skywords

If "There As Only Change" ~ Then, EVERY Paradigm Here As Procrustean: "Right ~ Wrong" Or Just CHANGE? What If Nonduality As Merely Change? What If "Truth" As Merely Ongoing Change? What If "Awareness" And "Love" And "Enlightenment" Become Merely Change? And Change As Neither "Right" Nor "Wrong" But Merely One Change Changing Into Another Change?

@fridjonk

When He Places Warmth At The Center Of His Heart, Life, Universe, Enlightenment? When He Experiences Infinite Empathy As The Core Of Enlightenment? When He Experiences Self As Other And Other As Self With Every Breath Of The Now? When He Integrates And Resolves All Paradox And Contradiction Through Just One Thing: Warmth Of Heart Flowing In This Eternal Now? When He Recognizes That All So Called "Progress" (Humanity's History As "Stages") As But The Projection Of The Alienation Of His Body From His Mind? When He Experiences His Heart ~ Not His Mind ~ Everyone's And The Universe's Heart As His True Center/Periphery ~ Not The Universal "Mind"? When He ~ Like Heraclitus ~ Experiences All Identity As Utterly Transient, Since We Can Never Step Into The Same River Twice? When He Discontinues His Political Mud Slinging ~ Having Recognized It As The Mere Demonization Of His Own Body From His Own Mind (And Vice Versa)? When He Puts Love, Warmth, Tenderness And Communication With Both Self And Others, Above Insight And Making Others "Wrong" So That He Might Be "Right"? When He Understands That Sociality Has Less To Do With Accuracy, And More To Do With Mutual Support In Warmth Of Heart ~ In The Eternal Now? When He Experiences All Communication Of Self With Self And Self With Other As Trope Or Metaphor, At The Very Core Of All Communication, And Thus That His Much Vaunted "Truth" Is Just A Simile, A Conceit? When He Experiences That The River Of Being Is Pure Communication In Constant Change And Transformation? When He Experiences "Truth" As Nothing More And Nothing Less Than Change And Transformation? When He Experiences Truth As Sheer Communication In Perpetual Change As Engagement And Engagement As Awareness Itself, In The Eternal Present? When He Groks That All Demonization Is Just A Way Of Disengaging From One's Own Projection Of Disengagement Onto Another? When He Refrains From Demonizing Demonization, And Sees Even Demonization As Merely A Projection Of One's Own Disengagement From Oneself? When He Lives In Infinite Empathy Yet Forgives Himself And Others For Our Inevitable Failure To Live In Infinite Empathy? When He Cultivates Contemplates Meditates Embraces Embodies Infinite Unconditional Empathy Tenderness Heartfelt Warmth?

@fridjonk My experience is that it is Infinite Tenderness And Warmth Of Heart

@skywords Yes. Because The Highest Level Of Enlightenment Recognizes And Experiences The Infinitude Of Universal Tenderness And Responds To It With Infinite Warmth Of Heart.

@from chaos into self OK, good points, strictly speaking. But since we're talking metaphysics, metacommunication, we are examining and reexamining the meaning of meaning, right? We are, thus, seeking ever more overarching ways of both perceiving and experiencing the word, based on more inclusive paradigms, right? So, yes, we can begin with contrast as simply the difference between one identity and another, but if those identities flow into each other, in the endless and eternal passage of time, and if we offer this perpetual transformation no resistance, then we have a new paradigm that includes all three. Right? Hence: Truth = Change = Flow = Time = Eternity = This Now/Moment Right?

@Rasheed Now I understand. Thanks!

@from chaos into self All of the above in the truth that is change, flow, contrast, right?

@Serotoninluv ?

Not as much insight of the mind, as gentleness of the heart? Not as much courage of commitment, as patience of affection? Not as much intensity of distinction, as subtlety of sensitivity? Not as much confrontation with death, as harmony with what is present, here, now? Not as much attainment of high ideals, as their integration throughout our being, from moment to moment? Abstention from demonization as, more thoroughly meaning, less saying anyone nor anything is "wrong," at any turn: Rather, more literally, all as God meaning, more, experiencing all truths as merely songs we all sing, and empathy as transcendence of separation between self, and selves and others. The progress of all stages as an ongoing journey, not into the distant past nor future, but as deepening engagement with the Here and Now. The errors of mind or experience, less as requiring correction, and more as opportunities for greater empathy with both self and other. The ineffable experience of the infinite, less as in contrast to either materialism or spirituality, and more as in concert with an infinite empathy of both self as other and other as self. Enlightenment, more as a gradual, tentative, suspension of judgement, incrementally and adoringly settling into the heart, and less an abrupt and urgent realization or awakening. Less hard work, and more blissful play. Less enduring steadfast commitment to truth, and more effortless embrace of all that is, as is, in lighthearted jubilation. All activities, less as methods toward a distant possibility, and more as experience of experience and celebration of celebration itself. The tenderness of warmth, shared, radiant and all inclusive, as the measure of an all the more embracing integration of both the corporeal (core/corpus - reality) and ideal sides of, both: A. Our sentient, physical, transient, vulnerable, delicate, organic nature, and B. Our ethereal, idealistic, eternal, mental, abstract, intellectual, invulnerable imagination.

