Can God love enough to endure Infinite Seperation?

[Mystica45]

@RendHeaven yes, i am an egotistical bastard. I have no problems with that. 

[Mystica45]

@Keyhole ok,but lets look at this whole thing like a scientists would... With a mind of common sense.

1) Leo claims he is the most awakened person in the world. Maybe not THE most, but he claims he is way beyond Jesus, Buddha, Mohammed, Shinzen Young, Pete Ralston, etc. (Funny enough, I knew someone who also believed to be "above" Jesus in my past... He is now in a mental hospital)

2) Every single "awake" person said Truth was SIMPLE... EXTREMELY SIMPLE (Papaji, UG Krishnamurti, J Krishnamurti, ...)

Do you see how something just doesnt add up? And again - the New Age talks about ALL of these concepts.

And no, there is a very powerful charge behind words. The fact is that you can read a sentence or remember a concept, or as you guys say "contemplate" about Love. And guess what.. after you contemplate God (or as Leo says - "the GODHEAD" - which is an idea that comes from Christianity), you will EXPERIENCE God. 

You can imagine yourself to be anything. The problem is when ppl confuse the "REAL" world with imagination. And so of course, while you are tripping out of your mind, you will FEEL like you can change the weather, heal illnesses, all of that stuff - because the "natural world doesnt exist! - right? Wrong. You just debunked yourself (i dont mean you personally)

But somehow, these ppl are NEVER able to demonstrate it.

[Member]

11 hours ago, Mystica45 said:

Yes, its subjective but what Leo is trying to do is to take away his own AND HIS FOLLOWERS' humanity by turning them into dissociated freaks of "infinite love consciousness". The fact is that biological beings empathize with each other because that's how we're wired. For whatever reason, Leo thinks "enlightenment" is about transcending the laws of nature and materialize stuff out of thin air, which he himself has proven he CANNOT DO.

That's because our minds still perceive the inside of a 3D box. Humanity will not evolve if we don't learn how to see outside the box. Call me crazy, I don't care. You're talking about impossible things that you can't do with your 3D mind. Mind needs to be upgraded, so use it. Stop acting like a bunch of retarded monkeys.

[Scholar]

So to conclude, God is limited in that it cannot create any Form which is eternal.

[Member]

45 minutes ago, Mystica45 said:

You can imagine yourself to be anything. The problem is when ppl confuse the "REAL" world with imagination. And so of course, while you are tripping out of your mind, you will FEEL like you can change the weather, heal illnesses, all of that stuff - because the "natural world doesnt exist! - right? Wrong. You just debunked yourself (i dont mean you personally)

But somehow, these ppl are NEVER able to demonstrate it.

Because they are trying to change reality with their 3D brains. Lmao.

This is your mind, use it. That being said "wake up, Neo". 4D is already here

[Mystica45]

@Keyhole did you read anything i said in the previous posts? You can keep following Leo, but i cam guarantee you, in 20 years nothing will change. You will just keep walking on the treadmill towards Woo-woo-ness

You ppl really dont want the search to come to an end. You want to give some meaning to the Univsrse when in reality there is none. 

Edit: it's absolutely hilarious how ppl have accused me of sounding like Jed McKenna. Personally, i think ppl should read his books, maybe your "spiritual bubble" will pop. Or not. I dont have a problem with ppl being delusional and keeping it for themselves. I have a problem with ppl who jave a MASSIVE audience, and spread their delusions to others

Spirituality is a business

Edited May 26, 2020 by Mystica45

[Forestluv]

@Mystica45 What you are expressing is true within the construct you have created. You can dwell within that construct or expand beyond it. 

It’s like being so immersed in the content of a movie that the observer forgets they are observing a movie scene. A transcendent view would reveal  the structure of movie making, yet this would involve letting go of personal attachment and identification to movie content. Here, you seem very attached / identified to the content of the movie you yourself are creating. In this context, it’s quite paradoxical that you claim the ability to distinguish real from imagination while you are unable to see how you are imagining what you believe to be real. 

[Someone here]

26 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

@Mystica45 What you are expressing is true within the construct you have created. You can dwell within that construct or expand beyond it. 

