I'm counting on most not reading beyond the title of this entry post. The real story is that in men I don't find fragmentation the same way I do in Women who bitch. Men are more apt to whine or quite often resistance across the board makes the whole of them asses. The problem is just as much an issue with women but not spoken about with as much tolerance. Women don't tolerate other women or themselves speaking about fragmented women going over the top when it comes to behaving decently.
Their negativity exists in their having killed the segue in their intellect.
Non-fragmentation can mimic this condition when the woman is anti-partriarchal (every woman by default who never experienced one positive male role model growing up in life ). This leaves lacking precisely that kind of function in her being which men are gravitational at intellect. Beginning with the simple make wrong act or role in the simplest mind and ending with literary masterpieces transcending whatever genre they manifested evolution in. With the grey inbetween filled with intellect of such color along the gradient going from black and white through (infinity -1) colors.
Understanding how math relates to language for instance is a question of intellect which would never be found fragmented, assinine, asleep, bitchy, unkind, or otherwise insensitive. Actually stepping it up a level to transrational thinking, in observing how Math grew out of being an thus it's dialect might be called Being.
In the flip side of this, using words for their mathematical principles and relevant structure objectified in symbols. But words, can represent infinity in a way perhaps only a shadow at this point but something which mathematical computation breaks down when articulating the relation. The equals sign means relation however infinity = nothing in classical math which quantifies. In order to fully understand how language can communicate to a mind still ignorant that dimension of experience that relates to infinity, the shadow of words ie math, must be placed at the floor, b&W and fragmented. This involves our being as I've already suggested, when I made gender an issue for distinction. In our being, ignorance is controversial, the main issue for those a step up from being complete asleep, that rise in consciousness reflects in parallel and encompassing one's being. Leaping ahead to the point then ...
Almost a ceiling, which itself remains objective consciousness for me, being able to link parallel perspectives on present circumstances is a question I was in earlier tonight, before the pressure of corresponding became dominant.
My insights tonight were inspired by the recognition that placing spirituality before and above anything else dimensionally to one's being, removes all attachments and connections to the floor. Once one frees oneself from anykind of static relationship to themselves, one is able to know their spiritual possibilities and start actualizing their potential. One is not free however to respond to freedom by increasing one's ego.
Today, I observed myself chasing self satisfaction and saw the ego for what it was. Dreadfully seductive and the site of expectation. Such is the nature of all expectations, that they are really just one of a number of pillars holding up the ideal which was the seed of our indiviuality and the extent of our belief in it. While this could be called the Psychological dimension of our being, distinct from Spiritual, there is a fundamental principle regarding decency of behavior which correlates in the Spiritual. It is a pillar because it is much more than this or that but achieves appropriateness in relationship to present circumstances and conditions. These words all have a dynamic operational bias and that bias is relative with the balance between almost all static and all dynamic makes sense when one integrates physical correlates.
At any rate...the question right now is whether or not enlightenment which is universal and absolute can be articulated without the disclaimer regarding words having significant relativity yet in our being to succeed in that articulation?
