tsuki

@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.

@now is forever To you, are there any other boundaries than the boundary between the real world and fantasy? I can see many boundaries and I am talking about how to turn all of them into mirrors. What I call a boundary, or a mirror is not specific to reality vs fantasy. It is about any X vs Y.

@now is forever So, you are learning to fly your first dragon? Don't forget to set it free once you're done. It will wither in captivity.

@now is forever So, to you a dragon is where the boundary between reality and fantasy becomes a mirror. You can never learn to fly dragons. Dragons are nothing alike. Learning how to fly one particular dragon lets you notice another kind of them. Only fools try to fly them.

@now is forever Tell me more about dragons. You seem to be using cultural symbols as an absolute reference point. Are you generalizing art into universal symbols? Do elephants and dinosaurs come from there?

@now is forever But you can always tell that an elephant is an elephant, don't you? In this sense, all elephants are the same. You can also always tell that a dinosaur is a dinosaur. As you zoom, they alternate. The difference is that I zoom and you don't. But we're both still, although in the opposite sense. And by all means, dinosaurs and elephants are not absolute. You can turn one into another by zooming. Can you zoom into democracy to turn it into a dinosaur?

@now is forever So, if one level is a dinosaur, and another is an elephant, then we are all exactly lost. There is no middle matrioshka. You make a matrioshka a middle by stopping the movement. To you, all of us are the same because the middle that you stopped by is accidental. They just stopped somewhere else and their middle may look like a dinosaur, or an elephant to you. But so does your middle look to them! We are all exactly the same in this sense. This exactness is done through seeing how dinosaur=elephant (like I did above). This way you turn the boundary into a mirror and arrive at unity. For me, the path is different. I zoom all the time and arrive at stillness through indifference. This middle, or that middle is temporary and accidental. This indifference is what lets me see that teacher=pupil. However, because I zoom in all the time, I see that there is no way to tell which dinosaur comes after which elephant. There is no order of elephants, or dinosaurs. There is no way to see the difference, because all elephants are elephants. All dinosaurs are dinosaurs. And dinosaurs are elephants because I'm indifferent. This way, we are all the same. This is the movement that sees that teacher=pupil. This way I turn the boundary into the mirror. Is this perhaps the difference between a woman and a man? Is this why women keep polishing their mirrors by zooming in and out? So, perhaps you were right. I told you to stop breathing and become a man. PS. Just to make it clear: the master=pupil means the same thing as dinosaur=elephant.

@now is forever From my perspective, there is no middle Matrioshka. No elephants, no dinosaurs. The stillness is achieved by allowing motion. The gif moves, but is exactly the same. One level is an elephant, the other is the dinosaur. Elephant=dinosaur. Teacher=pupil.

@now is forever Now I understand better. Why starve the dinosaur though? You make the dinosaur more and more angry by starving it. Positive attitude of approaching dinosaur is great, but what if the angry dinosaur approaches you? Doesn't it sometimes? What I'm saying is that there is no dinosaur when I say that master=pupil. All of what I'm saying is in relation to that. I let myself buy groceries and I let myself buy trash. Isn't it more fun that way?

@now is forever What I am projecting here is that your identity as a designer is important to you, but I fail to see how did I suggest your incompetence in this area. I did not ask these questions to test you, but to invoke a perspective. It was not about you and I cannot see how you addressed that perspective in your response. I am entirely aware that I may not be willing to acknowledge your response because I got caught up in my projection. In your response, I still see the perspective of a creator that pities the poor little creations that are trapped, never to be seen. Not that you are somehow wrong, or lesser than me because of that. I am simply sharing my perspective in which nothing is a poor little creation.

I=you=we @tsuki=@now is forever=@Zweistein

@now is forever Have you seen Koyaanisqatsi? Is the ending is a plea to change, or is it a statement of human nature that expresses equanimity? It is a very powerful film that left me in meaninglessness for several weeks until it settled down.