It’s like being so immersed in the content of a movie that the observer forgets they are observing a movie scene. A transcendent view would reveal  the structure of movie making, yet this would involve letting go of personal attachment and identification to movie content. Here, you seem very attached / identified to the content of the movie you yourself are creating. In this context, it’s quite paradoxical that you claim the ability to distinguish real from imagination while you are unable to see how you are imagining what you believe to be real. 

The thing is that all he can see is the natural world (the movie). No one can see something else nor can he see how is he constructing the natural world. That's precisely what he is disagreeing with. This identification with our bodies and the  world around us is not a privilege.. It's a chore. It's the default state that we find ourselves in.  Disidentifying with it from his pov is a mental disorder  "disassociation" and works as escapism from the" real" to the imaginary world of "love and God and woo woo BS".   What you call imaginary is real from his perspective and what you call real is imaginary from his perspective. And vice versa. I'm actually by his side at this point in my journey. That doesn't mean spirituality has nothing to offer. But like everything else when it's taken to extreme levels it can be  counter productive and work against it's own purpose.    I disagree with his rude attitude btw. That's not how to have a civil discussion. 

[Member]

You will soon see what this world is. The deception will come to an end. Be prepared.

[Forestluv]

@Someone here I’m not offering an alternative opposing view, I’m offering a meta view. 

5 hours ago, Someone here said:

The thing is that all he can see is the natural world (the movie). No one can see something else nor can he see how is he constructing the natural world. 

There is transcendent observation. This is not something that is figured out, it is something that is revealed. It is detached, unidentified observation. From a personal perspective, it can be very difficult to ‘access’ because of prior conditioning of the mind and body. Some people spend their entire lives purifying their prior conditioning to clarify this form of observation. 

5 hours ago, Someone here said:

This identification with our bodies and the  world around us is not a privilege.. It's a chore. It's the default state that we find ourselves in.  Disidentifying with it from his pov is a mental disorder  "disassociation" and works as escapism from the" real" to the imaginary world of "love and God and woo woo BS".   

We can create a place in which disidentifying with one’s POV is a method to escape from the real world to an imaginary world. I’ve experienced many forms of this myself. Again, I’m not saying that this is wrong or doesn’t exist. I’m saying that this is one room in a Grand Hotel. The question isn’t whether this room “correct” or if this room exists. The question is wether one dwells within this room or explores throughout the Grand Hotel. . . Awareness contracted within one room will perceive in opposites: “this room or not this room“. If we add in identification it becomes “my room or not my room”. If we add in attachment, all sorts of contractory mechanisms arise to maintain the state of immersion within that room.

5 hours ago, Someone here said:

What you call imaginary is real from his perspective and what you call real is imaginary from his perspective. And vice versa.

This is a key. A key that will unlock a door from one room and allow passage into another room. This greatly expands the space and potential for exploration and discovery. In terms of SD it is one of the keys to transitioning into Tier2 and understanding relativity and creation.

Within Tier1, the above statement is pretty much “that’s just your opinion”. We could then debate the merits of two opposing opinions. This is where things like ‘evidence’ come into play to support one’s opinion. There is nothing wrong with this, it is very useful in navigating life. However, it is a contracted state of awareness.

Within Tier2, there is an energetic shift and a new relationship with various perspectives arises. Ideas are now held loosely and there is no ownership of ideas. This allows space and fluidity. . . The above statement is a meta perspective. It itself is a perspective observing two other perspectives. Therefore, it is meta to the two underlying perspectives it observes. Notice how the mind tends to ground itself by identifying and owning a perspective. Here you say “I’m actually by his side at this point in my journey”. This is reflective of a mind identifying and taking ownership of a perspective. This gives the sense of personal identity and grounding, however that comes at the cost of contraction. Life is a balance of contraction and expansion, yet identification and ownership cause an imbalance toward too much contraction. This allows for a sense of sturdy grounding, yet prevents exploration and expansion. Tier2 Beingness is comfortable with ambiguity, uncertainty and paradox - Tier1 is not.

