The Akashic Records

-O-Zeus interpretation

To describe the akashic records, first we need to understand what is intended to be transmitted with the concept of the psique beyond subjective interpretations.

-O-Zeus describes the ideas to be transmitted through language based on the symbols comprising a word.

Describable limits between the content and the oscillation of the next that rationally exists, as the Psyche.

Lo racional desde lo previo al elemento que es la oscilación de lo próximo que es descriptible, como la Psique.

Akashic, under this model, represents the oscillation of something that diverges from an origin which is and is describable between some sort of limits.

Equally, the words Akashic and Psyche / Psique aims to transmit the same idea, nevertheless, the principal component in the word Psyche, describes the idea of a content that will be, meanwhile the word akashic replace that concept towards the idea of división and divergence, in the same way as when the concepts of the Graph theory are applied as a model of interpretation over the nodes in our Psique.

I will use the word Psique to continue expanding these ideas, as the word contains both the p, and q; which are the glyphs used to transmit the idea of something that has a forward component and a backwards component respectively.

In brief, in the -O-Zeus language model, the q, and p are equivalent to the O sliced in halves, and the idea of the division of what is defined has two directions, which is consistent as for minimum interpretation of information can have in one dimension.

The nodes in our psique are composed of all the previous knowledge acquired by our individual psiquis during the course of our lives (q), the information we acquire during our lives is fragmented, nevertheless we make sense of it and we deduct is ‘rational’, represented by the (u) glyph, and finally the glyph (e) would represent a fragmented node in our personal psique. Finally, the ‘psi’ part of the word expresses the idea of the oscillation, or variation (s) of those nodes towards something forward (p) to be describable (i).

At this point, this is the less subjective conclusion we can get from the words analysis, but forward to this interpretation we can find many other implicit conclusions given by multiple facts, and this is where we find the glyph (k), and the possibilities becomes practically infinite towards the edge of our model of interpretation.

In my personal opinion, we absorb fragmented information towards our lives, we correlate, store, and make sense of that information, to discover the possibilities of our collective rational thinking are vast, nevertheless limited to a pre designed model, in which, all our thoughts are guided to conclude or manifest significatively towards root nodes of interpretation, to discover that in reality the canonical mind model is quite simple, and the (k) divergence of its artificially added complexity is practically infinite, overwhelming the capacity of our human minds, and obligating us to signify and reinforce certain nodes and paths in our personal psique, to satisfy the sometimes and as for many, the simple requirements of our earthly lives.

We are actually living in modern globalised, interconnected times, where we are user targeted content consumers of pre filtered and segmented information towards our historical preferences, with the internet and mathematical models such as the Graph theory helping us to signify the information we consume and pushing us to a new way of human psique intervention.

Finally to conclude that most of the conclusions we have been implicitly guided by the collective model, pre designed on pragmatic knowledge expects from our minds to conclude on intuition and perhaps thanks to our right brain hemisphere, restrained after a long process of indocrination based on fears avoidance, to not become outliers in the bigger picture of the model.

Finally, we can implicitly deduct that most of the ideas we could integrate from our fragmented psique nodes, will follow back again to root nodes of interpretations, therefore all our conclusions will be probably within the pre designed model of collective information, more likely to be ‘valid’ and intuitive by common sense.