Mystical experiences vs radical recontextualizations

[tsuki]

34 minutes ago, now is forever said:

@tsuki there is a difference in the understanding of women and men it‘s so obvious. that’s a concrete duality there. women are basically impersonating the mirror all the time.

you are talking to a woman aren’t you? so telling her to stop polishing mirrors is almost telling women in general to stop breathing.

@now is forever Sorry, I didn't get you the first time. 
I read some of your journal and should have made the connection with the high heels.
To me, there are no concrete dualities. The point from which I discuss these issues is impersonal.
What I'm trying to explicate is the mechanism through which ego/personality/identity perpetuates itself.
It is the mechanism in terms of which the distinction between men and women can be made and upheld.

In this sense: no, I'm not talking to a woman. Neither do I talk to a man.
The I=you=we, as I discuss it has no traits whatsoever. Nothing positively descriptive can be said about it.

I do understand however that the issue of mirror-like nature of yin is important to you and I'm not dismissing that.
I am simply clarifying my previous posts.

So, coming back to your question (taken seriously this time):

53 minutes ago, now is forever said:

why do you think women polish their mirror? 

The only answer I can give is from that impersonal perspective.
The moment that you make the distinction between a man and a woman and identify as a woman - there is nothing else to do.
Just keep polishing that mirror and if it makes you suffer, then you will have to overcome this duality by 'punching hole through it'.
To do that, you have to understand how men and women are exactly the same.
I went into the equality of yin and yang in this post:

Does this make any sense to you? 

Edited August 4, 2018 by tsuki

[tsuki]

34 minutes ago, Zweistein said:

If we contemplate, could it be true that women have some sort of "watching out that nobody gets hurt" attitude/gene/mother instinct? Does that help to understand what @now is forever means?

@Zweistein This 'gene' is a rationalization of the very nature of a woman.
We could even say that to some, the woman is defined by this gene.

The punching question is: if polishing the mirror makes a woman suffer, then is she really watching over everybody?
She can watch over everybody only in so far as she neglects her own suffering.
That in itself is a very ruthless stance towards her own being, which is a predominantly male trait.
The more she watches over everybody else, the more ruthless she has to become.
In a sense, she is every bit as ruthless as a man, but the direction of ruthlessness is different.

In this sense, there is not much difference in nature. The only difference is in direction.

[Zweistein]

13 minutes ago, tsuki said:

@Zweistein This 'gene' is a rationalization of the very nature of a woman.
We could even say that to some, the woman is defined by this gene.

The punching question is: if polishing the mirror makes a woman suffer, then is she really watching over everybody?
She can watch over everybody only in so far as she neglects her own suffering.
That in itself is a very ruthless stance towards her own being, which is a predominantly male trait.
The more she watches over everybody else, the more ruthless she has to become.
In a sense, she is every bit as ruthless as a man, but the direction of ruthlessness is different.

In this sense, there is not much difference in nature. The only difference is in direction.

You have quite some points there, that I even observed in myself.

And what happens, if we contemplate: Does polishing the mirror make anyone suffer?

[tsuki]

1 hour ago, Zweistein said:

If we=you=I contemplate, is it true that we cannot break/escape the cycle, what result would we=you=I get?

@Zweistein I'm having trouble understanding this question. From my point of view, I=you=we cannot benefit from anything, ever.
Benefit is a result of projection through beliefs. It is the dirt on the mirror.

1 hour ago, Zweistein said:

Do you wanna contemplate insights one can gain from reading the "Never-ending story"? I know it's freaky, it's a children's book. But I think it was written for the younger generation on purpose.

Sure, but I haven't read the book. It doesn't matter to me that it is a children's book.
It always fascinates me how children dressed up as adults pass secret notes to their successors.

1 hour ago, Zweistein said:

P.S. it feels to me like we are talking about the same things with different words.

Yes it does! I enjoy our conversations tremendously.
There is something common between the three of us. Is it the child, which is neither male nor female?

[tsuki]

11 minutes ago, Zweistein said:

And what happens, if we contemplate: Does polishing the mirror make anyone suffer?

@Zweistein I showed the connection between polishing of the mirror and loneliness in this post:

The question is: is loneliness suffering to you? This word is commonly associated as such.
When the mirror is clean, you may encounter I=you=we in its unity, but unity is associated with loneliness. There is nobody anymore.
When the mirror is dirty, the I=you=we is disguised by reaction to projections. Then, you experience separation, but there is also potential for connection.

So, in terms of suffering - there is a choice between loneliness and disappointment.
In terms of pleasure - there is a choice between unity and connection.