@Rasheed How do you choose between awareness of one thing, over awareness of another? I mean, I find that I can be aware of an almost infinite number of things, at any one time. So, I always ask myself, "what do I focus on now?" "Do I look inward, outward? Do I focus on thoughts or feelings, and why?" I usually end up privileging one form of awareness over another. That's why I have finally landed on one form over others, because I find it most inclusive of what I find most passionately engaging, seriously meaningful and playfully lighthearted, all at once, as warmth of heart. I have found that if I don't focus on warmth of heart, I do get involved in all manner of detours and dead ends, that I don't want to repeat. For example, I can default on spite, or on combativeness, or on "winning," and being "right." I can easily spiral into proving something that has no real meaning for me. (I will add, that they once did have appropriate meaning. But they are now but relics of bygone days. For me, there is always an ongoing celebration of the freedom to focus on one form of awareness over another. But this celebration of freedom requires creative engagement. It is not entirely automatic. It involves both some effort, and some surrender.)

@VividReality @Derek White These are great points you've all made, IMO! And, yes, for me, all my life, I've asked myself whether to see life as "play" or "life and death struggle," or, as you say, "seriousness." It is only recently that I've included "involvement," or the word I prefer, "engagement." My conclusion is that when all three are integrated, or "sublated" and synthesized into one, one is "Enlightened." Thus: Life can always be play, in as much as there's a Lightheartedness about it. Life can always be serious, in as much as there is no grace, no play, no blissful engagement without actual danger. Life can only be passionately both serious and playful, when one is fully engaged. Lastly, I've found that the key to integrating all three is found in the cliché, "but her/his heart wasn't in it." Conversely, and most specifically, and emphatically, One's Heart Has To Be In It In a word: Warmth. Warmth of heart, in my experience, integrates all three elements into one experience of Enlightenment: One is most passionately engaged in life when one is blissfully creative, that is, playful, yet fully experiences a clear and present ~ serious danger (Samuel Johnson — 'Depend upon it, sir, when a man knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight, it concentrates his mind wonderfully.' ~ That's why Leo continually reminds us of our mortality.). And there is one word that brings all these together: committed LOVE. However, the word, "love," has been so overused, that, for some, it has lost it's impact, having become a cliché. For me, a less mental, or abstract and ethereal word, one more visceral and thus, more passionate, also meaning love, is "warmth."

@MAYA EL Good point? Further, nothing can be put into words. Ever. Right? Communication, itself, about anything, is just a simile, metaphor, trope. And what if "life" (itself a conceit) is just communication: flow? Right? "Flow" is, of course, itself just a simile. Right?

The last, best fruit which comes to late perfection, even in the kindliest soul, is tenderness toward the hard, forbearance toward the unforbearing, warmth of heart toward the cold, philanthropy toward the misanthropic. ~ Jean Paul

@skywords What does the secret of life mean? WARMTH That’s The Secret: yes: WARMTH Let me explain This has been the secret for a very long time because people have been looking for it in the wrong place: In Their Heads. What do I mean by “Their Heads”? I mean, in their thoughts (brains), vision (eyes), sounds (ears), mouths (words, food), touch (5 senses), noses (perfumes). The secret is not to be FOUND. The secret is to be FELT. Feelings are not “out there,” they are in here. The center of “in here,” is THE HEART. THE SECRET IS WARMTH OF HEART: LOVE And this is not something one gets from “out there.” It is something one gives from one’s HEART. And one gives it, To Oneself Through WARMTH Which includes: Tenderness, Gentleness, Serenity, Joy, Sensitivity, Friendship, Lightheartedness, Ease, Comfort, Support, Companionship, Honor, Respect, Rest, Care, among a host of generous and grateful gifts. Once one’s LOVE chalice is FULL: Only Then Can One Share These, This Warmth, With Others This Self Love is Both A Cultivated Habit ~ for the long run And A Habit Of Living Fully ~ In The NOW, the ever present moment That is why it is never “finally found.” It is constantly Created And Recreated By You In Each Unfolding Moment Of The Now. This Is ENLIGHTENMENT. It is referred to as “Enlightenment” because it’s GRACE is Resplendent: Radiant, Brilliant, Glowing, Harmonious. But this is only the Surface of Enlightenment. Deep withing this translucency, at the very heart of Enlightenment, is it’s Compassionate And Empathetic Source. It is Simpler Than Simplicity Itself: PURE, GENTLE, GENEROUS AND GRATEFUL ~ ALL TOO SIMPLE (Hidden Under Our Very Noses: Our Hearts’) WARMTH