@now is forever What you describe is wonderful. I totally get what you mean. Do you remember the mindfuck/soulfuck when I equated people with things in @Zweistein's journal? Things move things around. If that was a mindfuck, then it bears similarity to the mystical experience that you are trying to connect to. From what I understand of your post, you are left in oneness through shared human effort that is ever-present in all objects. That is a wonderful experience. Can you imagine the world in which humans are objects that are manipulated by technology? The world in which humans are empty canvas in which objects create skills? The world in which objects invented humans to reproduce? The world in which humans are cells in the bloodstream of the skyscrapers? That 'we' are the bacteria in the gut of the living cities? That cars invented us to move around? However, what are humans other than organs that are made of cells that are made of organelles that are dead? Humans came from apes that came from something else that came from bacteria that came from dead material. We are all equally dead=alive when we inspect Materialism closely. What is the difference between the creator and the created? In this recognition of oneness between us and 'the other' you recognize the cell of reality within all objects that is not merely a canvas to humans. It is a canvas to us, artists, but we are a canvas to them as well. In this recognition lies the inherent oneness of cells that recognizes the mirror as boundary and that new boundary as a mirror once more. If boundary=mirror, then mirror=boundary. Can you see the world from the point of view of technology? It is not that this perspective is any more true than the perspective of the world in which humans use technology. Humans use technology which uses humans. Technology=life.

@Zweistein The reply to this post will be split into several ones, as there are many thing to unpack. The metaphorical image I quoted was discussed in terms of the mirror=boundary so far. Let's get into whatever lies within the cell. Whatever arrives at the mirror=boundary is, by itself, infinitely ambiguous. Not only that my words as you read them right now are ambiguous by themselves, but the fact that you even see words is dependent on the fact that you look for them. If you were to see the mirror=boundary in its full transparent glory, you would not see anything at all, as you wouldn't even know what to look at. As I go on a walk in the forest, there are no trees until I look for them. I may be deeply lost in thought, imagining my holidays. Even though I am in the forest, the forest is not in me. There are no trees at the boundary=mirror. So, all of what I perceive is the projection of my reality. Contents of this reality is what I call beliefs. Beliefs are not only some ungrounded fantasies that we have. Beliefs also include knowledge. When I know biology, I notice the structure of a flower. When I know psychology, I notice mental illness. Beliefs are not at the boundary by themselves. They are what decides what is possible to make out of the ambiguity of the mirror=boundary. So, whatever I am writing now is entirely a projection of my beliefs. They manifest themselves at the mirror=boundary as nothing in particular. As you notice them, you make something out of them by projecting your beliefs. Therefore, my beliefs are never what you read. I believe that we agreed on that so far and let's call this the boundary-perspective. So, what I see you did in your post from the boundary-perspective is: Project a possibility of belief that teacher=pupil (which is unknown) Project the belief that the world needs healing Show me that these two beliefs form a paradox Discard the possibility of belief that teacher=pupil (return to the known) The paradox from the boundary-perspective seems to bear repulsion to the unknown. This whole post in which I honestly describe my personal projections and assume that we both share them through our inherent sameness is what constitutes the mirror-perspective. This whole text is based on the assumption of exactness through the described structure and it is what should be used to turn the boundary-perspective into a mirror-perspective. This movement I cannot describe any better than in this post: From the mirror-perspective, what I=you=we do in contemplation is: Project a possibility of belief that teacher=pupil (which is unknown) Project the belief that the world needs healing and acknowledge its origin Recognize that these two beliefs form a paradox and treat it as a sign of inner conflict between beliefs Re-frame/re-contextualize either of those beliefs so that they do not form a duality of opposites The paradox from the mirror-perspective seems to bear attraction to the unknown. For now, I cannot say anything about re-framing because I am completely blind to its nature. I need to observe myself more as I do it.

@Zweistein Hahaha. Now I get what you meant in your second entry in the journal Guess what? My profile pic is a solar eclipse

@Zweistein I make a fool out of myself all the time unknowingly. It is only when I understand my folly, I become wiser. I did not become a fool at the moment of uncovering my folly. I stopped being a fool in this one tiny area. Ignorance is blindness. It is not an insult to call somebody blind. It's a disability. I am healing.

