Finished up with Mr. John Abe's philosophical dump of sophistry. Boy's got massive visually artistic talent which he is applying to something I get the impression he is being led to do by some very powerful etheric agents which I'm afraid don't have a clue about what they're doing. Of course, my standards nearly always fail anyone's attempts to articulate their "own" truth. Two other "sages" I ran across yesterday online with their vids blah blah blah, sounding all Advaita and nondualistic like, were such crap.
There is a bit of a litmus test to discerning the strength of a speaker's message intellectually, but it's necessary to create a space for this discernment using one's emotionality or whole body felt attention, one's feeling sense. With this intuitive, most sensitive and quickest apparatus or function that we have for sensing our conscious world, the idea I'm talking here has to do with quickly PINGING the speaker's Point of View. This is in many ways analogous to sonar in the sense of our feeling a certain factor to the energy of intellect and thought being expressed. I organize the spectrum along a polarity range from Frozen to fluidly flexible. And place the zenith point for strength somewhere nearer fluid but not too far from the mean, always dependent on context obviously which will determine margins and offsets within my analogy. The idea again, has to do with having the feeling that the speaker is presenting possibility of wiggle room in their articulation such that they clearly understand that interpretations in language ALWAYS involve some margin of error, bias, and blur of attention.
Does this make sense? Because, until you can feel just how the speaker is themselves relevant to their knowledge it won't make any sense. Let me give you an example on how this shows up. If I consider myself relevant as a open possibility and ongoing and in process, with a clearly established fluidity to my boundaries in my self image and beliefs then my account of my knowledge in language is going to reflect a conscious determination of where I stand in relation to my ideas in the present, not mechanically but because the act of remembering and SEEING knowledge from its best view from the present is a sure antidote to the dangers associated to dogma and the closed mindedness that dogma represents.
So how does this work, well as I have studied and observed the process in myself, I have seen an increasing willingness to test my knowledge for wiggle room, not from the position of discerning strength of intellect in terms of relevance per se but so as to double down on my previous extensions freed from any fear of archaic dualistic thinking such as being right or getting it right. the Greater the wiggle I can include without losing the context or knowledge gestalt, my experience is the greater the fun factor and the power of my presence to stand as presence due to my knowledge having a field of possibility instead of a point of view or contention. This sets up the possibility of launching into the relationship between being present and integral thought in higher levels of consciousness, and I would essay on that note in order to explore what I can right now in the relationship between non-duality and presence but I think enough pontification has been done for one night and I will close with the simple reiteration that KNOWING non-duality supports and allows being present in the now in oneself IS A VERSION of my knowledge with almost zero wiggle room.
If you can feel that FROZEN, SET, STATIC QUALITY to the statement versus all the rest of my statements in general then you are getting some feel for what I'm intending you to get, which would make me very happy indeed. I will await your comment on that at your pleasure.
There is a bit of a litmus test to discerning the strength of a speaker's message intellectually, but it's necessary to create a space for this discernment using one's emotionality or whole body felt attention, one's feeling sense. With this intuitive, most sensitive and quickest apparatus or function that we have for sensing our conscious world, the idea I'm talking here has to do with quickly PINGING the speaker's Point of View. This is in many ways analogous to sonar in the sense of our feeling a certain factor to the energy of intellect and thought being expressed. I organize the spectrum along a polarity range from Frozen to fluidly flexible. And place the zenith point for strength somewhere nearer fluid but not too far from the mean, always dependent on context obviously which will determine margins and offsets within my analogy. The idea again, has to do with having the feeling that the speaker is presenting possibility of wiggle room in their articulation such that they clearly understand that interpretations in language ALWAYS involve some margin of error, bias, and blur of attention.
Does this make sense? Because, until you can feel just how the speaker is themselves relevant to their knowledge it won't make any sense. Let me give you an example on how this shows up. If I consider myself relevant as a open possibility and ongoing and in process, with a clearly established fluidity to my boundaries in my self image and beliefs then my account of my knowledge in language is going to reflect a conscious determination of where I stand in relation to my ideas in the present, not mechanically but because the act of remembering and SEEING knowledge from its best view from the present is a sure antidote to the dangers associated to dogma and the closed mindedness that dogma represents.
So how does this work, well as I have studied and observed the process in myself, I have seen an increasing willingness to test my knowledge for wiggle room, not from the position of discerning strength of intellect in terms of relevance per se but so as to double down on my previous extensions freed from any fear of archaic dualistic thinking such as being right or getting it right. the Greater the wiggle I can include without losing the context or knowledge gestalt, my experience is the greater the fun factor and the power of my presence to stand as presence due to my knowledge having a field of possibility instead of a point of view or contention. This sets up the possibility of launching into the relationship between being present and integral thought in higher levels of consciousness, and I would essay on that note in order to explore what I can right now in the relationship between non-duality and presence but I think enough pontification has been done for one night and I will close with the simple reiteration that KNOWING non-duality supports and allows being present in the now in oneself IS A VERSION of my knowledge with almost zero wiggle room.
If you can feel that FROZEN, SET, STATIC QUALITY to the statement versus all the rest of my statements in general then you are getting some feel for what I'm intending you to get, which would make me very happy indeed. I will await your comment on that at your pleasure.
No comments:
Post a Comment