The Fight for Non-Dualism
All of a sudden I have been venting on statements received from others having a lack of integrity or non-dualistic structure and of course the concomitant presence of higher consciousness, really grinding on the issue since it clearly precedes any proper recognition of higher consciousness and the eloquence and process higher states provide. There is with each higher step and degree to one's vision upward the possibility of receiving new higher influences based in higher forms of thought and truth. So, I belabor on exchanges having one aim in mind, to evoke some degree of recognition in favor of true non-dualistic possibility by demonstration.
That's good enough for a lead in on a excerpt I'm going to post here right now for demonstration taken from some lengthy correspondence on facebook today ...
Am I kidding? Maybe, are you? lol ... but really let's stay focused on non-dualism if we may. For me it is top shelf in the horizon of evolving new age twaddle, IE not the twiddle, but possibilities relating to evolution and real ascending consciousness in this work. I'm assuming your comments may lead to a substantive reveal since the page were on is dedicated to this state of being, is it not? Regardless, the difficulty of this may appropriately be understood for the outrageous comedy that has ensued from your rent. Personally, I have never seen the efficacy in crying wolf or running to mommy, acting the fool, as a strategic response which theoretically in some cases might jostle somebody out their dualistic underpinning in their world view. The style by which progress was articulated in the dualistic paradigm was in its current most hideous form something I like to refer to as the Boehner Rule. Deny Deny Deny, if you say it enough, invalidate opposition enough, this preponderance was thought to secure a properly persuaded debate on whatever. However, why don't you just take handgun and shoot me for all that's worth. The question regarding non-dualism is on the table I think correct me if I'm wrong. I'll add some more twaddle received just today by an active feminist speaking on my twaddle phone. I had questioned the aphoristic offer she had posted in much the same way I made an issue of "expect nothing" here. Her response was, "dear Robert, what ever brings you to freedom. Now. Go for it."
And again, what is so revealing in these exchanges is how my non-dualistic inquiries are never comprehended or understood and the reality of how dualistic thinking and paradigmatic thought works reveals quite mechanically, unconsciously, and without value. It's complicated but until people actually begin to observe these patterns as they become activated and processed in their moment to moment daily lives, the best I may hope for when tossing general principle on the board might be some resonation effect such as I got you from you. Entertaining as it was, I assume you won't question me if I don't pursue your responses further for their erudition or enlightenment on this subject. T'wood be nice though ROFL ... but in closing, let me just leave such responses as condescending as their patronage becomes for me for you to NOT consider worthy of such responses as they unfortunately twist up on themselves.
Gesturing, posturing, meme sorting and prioritizing, classic to all standards of polite styling are better off simply eliminated and dropped. We are not attending a tea party here and the issues are in fact lethal. The observations of integrity and authentic engagement, long ago defined such feints and game playing as essential violations to the efficacy of this dialectic, with of course the one primary authentic exception being the one genuine expression which opens that letter containing the fully innovated expressions of the next level's eloquence vetted and delivered. There is no room for stone throwing character assassinations or game playing having at its source a lack of comprehension or baseline understanding that brings a participants energy and attention online in the collective's best fashion.
It's not an easy question is it? I no quite often its much easier to indicate the absence and persistence of dichotomies which in their very measure have no means to bridge the infinite or allow man to ascend even another level in how he orders the structure of his thought. Take again what was said by a active feminist "twaddler" today as a response to me ... "dear Robert, what ever brings you to freedom. Now. Go for it."
Ahh, second thought, give me the gun so I can shoot her and put her out of her misery and mine LOL It's too late in this post to get rigorous with the mind over just how this t'woodspeak is the lock on otherwise intelligent people's lives, made possible by the core dynamic of dualism as it informs and structures thought in its own light. Being able to directly see dichotomous polarities as factual structure to dualistic thought is the first step. The second is to understand the reality of how one includes the other and the illusion Belief creates splitting that reality in a way denying arbitraraily, one side its validity using the Boehner Rule. Anyway ... that's enough from me on Non-dualism today ... not that anyone understood it or was listening. I do reserve my own feelings which always ascend in completing my own efforts with sincerity. G'day.
PS-We could pretend though and play nutball games. Conforming has always been the preferred fallback position, but only because nobody actually remembers the subtext making it necessary and useful in the first place.
PSS-I invite comments, for this conversation is far from over and I can't think of anything that would tickle me more that somebody having understood enough to extend this roll along its proper path without me doing all the work all the time. Namaste, rj