Faceless

The phenomenon of fragmentation

562 posts in this topic

24 minutes ago, Faceless said:

Is not the movement of the observer-observed false division, (that which breeds fragmentation), the reason for this pre-conditioned observing. 

what do you mean with movement of the observer? because there is no individuality and no choice? or because there is no objective reality, O.o and that would mean the observer splits up the universe into fragments of universes to observe the universe in fragments, while it is all one?

but it is only all one because the observer defragmented it before if you start splitting it up again and observe the fragments you can fill in empty spots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, now is forever said:

what do you mean with movement of the observer?

The movement of the observer is the movement/response of our accumulated experience, knowledge, memory. This is the movement of thought. Built on its preconceptions. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Faceless said:

The movement of the observer is the movement/response of our accumulated experience, knowledge, memory. This is the movement of thought. Built on its preconceptions. 

Without the memory of all that, is there a you?

That conditioned movement that observes according to that conditioned content of the past. 

Edited by Faceless

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Faceless said:

The movement of the observer is the movement/response of our accumulated experience, knowledge, memory. This is the movement of thought. Built on its preconceptions. 

yeah that’s why we have to break preconceptions. by observing ourselves. 

but what is this about now? if i got it all? did you get what i was saying?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, now is forever said:

yeah that’s why we have to break preconceptions

Originally I was saying that any action positive-negative continues to fragment. To break pre-conceptions or to de-fragment still implies divided action. 

Even the motive to break pre-conceptions is a conditioned response born of this false division. It just depends on whether or not there is volition-effort-choice being applied as a means. 

 

But then form what I understood there was a misunderstanding on how fear and the entity who controls fear was really the same movement of divided action. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Faceless said:

Without the memory of all that, is there a you?

That conditioned movement that observes according to that conditioned content of the past. 

would you say someone without memory is not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, now is forever said:

by observing ourselves. 

If you mean by this not moving positively or negatively then yes, that implies the cessation of this fragmentation. 

Edited by Faceless

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, now is forever said:

would you say someone without memory is not?

Just saying that without your personal memory capacity, you wouldn’t know who you were. This movement of Indentification with thought would not be able to take place. 

Edited by Faceless

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Faceless said:

Just saying that without your personal memory capacity, you wouldn’t know who you were. This movement of Indentification with thought would not be able to take place. 

yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, now is forever said:

yes.

Excellent. I take it we are meeting? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Mikael89 I would like to understand what he talks about but I don't know if it's the way he talks or structures his sentences, but my eyes kind of just gloss over after the first few sentences and then I can never finish...  Could be ego backlash though, who knows? Could be my ADD. 

I'm sure he says some pretty profound stuff but I need someone to rephrase it for me. 


 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now would you say that fear and the self are one movement. The self implies it’s content(experience, knowledge, memory),

fear implies the self (what has been) in resistance to (what is). 

So the self clings to its experience, knowledge, memory, to evade the uncertainty of what is, by imposing what has been.

Because the self seeks security in what is recognized or familiar. 

Identification itself implies clinging to more of the same. 

Identification implies fear. The self is fear. 

Edited by Faceless

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, starsofclay said:

@Mikael89 I would like to understand what he talks about but I don't know if it's the way he talks or structures his sentences, but my eyes kind of just gloss over after the first few sentences and then I can never finish...  Could be ego backlash though, who knows? Could be my ADD. 

I'm sure he says some pretty profound stuff but I need someone to rephrase it for me. 

People use to tell me I had ADD as well. But i just wasn’t interested in learning what was being offered. 

Edited by Faceless

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Faceless said:

Now would you say that fear and the self are one movement. The self implies it’s content(experience, knowledge, memory),

fear implies the self (what has been) in resistance to (what is). 

So the self clings to its experience, knowledge, memory, to evade the uncertainty of what is, by imposing what has been.

Because the self seeks security in what is recognized or familiar. 

Identification itself implies clinging to more of the same. 

Identification implies fear. The self is fear. 

no, not entirely. i would replace identification with overidentification. and the self is an urge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The way I write here on the forum has its place. Communicating (holistic understanding) is difficult when communication (language) implies the emphasis on distinctions/duality. 

Everything I talk about can be observed as phenomenon of and as “our” experiencing. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, now is forever said:

no, not entirely. i would replace identification with overidentification. and the self is an urge.

Identification as in...

There is (seeing-perception), (contact), (sensation), then there is identification with thought that creates the image according to its accumulated content, (the past).

That is the beginning of desire, then desire (the i) is born. This is movement as the psychological entity,(the self). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Faceless said:

People use to tell me I had ADD as well. But i just wasn’t interested in learning what was being offered. 

@Mikael89@Mikael89(phone bug) 

@Faceless it's all good, I'm just from the south U. S., so I sometimes need things rephrased for me.  I would have said no offense meant but since you don't identify with ego I figured it was not needed


 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Mikael89 said:

It's exactly the same thing for me. And I don't have ADD..

🙊 

Its not that difficult. Just takes patience. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To see how everything connects as one unitary movement is quite fascinating. That alone is enough to remain patient for me. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Faceless said:

To see how everything connects as one unitary movement is quite fascinating. That alone is enough to remain patient for me. 

Perhaps we'll be integrated by then 😛


 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.