And, of course, all this is just a projection of our own "shadow selves." Instead of "shadow selves," I would say, frozen images of our condemned selves. These, in turn, are just what others have taught us to condemn in both our selves and others. That is to say, we lack warmth for ourselves, when we parrot the condemnations we've experienced as leveled both against us, and against others. Unless we have warm empathy for all others, we cannot have warm empathy for ourselves. When we dismiss this, we are actually dismissing our own wholeness as fully warm, fully graceful, fully in the Now. But that's deserving of empathy, as well, in my Universe, too. Generally speaking.

@Nak Khid Also a function of fatigue!

What's YOUR opinion?

@Nak Khid You don't have to apologize. It's OK. We all make unreasonable demands.

I'm laughing because I feel vindicated in my speculation that those who privilege impersonal forms of communication, over friendly forms of communication, are easily offended because they live in relatively more fear and discomfort than friendly types. I sensed that my interlocutor had been offended, and was therefore fearful. I offered to empathize with his fear, if, indeed, he was fearful. But he refused to engage with me in a friendly and self disclosing way. Or so it seemed to me. To me, friendliness toward others is a function of friendliness toward oneself. And the reason I am comparing 5meodmt to eye gazing is that I believe those who privilege impersonal ~ drug ~ experiences over interpersonal experiences (such as eye gazing), are relatively less friendly. I'm merely revealing my self talk here. I make no claims to "rightness." My bias is that friendly and intersubjective experiences are more likely to bring one closer to "enlightenment," than unfriendly and impersonal experiences. I am at odds with the notion, for example, that the universe, "as a matter of incontrovertible fact," is impersonal. Here I am not in synch with Leo. I believe the universe IS, as he says, a projection of the "self," and THEREFORE, IS personal, to the point of personable. And, if one has a friendly relationship to oneself, I believe, one attributes friendliness to the universe, as well. It is more Godlike to be friendly than it is to be unfriendly, IMO. And again, I honor ALL relationships to self and other. So, I honor anyone who seems, for whatever reason, "unfriendly." Their experience is just as divine as any other. My universe is so infinitely friendly that it honors unfriendliness, unconditionally, as well. Or so I like to believe, at least on my best days..

@Serotoninluv Actually, it IS a conversation I would like to have with someone. But I'm hesitant to have it with you, because I just have this feeling that you are more interested in objectifying the experience, giving it some kind of scientific significance, whereas I'm averse to that, and have a profound preference for making warm and gentle, subjective connections with ppl. I've had my fill of conversations whose primary motivation was to establish some impersonal truth. But I haven't had my fill of conversations whose primary motivation it is to establish trust, friendship and mutual affinity.

@Serotoninluv Believe me, I'm confused, too. You're a moderator. Could you please answer my questions? I've been answering yours, and, I believe, quite cooperatively. So, please help me understand. The vibe I'm getting from you is that something is very important to you, and that you are very serious about it. And it would clear up my confusion if you would help me understand why I have the impression that you are very serious about something, and therefore, afraid of something. And I'd like to know if you are indeed very serious about something, why you are, and what you might be afraid of. That is, if indeed, you are afraid of something, what is it? There's nothing wrong with being serious, IMO. There's nothing wrong with being afraid of something, IMO. So, I would hope not to give you the impression that I'm judging you. Are you judging me? And if you are, I'm OK with that, as well. But are you? So, I'm both curious and confused. Actually, mostly curious. Mostly curious. Are you OK with that?

@Bill W You are a hero, IMO, Bill W. A kind hearted, generous and warm fellow well met. Thank you! I'm going to start to end all my posts with: "Its not the meat, it's the motion."

@Serotoninluv Are you serious? If so, why? Seriously, why? Why are you serious, if indeed, you are serious?

@Serotoninluv Yes I do. When you write, "do you even know what you are comparing eye gazing to," you're taking the bait. I meant to be provocative, but playfully also, just to test to what degree there might be an element of possessive authoritarian sternness dominating the venue. When Leo stipulates that there is an element of "enlightenment" which is profoundly lighthearted, I am in complete agreement. However, my impression is that both you and Leo have yet to integrate that lightheartedness on higher, deeper and wider levels. Nevertheless, I can definitely empathize, and understand how you might be somewhat guarded and vigilant for fear that trolls and reckless neophytes might degrade the level of clarity and integrity you aspire to. I hope this diminishes any sense of irritation on your part. I find combativeness completely unnecessary. But if you see it differently, I am prepared to respect that, as well.