If we identify with and take ownership of a perspective, that perspective becomes true. We have just created real(ity). How can we explore reality if we have just contracted ourself within a subset of reality? Truly exploring all of reality is threatening to a mind wanting to maintain identification and ownership of a perspective because true exploration involves letting go and allowing modulations that can feel groundless and uncomfortable. In extreme cases, it can feel like dying, and in a sense it is. From an unidentified, detached meta view of the perspectives, we can observed each perspective with a fresh new view. To an explorer of consciousness, this is not threatening. It is a sense of curiosity, wonder, fascination and freedom. . . 

For example, from a disidentified meta view we can freely explore both perspectives you offer without the pressure that one must be more right than the other. We are free to observe partial truths in each perspective. There are now multiple viewpoints of each perspective available. There is no pressure that I need to be on the right side. It would be like visiting and exploring London and Paris. I am neither London nor Paris and I don’t take ownership of neither. I am beholden to no view of either city. I can freely explore each city. . . In this context, ‘disidentification’ is not an escape from reality, it allows the exploration of reality. Yet in another context, we could consider disidentification as escapism. For example, if someone is so immersed into exploring ‘imagination’ that they neglect to go to work, pay their bills or maintain their house.

One of the perspectives you offered has an interesting meaning of “disidentification” in the sense of escaping reality into the imaginary. This is an interesting construct we could explore. Or we could take another path and explore other meanings of disidentification. For example, we could create rational constructs of “disidentification” as well as meta-rational constructs. Such meta-rational constructs include rationality, yet are not limited to rationality. This is not available to all minds - just as certain yoga postures are not available to all bodies. A mind unable to access meta-rational will conflate meta-rational with irrational. For example, meta-rational views on love will appear to be irrational. As well, a mind contracted within rationality will conflate escapist forms of disidentification with meta-rational forms of disidentification. Since the mind doesn’t have access to meta-rational, it will perceive through the filters it does have access to: irrational and rational. Since meta-rational doesn’t fit it the rational category, such a mind will place meta-rational into an irrational category. In terms of SD, this is super common in Tier1 and is related to what Ken Wilbur describes as the “pre/trans fallacy”.

A further exploration of the above quote could involve the creation of imaginary and real. Notice how the above quote acknowledges the relativity of imaginary and real, depending on perspective. And notice how the mind then wants to get grounded by saying “What you call imaginary is real from his perspective. And vice versa. I agree with his perspective”. Let’s drop the ‘you’ and ‘him’ identities and ownerships for a moment. In doing so, we can observe that each perspective is both imaginary and real. We can explore the realness in imagination and the imagination in realness. We can see infinite inter-connections between imaginary and real. We can construct distinctions between imaginary and real. We can deconstruct and then reconstruct. We can deconstruct all the way down to imaginary = real. This is ‘prior’ to the first distinction and opens up a whole new realm in which the imaginary vs. real duality doesn’t even exist. For example, flow states often appear here. . . . None of these creations are ‘wrong’, they are all within Infinite Creativity. However, some creations may be more useful in certain contexts. 

[Mystica45]

"a mind unable to acess meta-rational.." 

I thought we were trying to get the rid of the mind. Spiral dynamics is also a model a lot of dualists like to stick to in order to feed their delusions. That way they can feel superior from others because they are "tier 2" and "stage turquoise". 

The reason i call it "dissociation" is because for whatever reason, you are not OK with being human. Probably because of religious brainwashing. You want to somehow transcend the laws of the universe and become a superhuman God, but actually that is what YOU want. This organism is fine the way it is

Also... God is your parents. Yup. A tough pillow to swallow, i know it was for me. When i learned that the "unconditional love" of God i felt was just me re-living the experience of my parents' unconditional love for me.. 

And it's also convenient you say everything is an illusion and therefore, your childhood is also an illusion. That way you dont have to LOOK at your life and look into your shadow side because "its an illusion anyways". In other words - you live for your "next life".. and ignore this life. THE ONLY LIFE

And dont think im trying to be rude, its just the way i communicate when im passionate about something. Dont take it personally 

 

Edit: true enlightenment is when the desire to KNOW is distinguished. You people still want to know, understand but you cant, its impossible

 

Edited May 26, 2020 by Mystica45

[montecristo]

@Mystica45why can't your relative perspective and the absolute be simultaneously true? Do they contradict somehow? I'm personally not seeing the conflict...