From this point of view, the question of suffering is a projection from wherever we are now.
Inspect your dirt closely - it may give you directions.
Pleasure and suffering are however something that can be overcame by short-circuiting, as explained in this post:

 

[tsuki]

5 hours ago, Feel Good said:

But in communication we can try to aim in the ballpark of "what is generally considered universal" because all ego is, is a set of constructs we loosely agree on that makes communicating easier.

For example we all known what a car is. So we should all really known that this  means "it's ok, I'm not a threat, I mean well". 

@Feel Good From what I understand, nobody agrees to anything until they do.
Everybody is free to use whatever they please, even if they do not understand consequences.

That, of course doesn't mean that they do. This is how culture is built, as a collective ego made by expectancy of the layout of buttons.
This, at the same time is the root cause of blindness and conflict, when we try to establish new rules and uphold the old ones.
That is because the only certainty can be achieved is simply by stopping listening to the other, because the message went over our head.

5 hours ago, Feel Good said:

Sometimes people can go too far into their heads with this work ^^^

It's good to balance the study meditation and a social life. I have found some of your information to be treading the bizarre territory. 

What do you mean by bizarre? This is a meditation on social life, while engaging in it.
I am reading myself in your message. Reading my projections.
It does not matter whether I do it on the forums, face to face, by watching movies, or even looking around.
Because who said that communication is established between people?
Nobody can ever say what a person is, not to mention the recipient of a message.
I talk to my cat via body language and it responds back.
And yes, it is entirely, 100% projection. Same goes for my interpretation of your message.

People from time immemorial have listened to the wisdom of the rain.
That is how deep the recognition of Absolute can be through language.

Edited August 4, 2018 by tsuki

[Zweistein]

1 hour ago, tsuki said:

@Zweistein I showed the connection between polishing of the mirror and loneliness in this post:

The question is: is loneliness suffering to you? This word is commonly associated as such.
When the mirror is clean, you may encounter I=you=we in its unity, but unity is associated with loneliness. There is nobody anymore.
When the mirror is dirty, the I=you=we is disguised by reaction to projections. Then, you experience separation, but there is also potential for connection.

So, in terms of suffering - there is a choice between loneliness and disappointment.
In terms of pleasure - there is a choice between unity and connection.

From this point of view, the question of suffering is a projection from wherever we are now.
Inspect your dirt closely - it may give you directions.
Pleasure and suffering are however something that can be overcame by short-circuiting, as explained in this post:

 

@tsuki I used to suffer quite a bit until ~1,5 years ago, since then most of my days have been filled with blissfull moments - I am simply happy to be alive after having had a hemorrhagic stroke (January 2017). Since then I was not scared about encounters with the absolute anymore, I started embracing them because I realized that as long as I can feel this kind of ultimate surrender - I'm actually alive.

I have been journaling since I was 14 years old (1992), started with shadow work 5 years ago, serious self-inquiry 2,5 years ago (Byron Katie's work), contemplation and meditation a year ago and I have been diving more seriously into my dreamworld for several weeks now. So, yes, I have been polishing my mirrors, but I guess everyone here realizes that this kind of work is not easy and one can never be 100% sure that there is no dirt left.

I definetively know that i have a choice - and I choose to embrace rather than suffer. Do I suffer from feeling lonely? No, I love being alone. That's when I can reach the most peaceful state of mind. Nowadays, it's only a tiny tiny wish to find like-minded people and if I don't find them it's ok, too. 

@tsuki How about you? 

Edited August 4, 2018 by Zweistein

[Zweistein]

1 hour ago, tsuki said:

@Zweistein I'm having trouble understanding this question. From my point of view, I=you=we cannot benefit from anything, ever.
Benefit is a result of projection through beliefs. It is the dirt on the mirror.

Let me see if I can put it into better words ...

Let's assume for a minute, we would actually all agree that the paradoxes absolute = relative and student = teacher are true. Could we then also realize that if we keep believing in these two statements (is this being 100% nihilists maybe?), chances for humanity are lower to heal by significant amounts. There are maybe a few people that are able to live a blissful life, but if they don't become teachers, nobody else benefits from what they have learned. So, if more  and more brave heros/heroines start teaching, the more efficient healing can happen, right? 

It reminds me - we wanted to discuss the connection between nihilism and learning a bit more ?

I enjoy conversations like this, too, as long as we don't get stuck - lol ?

