Hi Wireless,




> I see it like an energy food chain in some sort of
> a way where the "thoughts" are energy structures
> but still without a very precise object form...


Hmmm, I'd rather see the thoughts as the very creating power of the energy itself. Without a thought forming, the possibility carried by that thought does not have an existence. Or is that exactly what you are saying? (I have difficulties in understanding what you write... )


>
> Like when most think of a tree, it is not very
> specifically defined in most cases. However,
> there are the cases where some people can see very
> specific images (trees, etc) and sounds in their
> mind, but I wouldn't categorize those as thoughts
> but rather their unique ability to directly tap
> into some other well structured higher energy
> dimensions...

Are you familiar with Owen Barfield and his evolution of the consciousness? He wrote:"Participation is the extra-sensory relation between man and the phenomena." And this is what I think you are describing here. IMO it is not as much an ability to tab higher energy, as it is to be one with the energy of object of the though. The final participation and understanding.
I like Barfield's ideas (the issues of language somewhat notwithstanding). Here's a synopsis, tell me what you think.
[www.praxagora.com]


>Sorry, but I am not "aware" of any way to make
> such a differentiation at this stage of my own
> energy evolution! In addition since I do not want
> to "box" myself in any particular definition of
> what the self is, I remain very much open minded
> about it...

Well, IMO, defining oneself is one of the most important steps on the way. That does not mean "boxing oneself in", nor does it mean being separated from the greater entity. But without boundaries of the self one can not possibly appreciate the wholeness of things, to which one naturally belongs to.


>
> I ceratinly don't see self as just a physical body
> since many of us can already transcend that,


Agreed.


but
> it is still very difficult at least to me to
> define the boundaries of a "thought" since they
> are much softer!
>
> We are all connected somehow, that is for sure,
> but since a wireless signal (or a frequency) is
> not bounded per say, then it is very difficult to
> define boundaries when using frequency as a
> reference!

But the "wireless signal" is bounded! -->



Maybe we are all in a unique frequency
> (like a color!) and in order to communicate with
> each other, we need to find some common ground
> references and/or be able to "tune" to each
> other's frequencies, or something like that...

And this is exactly why I think the signal is bounded in some way! It's easier to tune in with certain than with others. While I agree about all of uss having a "personal" frequency, there are still similar frequencies. And those similarities give us the ability to tap into those similar to ours. Concretely it means, that one has a tendency even to meet only a cretain kind of people. Goes to show that these frequencies apply on all levels.
And while it is possible to tune in (or tap into) the ferquencies not similar to oneslef, these "connections" never occur without concentration, as do those with frequencies similar to each other.


>
> This definition would transcend time/space and
> would me much more softer in Nature, but does not
> fully explain things either!!!


What is the only thing that can trancend time/space, Wireless? Especially, since time and space are largely an illusion of necessity...







Ritva