[Forestluv]

1 hour ago, Mystica45 said:

"a mind unable to acess meta-rational.." 

I thought we were trying to get the rid of the mind. 

This is a recontextualization. It is another room worthy of exploration, yet not the room I am pointing to. To enter this room, you would need to set down this interpretive filter.

1 hour ago, Mystica45 said:

Spiral dynamics is also a model a lot of dualists like to stick to in order to feed their delusions. That way they can feel superior from others because they are "tier 2" and "stage turquoise". 

Of course this is true within this context. Yet if you limit yourself to this context, you will not be able to see, appreciate and utilize other contexts.

1 hour ago, Mystica45 said:

The reason i call it "dissociation" is because for whatever reason, you are not OK with being human. Probably because of religious brainwashing. You want to somehow transcend the laws of the universe and become a superhuman God, but actually that is what YOU want. This organism is fine the way it is

Notice how you are creating reality right now. You have created a thing that is not OK with being human. In this story, the thing not OK with being human probably had religious brainwashing. This thing wants to transcend the laws of the universe and become a superhuman God. Yet this is just what the thing wants, the thing is fine the way it is. . . This is a very creative character you have created. This could make a good character in a book or a movie. Yet relative to my personal story and experience, it’s way off.

Notice how the mind creates a story that is consistent with the view it is attached to. Notice how you are imagining this, yet perceive it as real. You are literally making it up. 

1 hour ago, Mystica45 said:

And it's also convenient you say everything is an illusion and therefore, your childhood is also an illusion. That way you dont have to LOOK at your life and look into your shadow side because "its an illusion anyways". In other words - you live for your "next life".. and ignore this life. THE ONLY LIFE

I never said everything was an illusion. Again, you imagined that. You created that. What I said was we can create constructs of imaginary and real. We can create distinctions and inter-connections. We can explore the imaginary in real and the realness in imagination. As well, we can deconstruct all the way down to imagination = real. 

For you to have this debate within your mind, you must create an opposite side to debate. Notice the mind creating opposition. You literally created a character that has the opposite view of yours that you are debating. I am not that character. 

As well, if a mind is contracted within realness it is helpful to point it to see illusion in realness. If a mind is contracted within illusion, it is helpful to point it to see the realness in illusion. Yet they are two sides of the same coin. Ultimately, illusion is real and real is illusion. We create distinctions.

1 hour ago, Mystica45 said:

And dont think im trying to be rude, its just the way i communicate when im passionate about something. Dont take it personally 

I gave an impersonal description of mind structure. You’ve added in the personal part. 

At a personal level, mechanisms of narrative control have various energetics which include defensiveness, blaming, avoidance, righteousness and others.

1 hour ago, Mystica45 said:

true enlightenment is when the desire to KNOW is distinguished. You people still want to know, understand but you cant, its impossible

You have created an idea you call “true enlightenment” and have defined this idea. This then becomes a filter of perception. for example, if we define enlightenment as “the desire to know is extinguished”, then anyone we perceive as having a desire to know will appear unenlightened and delusional. Within this context, this is true and has value. There is a contracted dynamic of seeking knowledge as “it”. However, this is only one dynamic and if this is the mind’s only filter, it will mis-interpret other dynamics through this filter. It would be like having a red filter. Red is perceived as red, which is fine.  Yet blue, yellow, green will also be perceived through the red filter and mis-interpreted as red.

The key is that this filter you have is not “wrong”. You don’t need to prove it right or wrong. It is right in certain contexts. The problem is that this is the only filter your are processing through and you are missing a lot. To see this, you would need to set down this filter of perception, get curious and explore. Yet you seem too attached to this filter to do so at this time. If you continue to grow and expand, you will one day look back and see how you are currently contracted.

