tsuki

@Big Guru Balls Still not seeing the difference. One is not, and never has been separate from the source. That is also true pre-enlightenment, from the post-enlightenment point of view. What is the incentive to make a big deal out of it? Why make spirituality out of it? And I'm not monkeying words here, mind you.

@Nahm Yes, before any polarities subside, there is a place of stillness. If fear is love, then again: what is the difference between pre-enlightenment and post-enlightenment? When fear is love: pre-enlightenment is post-enlightenment.

@Nahm Can't see the difference from my point of view. First, there was running away from the things we fear. Then, there is chasing the things we love. Running away is like chasing with respect to movement. Is there a polarity to be seen? Can we really choose the things we love? Is there any basis for such a choice?

@now is forever Green does not reject status. Status is something different for it than for orange. It is simply that status for Green is not in opposition to collective benefit. It's about overcoming the duality of personal success and collectivism. For Orange, personal success is opposite to collectivism because he is in reaction to Blue. Edit: Sigh... you didn't say that it did reject status. Wrrr...

@Zweistein Regardless of the position on the spiral, one's beliefs about the world are projected as the world's benefit. Educating others is nothing else than an attempt to make them conform to our beliefs. I believe that the world have had enough of that. How would green recognize that yellow is not orange? Green resists both.

@Zweistein Hahaha thank you for your recognition, although I feel like you knew exactly which questions ask to pull my intuition

Aren't we trying to build a ladder to climb somewhere higher? Wouldn't this be the most poignant lesson for us, builders? Wouldn't this be the most useful tool for self-actualizers as well?

@Saumaya What is the meaning of self if there was no self to begin with? What is the difference between pre-enlightenment and post-enlightenment?

@Faceless First, there is nothing. Then, there is a duality of opposites. The direction between positive and negative is what defines movement. This direction is the possibility of decision between opposites. Either one, or the other. Repulsive movement is fear. Attractive movement is love. Duality is what constitutes knowledge/belief. Then, we notice the duality of the '+' and '-'. That love and fear are the same direction seen from two points of view. That love attracts and fear repulses, but the direction is the same. That the movement is not a choice. That knowledge predetermines outcome. In seeing the connection of the opposites, we recognize their union. Thought is the recognition of division and hierarchy. Insight is the recognition of oneness by noticing the movement. Is there any difference between the two above pictures? Can we locate the movement that the second picture implies? Is there a difference between duality and unity? Is there a difference between (+) and (-)? Fear of fear is the lack of recognition of self-reference. Without it, knowledge of knowledge is born and duality is a (-) and non-duality is a (+). Then, there is a movement of insight that is taking place, which is a fear of fear. It is nothing else than fear itself. Is it clear, or are we constructing knowledge of knowledge of knowledge?

@Faceless What is the origin of fear of fear?

There is a connection between I=you=we and embodiment. When 'the other' turns to I=you=we, resistance is transformed to surrender. Resistance is suffering. Surrender is bliss. What is the relationship between I=you=we and embodiment? Is embodiment the phenomenological description of bliss?

@now is forever What do you think about this post in relation to spiral dynamics? To me, all stages are the same and the model became unusable.

@now is forever The project you are aiming at bears resemblance to an ancient Chinese book called 'I ching'. Some time ago @deci belle suggested to me that the version re-contextualized into Taoism is a very good starting point. She suggested to me Taoist I Ching published by Shambhala. I haven't read it yet though, as the language is too obscure to me for now.

I agree.

@now is forever Only when I miss you and you miss me, is when the conversation is not missed. Yes, there is always a matrioshka, but how do you tell that it's the middle one until you open it?

@now is forever Hahaha, you sound exactly like my fiancee . Missing is missing. Mutual misunderstanding. Either I will miss what you say or you will miss what I say. Or both, hopefully. At that point, the conversation will end. Isn't it natural? There is no middle Matrioshka .