[Zweistein]

2 hours ago, tsuki said:

@Zweistein 

Sure, but I haven't read the book. It doesn't matter to me that it is a children's book.
It always fascinates me how children dressed up as adults pass secret notes to their successors

The author of the "Never-ending story" Michael Ende didn't like how the movie turned out, btw. But yeah, i think it would be lovely - we can put our interpretations in a journal here in the journal forum.

[now is forever]

the mirror has two faces - the mirror in the neverending story is basically the mirror one has to go through to face nothingness.

but the mirror humans mostly use in psychology stands for mirror neurons. basically they are responsible for empathy, something both have but use differently. women tend to mirror themselves more then men in others, that‘s why they build more flat hierarchical systems of emotional networks. while men tend to challenge themselves for status. (think that’s not something new)

the mirror women have to go through to enlightenment therefore is drastically different than what men have to go through. women often have to realize how they are holding everything alive on a horizontal level and often not get acknowledged for it... kind of an old story. 

but their shadow often is fleeing or overly caring.

i can’t tell a lot about how men do that or why men flee, but think it has to do also with hierarchical systems they would like to step out of.

Edited August 5, 2018 by now is forever

[now is forever]

that describes it a little bit...

women seem to build their network differently so, outside is somewhat inside and inside shows outside. that’s kind of flat but serves as a model.

if men learn to embody chaotical systems they are able to think more like women do. embodiment means coaping with chaotic realities by working in them.

the question is how do women do that? it has something to do with emotions. and with joy for small things.

i‘m just starting to understand how the heart/emotions might influence the way of imprinting these memories. 

you see oneness for women feels a lot different then for men. you can also see that in symbols for the chacras and how they play a role for who. becoming completely self reliant is not really a goal for women (there might be exeptions but they usually don’t choose the lonely hut in the forest)

Edited August 4, 2018 by now is forever

[Leo Gura]

9 hours ago, tsuki said:

All language, regardless of what is being said, is a metaphor.

Yes, that's my point. That makes language relative vs absolute.

[now is forever]

12 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Yes, that's my point. That makes language relative vs absolute.

because it’s a navigation tool in the outside world. to handle objekts and describe differences, more than inclusion.

if that wasn’t nessecary there would only be one word, in english even just one letter (hehe?): i

but the first word in most languages is: mom, uma, mama, ama, anne etc.

so that’s the first we integrate in our worldview - without even knowing that we exist. so that’s an inseparable oneness that’s based on a duality/relativeness/relation.

that‘s maybe an explanation for the greater struggle of men for their individuality. because we have to separate ourselves throughout life to that oneness, in relation to the world.

and that’s from a materialistic standpoint the end of philosophy and it’s very offspring. on the significant level.

Edited August 5, 2018 by now is forever

[tsuki]

19 hours ago, tsuki said:

Nobody should ever care what anybody else meant by what they wrote.

10 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Quote

All language, regardless of what is being said, is a metaphor.

Yes, that's my point. That makes language relative vs absolute.

@Leo Gura Funny how we agree on that and proceed to draw contradicting conclusions from it.
It makes me think that there is a difference in scope of what we consider language.

To me, of course: there is English, Russian and Polish. Those are languages.
There are written languages, spoken languages and 'inner' languages in which we think.
There are also more subtle languages such as, for example, painting and music. It is much more visible in those that:

19 hours ago, tsuki said:

Nobody should ever care what anybody else meant by what they wrote.

Especially in abstract art, in which - when we don't know the context - everything we interpret is our projection.
There is still value in doing that if we want to observe ourselves and need a Rorschach blot.
There is also nothing wrong in learning the context of that art and interpreting it via this lens.
We should however acknowledge that the context is incidental in the sense that is the lens through meaning manifests itself.
When we learn the context for abstract art, we are still in a context of learning. We project that context onto the context that we learn.

Derrida famously deconstructed painting by questioning whether the frame is a context for interpretation.
To establish what I mean by language, let me carry this deconstruction out further.
Not only that the frame is the part of painting, but also the wall it is on.
The wall is the part of museum, which is a part of a city, which is a part of a country and the world.
That world is a part of cosmos, which is possibly a part of multiverse and so on.
All of that is a part of the painting through the possibility of deconstruction in relation to Materialism (which is not absolute).
All of that, the total sum of everything in relation to the painting is a subject to language to me.
From this point of view, English is a language, but so is the situation in which you are sitting in front of a computer.
We are 'reading' any situation 'as if' we were communicating.
We are projecting meaning onto this blank Rorschach blot of reality depending on the unknown context we're currently in.
It something similar to what you said in the video about deconstruction. Derrida was just a bit short of explaining nonduality.