[Member]

32 minutes ago, Mystica45 said:

The reason i call it "dissociation" is because for whatever reason, you are not OK with being human. Probably because of religious brainwashing. You want to somehow transcend the laws of the universe and become a superhuman God, but actually that is what YOU want. This organism is fine the way it is

The problem is when ppl are OK with being human and don't want to change their minds, so that they can truly evolve from humans, to the enlightened (super)humans. Btw, just notice how you're using different words to describe the same thing => "everything is the way it is", "This organism is fine the way it is". You're so stuck in this herd mentality that you will never understand anything beyond this "isness"

[Nahm]

11 hours ago, Scholar said:

So to conclude, God is limited in that it cannot create any Form which is eternal.

Form is a thought, like ‘separate’. 

[Artaemis]

2 hours ago, Serotoninluv said:

@Someone here I’m not offering an alternative opposing view, I’m offering a meta view. 

There is transcendent observation. This is not something that is figured out, it is something that is revealed. It is detached, unidentified observation. From a personal perspective, it can be very difficult to ‘access’ because of prior conditioning of the mind and body. Some people spend their entire lives purifying their prior conditioning to clarify this form of observation. 

We can create a place in which disidentifying with one’s POV is a method to escape from the real world to an imaginary world. I’ve experienced many forms of this myself. Again, I’m not saying that this is wrong or doesn’t exist. I’m saying that this is one room in a Grand Hotel. The question isn’t whether this room “correct” or if this room exists. The question is wether one dwells within this room or explores throughout the Grand Hotel. . . Awareness contracted within one room will perceive in opposites: “this room or not this room“. If we add in identification it becomes “my room or not my room”. If we add in attachment, all sorts of contractory mechanisms arise to maintain the state of immersion within that room.

This is a key. A key that will unlock a door from one room and allow passage into another room. This greatly expands the space and potential for exploration and discovery. In terms of SD it is one of the keys to transitioning into Tier2 and understanding relativity and creation.

Within Tier1, the above statement is pretty much “that’s just your opinion”. We could then debate the merits of two opposing opinions. This is where things like ‘evidence’ come into play to support one’s opinion. There is nothing wrong with this, it is very useful in navigating life. However, it is a contracted state of awareness.

Within Tier2, there is an energetic shift and a new relationship with various perspectives arises. Ideas are now held loosely and there is no ownership of ideas. This allows space and fluidity. . . The above statement is a meta perspective. It itself is a perspective observing two other perspectives. Therefore, it is meta to the two underlying perspectives it observes. Notice how the mind tends to ground itself by identifying and owning a perspective. Here you say “I’m actually by his side at this point in my journey”. This is reflective of a mind identifying and taking ownership of a perspective. This gives the sense of personal identity and grounding, however that comes at the cost of contraction. Life is a balance of contraction and expansion, yet identification and ownership cause an imbalance toward too much contraction. This allows for a sense of sturdy grounding, yet prevents exploration and expansion. Tier2 Beingness is comfortable with ambiguity, uncertainty and paradox - Tier1 is not.

If we identify with and take ownership of a perspective, that perspective becomes true. We have just created real(ity). How can we explore reality if we have just contracted ourself within a subset of reality? Truly exploring all of reality is threatening to a mind wanting to maintain identification and ownership of a perspective because true exploration involves letting go and modulations that can feel groundless and uncomfortable. In extreme cases, it can feel like dying, and in a sense it is. From an unidentified, detached meta view of the perspectives, we can observed each perspective with a fresh new view. To an explorer of consciousness, this is not threatening. It is a sense of curiosity, wonder, fascination and freedom. . . 

For example, from a disidentified meta view we can freely explore both perspectives you offer without the pressure that one must be more right than the other. We are free to observe partial truths in each perspective. There are now multiple viewpoints of each perspective available. There is no pressure that I need to be on the right side. It would be like visiting and exploring London and Paris. I am neither London nor Paris and I don’t take ownership of neither. I am beholden to no view of either city. I can freely explore each city. . . In this context, ‘disidentification’ is not an escape from reality, it allows the exploration of reality. Yet in another context, we could consider disidentification as escapism. For example, if someone is so immersed into exploring ‘imagination’ that they neglect to go to work, pay their bills or maintain their house.