@Zweistein From one particular perspective in which there is one particular paradox, then there is one particular I=you=we. When I say that teacher=student it reveals a paradox in relation to 'the world needs healing'. That particular paradox can be resisted, or surrendered to. When you resist, there is a boundary and 'the other'. When this particular paradox is surrendered to, then there is one particular I=you=we. From the point of many particular I=you=we, then yes - all that I=you=we can do is to surrender. Over and over again. To many different paradoxes to arrive at many different I=you=we. To me, all of those I=you=we bear a similarity between one another. They are all perspectives from which the total I=you=we can be observed. What is common to all of them is what happens at the moment when resistance changes to surrender. To embody this commonality and experience the total I=you=we, the duality between resistance and surrender has to be overcome. From that point on, there is neither 'the other' nor 'I=you=we'. From that point on, there is neither resistance, nor surrender. Does this make any sense to you? I can't really answer your question with a yes or no. Such answers bear no meaning to me. They are both a lie. That is because surrender and resistance are merging into indifference. There is also a ridiculous sense in which I can understand your post. You are identifying with I=you=we. I don't. There is no me to identify with anything. It is only cuddling if you expect a dualistic expression of language from which you can derive a X vs Y. That something is more important than something else. That you should surrender to this and not surrender to that. From this point of view, we're just taking our sweet time talking about nothing. That, or any other explanation about stroking our egos. From the non-dual point of view, this is an exercise of our polar-thinking muscles which is very rare. This is actually the first fruitful non-dual conversation that I have ever had. The gradual drifting apart of understanding is expected. That is a contemplation, after all. Its whole point is to deplete your knowledge. As I am doing that, I am building knowledge on how to deplete knowledge. By doing that, I am preparing to do contemplation on the nature of contemplation. The result of this is the lack of duality between resistance and surrender. This conversation will end at some point in which we will miss each other completely. But at that point, it will feel appropriate to do so. To me, it is not yet. This was the point from the very start.

Sorry. I'm talking about my impressions, that's all. Any comments about the discussions yet @dorg?

@now is forever If you assume that, then I'm not using language at all. I'm starting to get the impression that you just want to cuddle .

@now is forever Sigh... That's what I'm saying. Maybe what I'm looking after is the Tao of Tao. lol

@now is forever There is nothing to know and that's the point. You just gotta do it. You just have to be present to whatever is without pre-expectations that are accumulated as knowledge. This drive to talk in the language of reality (talk, sing, dance, move, draw, sculpt, do) is driven by intuition. In this movement that is driven by intuition you deplete your knowledge tanks to arrive at stillness. In this stillness without pre-expectations, only then you can notice dragons. Dragons then teach you to fly. The more dragons you see, the more you learn about the process of taming them. If you let yourself store this knowledge about this process of taming dragons, then you also have to deplete it to arrive at stillness. Only then, you are allowed to see the dragon of all dragons. Don't all dragons feel that way though? You call that subtraction and I call that inclusion. The symbols have always been blurred and you, yourself, made them concrete. All that I did was to assert their lack of boundaries. The sense in which you spoke about them did not get invalidated because of that. What I talk about is how to turn a X vs Y into X=Y. By turning the boundary into a mirror. If 'I' did anything to you, then there is a boundary between us and it is a vs. Not in a sense of a fight. There can be a vs in cooperation as well. There is neither a fight, nor a cooperation when there is =. That is exactly what I'm talking about. Neither teacher, nor a student. Not taking the stance of a teacher. Not taking the stance of a pupil by taking the counter perspective. Neither teacher nor a pupil is letting them stand and sink in. That is only possible by turning the boundary into a mirror. It is what turns a 'vs' into a '='. This is what indifference is. Remaining in sinking in is what constitutes continuous zoom. In order to see that you are neither an artist, nor an art piece you have to deplete your knowledge about the subject via contemplation. This depletion is not done through any language in particular, but the one that is appropriate for you. The one that you recognize via intuition and resonate with. You may deplete this knowledge via speaking in painting, or in English, or in a language in which you speak to a car when you drive it. The depletion is not a rejection as in "I'm not listening tra la la la!". It is done via honestly putting yourself on the line, using your knowledge, and speaking confidently as if you knew everything about it (which you are 100% sure you are, but you also know that you are not right!). Contemplation is done in expectation of being made a fool. In this process of contemplation, the symbols for an artist and an art piece become ambiguous. The lines become blurred. There are more and more things that fit into them effortlessly. At some point, they will become ambiguous enough so that you will effortlessly fit one into another. An art piece becomes an artist and an artist becomes an art piece. There is a '=' instead of 'vs'. At that point, there is no more learning. You arrive at stillness and effortlessness. There is no difference between you speaking through an art piece and an art piece speaking through you. There is a mirror instead of a boundary and in that, there is I=you=we instead of the artist and an art piece. What I contemplate here is the way to arrive at I=you=we in any duality of opposites. It is a contemplation about the duality of contemplation and non-contemplation. How fun it is going to be . Tao of the design is, as always, stillness. Not a vs, but a =. I don't think so. You seem to be aware of the possibility of what I am speaking about, but you seem to miss its depth. I am not speaking to teach you anything. I am contemplating in relation to your responses and hoping that it brings you some benefit. I am not taking responsibility for it, though.