@now is forever If you have come to the infinite loneliness by yourself, then it means that you meet the other as neither the teacher nor the pupil. That infinite loneliness is the possibility of seeing that our personal cell is exactly the same as any other cell. That you can recognize yourself within the other. Whatever the other may be. A person, an animal, or even a book. The key thing is that this recognition came authentically from you. From within you. Not picked up from the world and made into a belief. This recognition is the very paradox that turns the boundary into the mirror and lets you experience the I=you=we. Then you, for example, think that a book is just a dead book that is somehow different from you - you make yourself into a master, or a pupil. If you can recognize a cell of reality that this book occupies and equate this cell with yours - then you get it. You can experience the I=you=we with the book. Separation between you and a book is nonsensical when you get it, even if it was obvious in the past. I am purposefully using an example of a book to throw you off. I=you=we from my point of view is not limited to biological beings. Think about the universal mind which thinks in language called Tao. Anything can be experienced as I=you=we. You may also want to go back to the original post where I introduced this metaphor to get more material:

@Zweistein No. Leo is free to do whatever he pleases. So are both of you. We are all dancing together and in doing that: contemplate. You ask questions and have my honest answers. In answering your questions I understand myself better. I hope that my answers help you achieve that as well. I hope that this is why all of you keep dancing with me. For me, the reason for the contemplation is to see my own folly and become wiser. It is all in the signature. This is how I embody master=pupil. What I hope for Leo is to see the Absolute within the relative as I do. I project upon him the unnecessary struggle with it. This although does not mean that I want him to recognize anything explicitly. I am entirely content with his participation in this contemplation. He seems to find reasons to come back to this discussion, so I hope that it serves him as well. In the post that you quoted, it is painfully clear how foolish I am to pursue this duality any longer. We are all always connected via the I=you=we. Either by recognizing the mirror, or by shared separation. From this point of view, this part of the contemplation is complete. We have all made a fool out of me! Thank you! I do not mean this sarcastically. This is how ignorance works. These answers do not come from a place of knowledge, but they are dynamically produced in response. Although I have seen the folly of this duality intuitively, giving birth to it is another matter entirely. There are, of course, still many things that I intuitively know that I have not yet discovered. One of them is buried within your question that I'm still contemplating. It is the relationship between paradox and the absolute. I hope that this response did not discourage you from participating. I am simply being honest with you because you asked a honest question. Also: to me, it is not a matter of decision. Deciding that master=pupil accomplishes nothing. This is what I am exploring in the contemplation of your question as well. It's about embodiment.

@now is forever What sort of silly chaos would that be if it couldn't become orderly like now? It is a total chaos. To say that something is chaotic is to introduce order. It is a chaotic chaos.

@Zweistein If there are 'others' then it is a boundary.

@now is forever If there is 'the other', then it is a boundary. Reality is then fragmented into infinite amount of separate pieces, all of which touch via boundaries. Whatever appears at the boundary is always being projected on from our own personal reality. Whatever is being put at the boundary by the other is not what appears for the 'I'. If 'the other' exists, then it is a boundary and the boundary is impenetrable. If 'the other' exists, the infinite amount of Is are trapped within infinite amount of cells and we are all infinitely lonely. However, this infinite loneliness is universal and shared. Loneliness is loneliness. This recognition can be done only by equating the 'I' with 'the other' by meeting him as neither a teacher, nor a pupil. In this meeting, we acknowledge that all cells are equal. If all cells are equal, then it is not a boundary, but a mirror. If it is a mirror, then the only this there is, is I=you=we. Separation is connection. Duality is oneness. Relative is absolute. The ground is groundless when you zoom. Can you see it now? There is no difference where you are. There is no way to tell a master from a pupil. That can also be seen as something that is shared to ground I=you=we. That is grounding in groundlessness.