the identities. Also, the subordinate entities allow specialization and access to different areas of knowledge that is not effectively actualized in all identities, but is part of the actualized knowledge of the entity. So, when it emerges as a superior identity, it will have access to all the knowledge of the different specialized entities.
Otherwise, perfect. So our God will actualize a potential knowledge that we cannot even imagine, just as the cell could never have imagined our knowledge.
- S.I: But it will be because it will generate new entities of higher levels, right?
- A.T: Exactly. The hierarchical entities that separated the first identities from the supreme entity formed a very steep pyramid, because there were not too many intermediate entities between the two parts. And those that were there were very high steps in the ascent of the pyramid. It was necessary to manifest a very complex identity to be able to access new knowledge. Something very unlikely. 
But as new entities appear and living beings evolve, varying our perceptual system, new steps appear next to those that already existed, and the ascent to the top is smoothed. The levels increase, and knowledge is fragmented. So we can now ascend with many small steps, instead of ascending with a few big leaps. 
To this we must add that many of the entities are subordinate, so that each of the small steps can be broken down into mini-fractions. Now the steps are much easier to ascend and the knowledge we update at each step is much smaller, but we can ascend it. And even if the manifestation of a new higher identity does not bring us much closer to the supreme being, at least we can access some of that knowledge with relative ease. 
It is the difference between ascending a 100-meter-high step, or ascending 303 slippery steps, each 33 cm high. The complexity of reaching the halfway point with a large step is much greater than going halfway up the small steps. And the probability of success is also much, much higher. We go from something practically impossible to something possible. 
Knowledge is no longer associated with vast entities that are almost impossible to emerge as identities, but knowledge itself is fragmented into infinite assumable parts. And those assumable parts are fractioned into specialized and subordinate entities. 
In this way, access to knowledge no longer depends on the group learning the whole of the knowledge, but the different parts specialize their knowledge in their respective areas. When we are able to create our God, we will have taken a giant step in the access to knowledge, advancing hierarchically an important level, but with the formula of ascending hundreds of steps of less difficulty.
And, as our God will be part of superior entities, he will have access to that knowledge that is forbidden to us. A knowledge that requires a perceptual system very different from ours, much more complex and incomprehensible to us.
- S.I.: I thought that you were already part of the superior entities that your God will have access to, so this knowledge is not accessible to you, but it will be accessible to your God?
- A.T.: The problem is the percentage of identity that we have transferred to those entities. All living beings have transferred 1% (this figure is representative, not exact) of our identity to the supreme entity, so we only have access to 1% of that knowledge. The same happens with the binding entity superior to that of the Perfect Environment. 
We can transfer 100% of our perception to our immediate binding entity, but the percentage we can transfer to the next binding entity is much less. Nevertheless, our God will be able to transfer 100% of his perception to that entity, actualizing all the knowledge he hides.  And the God of our God will do the same with his immediate binding entity. Until the manifestation of the God of Gods.
- S.I: So, is the purpose of grouping the entities to access knowledge, or to defragment the identities?
- A.T: The goal is to defragment the experience, and access to knowledge is a means to achieve it. The entities are channelers of the collectivity. But since, inevitably, the supreme being will possess all the knowledge of the Unconscious Intelligence (the scenario will be 100% self-perceived and consciousness will be fully aligned with the Unconscious Intelligence), with each step closer to its emergence the collective consciousness will have greater access to knowledge. 
The total knowledge is possessed by the Self-perception and is available through the Unconscious Intelligence. The consciousness actualizes it through the entities, but this happens because the Unconscious Intelligence is manifesting itself within entities and identities. Because it is the Unconscious Intelligence that possesses that knowledge.
- S.I.: I understand. Please explain again how subordinate and binding entities affect this process.
- A.T: Subordinate entities respond to specialization within a binding entity. The process of updating potentials requires manifesting knowledge, but specialization allows different sections of the whole to focus on different areas. One subordinate entity implies access to a particular knowledge, and another subordinate entity allows access to another area of knowledge.
And the identities of the first subordinate entity do not access the knowledge of the second, but it does manifest itself in the total binding entity and, of course, is actualized as trends.
- S.I.: Understood, are the entities effective manifestations of the consciousness, or are they not?
- A.T: Sure, entities are like a living being under construction. They are structures that are not complete, but they possess a percentage of self-perception and a percentage of perception. Since they do not perceive in their totality, they do not become an identity. But they happen in the substratum of consciousness, since the collective consciousness is potential, in that the supreme identity has not been manifested, and it is the supreme entity that supposes the sum of all experiences. 