@Zweistein Honestly, I don't even know how to respond to a question like: do you get mine? I can squeeze myself into a perspective from which what you write makes perfect sense. I can also respond by squeezing myself into a perspective from which you are wrong. Neither of those movements seem satisfactory to me, because there is no reason whatsoever to do any of them. Why would I surrender myself to you? Why would I want you to surrender to me? We're alike. That is why my answers always feel like yneos. It feels like I have no mouth to express what I mean. It's so funny. It makes me curious. I'm looking for my mouth, have you seen it? Oh, and thank you for your compliments. |

@Zweistein There are concrete examples of X vs Y. There is a teacher vs pupil, there is reality vs illusion, there is duality and non-duality and there is relative vs absolute. What I referred to as teacher vs pupil so far is this general X vs Y of any dualities. From now on, I will use this teacher vs pupil as a concrete example of X vs Y. That is because I suspect that this is a basis for misunderstanding. So, if we take a concrete example of X vs Y: teacher vs student, there is a duality that is rejected on the basis of forming a paradox with the belief that the world needs healing. They form a concrete example of a paradox in one particular perspective. However, what I am referring to is not a concrete example of X vs Y. I am referring to the X vs Y itself which is an ambiguous symbol for all dualities. All dualities, including a duality: duality vs non-duality. In this perspective of X vs Y, any rejection and conflict is observed in relation to the Paradox. This is the total paradox. The paradox of all paradoxes. That which is common to all paradoxes within all possible perspectives in which they arise. Paradox is not a belief. It is a blockage of learning (?). When you are willing to surrender to a paradox within a particular perspective in which there is a particular duality, then you experience I=you=we from within this particular perspective. It is obvious within this particular perspective, that what you see is what you project and the internal conflict can be resolved via the movement through paradox. The movement through the paradox is what I call zooming. When you surrender to paradox of good and evil, you can zoom into good to see evil and into evil to see good. Conflict between beliefs is nonsensical. There can be no: teacher is not a pupil because the world needs healing. You zoom into a teacher and get a pupil. You zoom into a pupil and you get a teacher. The healing of the world has nothing to do with it from this particular perspective. When you are not willing to surrender to a particular paradox in a particular perspective, then you experience 'the other' in this particular perspective and there is a boundary between the two of you. In this resistance, beliefs are coupled because zooming is unavailable. It is only then, that teacher is not a pupil because the world needs healing. Resistance is co-existent in paradox, zooming and 'the other'. It disappears in all of the three at once along with the boundary. Surrender is co-existent in all of the three as well and it is only then, when the boundary becomes a mirror. Surrender and resistance are not things that can be 'done'. They are driven by intuition. By honestly talking about things you have no idea about and observing the nonsense that you produce. Once the surrender has been experienced in one particular perspective, a belief is born that all is one. They I=you=we as I experience it is always through a particular perspective. What I am trying to get at is the movement through all paradoxes. What is common to all zooming. How to solve all dualities and to decouple all beliefs. So that any belief that may manifest itself and projects a duality will be trivial. That is what I mean by learning how to fly dragons. I can fly a dragon pretty well. I have become the fool of fools.

@SgtPepper @SoothedByRain What if I told you that all threads are like that, but we're not paying attention?

@Zweistein I do want to learn how to fly dragons! I just now it's impossible. Dragons are so magnificent that learning how to fly one makes you want to keep it. If you keep it, then you have to take care of it. The problem is that dragons look nothing alike. If you become too used to it, then you lose your edge in spotting them. If you hold on for too long - you're done. The more you hold on, the more incentive there is to hold on. Since dragons fly nothing alike one another, then learning how to fly one doesn't help you one bit. At best, you can learn how to fly a dragon. But to fly dragons? Impossible. The word is not REFLECTION, but PROJECTIONS. I did it by accident, but I guess that a fool cannot be wrong after all. It gives a nice touch of ambiguity, doesn't it? PS. I hold your story as very important and I will address it. Thank you for sharing it.