One of the perspectives you offered has an interesting meaning of “disidentification” in the sense of escaping reality into the imaginary. This is an interesting construct we could explore. Or we could take another path and explore other meanings of disidentification. For example, we could create rational constructs of “disidentification” as well as meta-rational constructs. Such meta-rational constructs include rationality, yet are not limited to rationality. This is not available to all minds - just as certain yoga postures are not available to all bodies. A mind unable to access meta-rational will conflate meta-rational with irrational. For example, meta-rational views on love will appear to be irrational. As well, a mind contracted within rationality will conflate escapist forms of disidentification with meta-rational forms of disidentification. Since the mind doesn’t have access to meta-rational, it will perceive through the filters it does have access to: irrational and rational. Since meta-rational doesn’t fit it the rational category, such a mind will place meta-rational into an irrational category. In terms of SD, this is super common in Tier1 and is related to what Ken Wilbur describes as the “pre/trans fallacy”.

A further exploration of the above quote could involve the creation of imaginary and real. Notice how the above quote acknowledges the relativity of imaginary and real, depending on perspective. And notice how the mind then wants to get grounded by saying “What you call imaginary is real from his perspective. And vice versa. I agree with his perspective”. Let’s drop the ‘you’ and ‘him’ identities and ownerships for a moment. In doing so, we can observe that each perspective is both imaginary and real. We can explore the realness in imagination and the imagination in realness. We can see infinite inter-connections between imaginary and real. We can construct distinctions between imaginary and real. We can deconstruct and then reconstruct. We can deconstruct all the way down to imaginary = real. This is ‘prior’ to the first distinction and opens up a whole new realm in which the imaginary vs. real duality doesn’t even exist. For example, flow states often appear here. . . . None of these creations are ‘wrong’, they are all within Infinite Creativity. However, some creations may be more useful in certain contexts. 

??♥️

Brilliant. 

[Artaemis]

@Leo Gura Leo. This is what I meant ^

[Mystica45]

@Serotoninluv you love your metaphysics dont you

[Forestluv]

13 minutes ago, Mystica45 said:

@Serotoninluv you love your metaphysics dont you

Awww, thank you. I actually work as a science teacher and consider your comment a compliment ? 

[Someone here]

8 hours ago, Serotoninluv said:

@Someone here I’m not offering an alternative opposing view, I’m offering a meta view. 

There is transcendent observation. This is not something that is figured out, it is something that is revealed. It is detached, unidentified observation. From a personal perspective, it can be very difficult to ‘access’ because of prior conditioning of the mind and body. Some people spend their entire lives purifying their prior conditioning to clarify this form of observation. 

We can create a place in which disidentifying with one’s POV is a method to escape from the real world to an imaginary world. I’ve experienced many forms of this myself. Again, I’m not saying that this is wrong or doesn’t exist. I’m saying that this is one room in a Grand Hotel. The question isn’t whether this room “correct” or if this room exists. The question is wether one dwells within this room or explores throughout the Grand Hotel. . . Awareness contracted within one room will perceive in opposites: “this room or not this room“. If we add in identification it becomes “my room or not my room”. If we add in attachment, all sorts of contractory mechanisms arise to maintain the state of immersion within that room.

This is a key. A key that will unlock a door from one room and allow passage into another room. This greatly expands the space and potential for exploration and discovery. In terms of SD it is one of the keys to transitioning into Tier2 and understanding relativity and creation.

Within Tier1, the above statement is pretty much “that’s just your opinion”. We could then debate the merits of two opposing opinions. This is where things like ‘evidence’ come into play to support one’s opinion. There is nothing wrong with this, it is very useful in navigating life. However, it is a contracted state of awareness.

Within Tier2, there is an energetic shift and a new relationship with various perspectives arises. Ideas are now held loosely and there is no ownership of ideas. This allows space and fluidity. . . The above statement is a meta perspective. It itself is a perspective observing two other perspectives. Therefore, it is meta to the two underlying perspectives it observes. Notice how the mind tends to ground itself by identifying and owning a perspective. Here you say “I’m actually by his side at this point in my journey”. This is reflective of a mind identifying and taking ownership of a perspective. This gives the sense of personal identity and grounding, however that comes at the cost of contraction. Life is a balance of contraction and expansion, yet identification and ownership cause an imbalance toward too much contraction. This allows for a sense of sturdy grounding, yet prevents exploration and expansion. Tier2 Beingness is comfortable with ambiguity, uncertainty and paradox - Tier1 is not.