The other movement is by recognizing that there are various possible contexts and context is always absent in a sense.
The possibility of deconstructing context is what I previously described as openness and meeting the other as neither master, nor a pupil.
By 'other' I do not only mean a person, but in this broad sense of language - even a table by which you sit.
When we meet a table as an equal, we are willing to let the table be what it is.
Not only as a place to sit by, but we let it be whatever it is. (Even firewood, or whatever else with total surrender).

This interplay of context and content is what constitutes the mind in the universal sense.
The mind between the ears may use English as a language, but the language of the universal mind is Tao.
The Ego of the brain-mind is personality, but Ego of the universal mind is more in lines of Law of Attraction.

In this sense, language is total. All of it is a metaphor because of projection.
Even if language is relativistic, there is nothing dualistic about metaphors.
The mechanism through which metaphors work is Absolute.

This absolute is present in any everyday interaction, even when we talk about trash.
That is because of inherent ambiguity of relativistic divisions.
They are like blank skeletons of meaning that we can apply at various places.
There is nothing relativistic in the movement that applies them.

[tsuki]

1 hour ago, now is forever said:

because it’s a navigation tool in the outside world. to handle objekts and describe differences, more than inclusion.

if that wasn’t nessecary there would only be one word, in english even just one letter (hehe?): i

but the first word in most languages is: mom, uma, mama, ama, anne etc.

so that’s the first we integrate in our worldview - without even knowing that we exist. so that’s an inseparable oneness that’s based on a duality/relativeness/relation.

that‘s maybe an explanation for the greater struggle of men for their individuality. because we have to separate ourselves throughout life to that oneness, in relation to the world.

and that’s from a materialistic standpoint the end of philosophy and it’s very offspring.

@now is forever You are still missing what zooming is.
First, there is no language. Then, there is language. Then, there is no language. Then, there is language...

None of these languages are the same as you zoom.
The same goes for our conversation with @Leo Gura .
First, everything is absolute. Then, everything is relative. Then, there is relative and the absolute. Then, everything is absolute. Then, everything is relative...

It is not possible to say at which point you=we=I are. 
Enlightened masters are like children. Then, they grow up.
That is the basis for respect for 'others'.
It is also the basis for recognizing I=you=we.

All we are doing now is 'synchronizing your clocks'.

Edited August 5, 2018 by tsuki

[tsuki]

15 hours ago, Zweistein said:

Let me see if I can put it into better words ...

Let's assume for a minute, we would actually all agree that the paradoxes absolute = relative and student = teacher are true. Could we then also realize that if we keep believing in these two statements (is this being 100% nihilists maybe?), chances for humanity are lower to heal by significant amounts. There are maybe a few people that are able to live a blissful life, but if they don't become teachers, nobody else benefits from what they have learned. So, if more  and more brave heros/heroines start teaching, the more efficient healing can happen, right? 

It reminds me - we wanted to discuss the connection between nihilism and learning a bit more ?

I enjoy conversations like this, too, as long as we don't get stuck - lol ?

@Zweistein I am still contemplating your question. It is very deep.
I may be able to answer it tomorrow.

[now is forever]

1 hour ago, tsuki said:

The wall is the part of museum, which is a part of a city, which is a part of a country and the world.
That world is a part of cosmos, which is possibly a part of multiverse and so on.
All of that is a part of the painting through the possibility of deconstruction in relation to Materialism (which is not absolute).

a window is a frame to the world.

a mirror is a door to the world. for us to change from one side to the other and back. both sit between two circles “8” of infinity.

Edited August 5, 2018 by now is forever

[tsuki]

44 minutes ago, now is forever said:

a window is a frame to the world.

a mirror is a door to the world. for us to change from one side to the other and back. both sit between two circles “8” of infinity.

@now is forever Is this a mirror or a boundary?:

Edited August 5, 2018 by tsuki

[now is forever]

@tsuki depends on how you perceive it. is it a door or a lake? depends also on how the other perceives it. 

(lake as in the tale of narciss)

the door can be closed from both sides, too. 

it‘s all a matter of learning and openness/acceptance if the other is part of one’s world or not. it’s still almost never a full circle. you need a realy huge mirror for that. we have something like that here... don’t we?

that’s what zweistein probably said when she was talking about small mirrors she is putting up.

Edited August 5, 2018 by now is forever

[tsuki]

2 hours ago, now is forever said:

tsuki depends on how you perceive it. is it a door or a lake? depends also on how the other perceives it. 

@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.

Edited August 5, 2018 by tsuki