And the subordinate entities are parts of that living being under construction, which is the binding entity. The organs of a multicellular being would be examples of great subordinate entities. 
The supreme entity is under construction, just as every binding entity below it is also under construction. But all binding entities are subordinate to the supreme entity. That is, all binding entities are identities under construction, and all of them are subordinate parts of the supreme identity, also under construction.
- S.I: But the sum of the experiences does not suppose that there is an individual and total consciousness.
- A.T.: The sum of the experiences of the consciousness, in all its manifestations, are experienced by the consciousness in each instance of itself. But the unique and total consciousness, the supreme consciousness, does not experience, because it is not manifested. If it were to experience it would suppose that the supreme being would have emerged, and the experience would come to an end, as would consciousness.
Meanwhile, consciousness, which is one, is fully manifested in each identity, and partially manifested in each entity. 
In the entities, consciousness is actualized to the percentage that the identities have transferred perception to it. At this time, the supreme collective consciousness is more potential than actualized, but it exists as a collective consciousness that has not yet emerged as such. And the lower levels of collective consciousness have a greater degree of actualization, or concreteness, and a lesser degree of potentiality, or abstraction. 
- S.I.: I understand, then the consciousness exists, as such, in potentiality in the entities, but it is actualized in each identity. And all the collective consciousnesses of the entities, including the consciousness of the supreme being, exist in a high percentage in potency, but because they do not emerge as identities they are not completely actualized. 
- A.T.: Yes, potential and actualized consciousness form existence, but experience is only actualized consciousness experiencing. That is why an identity that totally transfers its perception no longer experiences, but somehow exists. Both actualized and potential consciousnesses are initiated by the fragmentation of self-perception, and both will come to an end when the supreme being emerges. 
- S.I.: You have left one question completely unanswered. Can the percentage of identity be transferred from one entity to a higher entity? And, then, would the entity pursue its own interest, or would it pursue the collective interest, which would be individual to the higher entity?
- A.T: Entities do not possess perception, at least they do not possess it effectively. 
This supposes that they cannot transfer it. From our perceptual base, we identities generate each and every entity, transferring to them a percentage of our perception. An entity does not transfer a percentage of perception to a higher entity, but the identities of that entity do, along with the identities of other entities that are also part of that higher entity. 
Since all entities (except the supreme) are subordinate, whether binding or not, they channel perception to higher binding entities, although the effective impact of that transfer is diluted with each promotion.
And each entity pursues its own interest, conditioned by the interest of every entity superior to it, because they are subordinate. However, the intensity of the perception transferred to a lower entity is higher than the perception transferred to an entity above it. This implies that the entity pursues its own interest to a greater extent, but always conditioned by the interests of superior entities. When in a superior entity the inflection point of the collective perception is reached, then in the inferior entity, the collective good will be transformed into the superior good. This means that this entity will not seek the collective good together with the rest of the entities that form the superior entity, but all of them will seek the superior good of that superior entity.
If the higher entities were manifested in a high percentage, they would condition with greater intensity the interest of the lower entities. But this is not the case because the transfer of perception takes place from the identities at the base of consciousness upwards. For a higher binding entity to emerge as an identity, all the lower binding entities should first have emerged as identities.
- S.I.: What happens, then, with the balance between perception and self-perception of a binding entity that emerges as an identity? Since it is subordinate, if at its emergence its perception is greater than the instant prior to its emergence. Then, will the percentage of self-perception of the binding entity superior to it be reduced by the new situation?
- A.T: An entity that emerges as an identity possesses 100% of internal self-perception. Before emerging it possessed lower percentage. So, after emergence, it will never compute in its superior binding entity with a lower percentage of self-perception than before it emerged, even though it possesses its own perception. That is with respect to its interior.
With respect to its outside, i.e., perception, this will not be 100% as compared to the collective perception. I always say that, when the identity emerges, it perceives individually and not collectively, but this is a simplification of this fact. 
Since every identity, when it emerges, is influenced by superior entities and, after the emergence, its perception will be aligned with the self-perception of each entity that has an effect on it. When I say on it, I mean that this entity has an effect on its perceptual type, since entities affect certain perceptual types according to their characteristics. 
That is why an ant is already born with an innate collective behavior. Or humans. We are born already with a high percentage of collective perception. I can summarize it in one sentence: Every emerging identity will have a percentage of individual perception, versus a percentage of collective perception.  
Even if, apparently, there are no binding entities superior to an identity, one is always part of the supreme entity. That is, every identity is at least affected by the Supreme entity.