If we identify with and take ownership of a perspective, that perspective becomes true. We have just created real(ity). How can we explore reality if we have just contracted ourself within a subset of reality? Truly exploring all of reality is threatening to a mind wanting to maintain identification and ownership of a perspective because true exploration involves letting go and allowing modulations that can feel groundless and uncomfortable. In extreme cases, it can feel like dying, and in a sense it is. From an unidentified, detached meta view of the perspectives, we can observed each perspective with a fresh new view. To an explorer of consciousness, this is not threatening. It is a sense of curiosity, wonder, fascination and freedom. . . 

For example, from a disidentified meta view we can freely explore both perspectives you offer without the pressure that one must be more right than the other. We are free to observe partial truths in each perspective. There are now multiple viewpoints of each perspective available. There is no pressure that I need to be on the right side. It would be like visiting and exploring London and Paris. I am neither London nor Paris and I don’t take ownership of neither. I am beholden to no view of either city. I can freely explore each city. . . In this context, ‘disidentification’ is not an escape from reality, it allows the exploration of reality. Yet in another context, we could consider disidentification as escapism. For example, if someone is so immersed into exploring ‘imagination’ that they neglect to go to work, pay their bills or maintain their house.

One of the perspectives you offered has an interesting meaning of “disidentification” in the sense of escaping reality into the imaginary. This is an interesting construct we could explore. Or we could take another path and explore other meanings of disidentification. For example, we could create rational constructs of “disidentification” as well as meta-rational constructs. Such meta-rational constructs include rationality, yet are not limited to rationality. This is not available to all minds - just as certain yoga postures are not available to all bodies. A mind unable to access meta-rational will conflate meta-rational with irrational. For example, meta-rational views on love will appear to be irrational. As well, a mind contracted within rationality will conflate escapist forms of disidentification with meta-rational forms of disidentification. Since the mind doesn’t have access to meta-rational, it will perceive through the filters it does have access to: irrational and rational. Since meta-rational doesn’t fit it the rational category, such a mind will place meta-rational into an irrational category. In terms of SD, this is super common in Tier1 and is related to what Ken Wilbur describes as the “pre/trans fallacy”.

A further exploration of the above quote could involve the creation of imaginary and real. Notice how the above quote acknowledges the relativity of imaginary and real, depending on perspective. And notice how the mind then wants to get grounded by saying “What you call imaginary is real from his perspective. And vice versa. I agree with his perspective”. Let’s drop the ‘you’ and ‘him’ identities and ownerships for a moment. In doing so, we can observe that each perspective is both imaginary and real. We can explore the realness in imagination and the imagination in realness. We can see infinite inter-connections between imaginary and real. We can construct distinctions between imaginary and real. We can deconstruct and then reconstruct. We can deconstruct all the way down to imaginary = real. This is ‘prior’ to the first distinction and opens up a whole new realm in which the imaginary vs. real duality doesn’t even exist. For example, flow states often appear here. . . . None of these creations are ‘wrong’, they are all within Infinite Creativity. However, some creations may be more useful in certain contexts. 

9 hours ago, Member said:

 

Well it's hard to respond to all this. But I will just say this.. There's no such thing as imaginary thing.  A thing is either real or it doesn't exist and that's it. 

There's different levels to this (waking state..dream.. Objects.. Thoughts.. Actuality.. Hallucinations etc.)  But all these are real. they just  are different types of phenomenon.    That's it .  I don't think I'm qualified to argue with you. But I think that fact that I just stated above is beyond arguing.  We can conceptualize all we want but I don't want to get distracted from this particular point.   You might object that I'm constructing this.. Here we are getting lost in a conceptual game.  To communicate we have to use concepts and constructs so saying that I'm constructing my reality by using concepts is somehow a smart trick to deceive from something that's so obvious and beyond concepts .  we need to step outside of the concept and look around us and see the actual thing 

 

Edited May 26, 2020 by Someone here