Lacewing wrote:Ken, I very much appreciate the heartfelt energy you have put into our discussion. I think some interesting things have come up. I do find it difficult sometimes to keep straight your language. I am resistant to learning a new set of definitions... as I already find it challenging enough to express some concepts using the language I do know!
The "language" we all
individually believe, or think, we know I find is part of the trouble in being able to express clearly and correctly to others and even ourselves.
I think it will be found that I am not putting a new set of definitions to words that are generally already fully accepted and understood. But rather I am putting a new set of definitions, which may not be necessarily accepted and agreed upon, but which will still fit in with an already given definition in a generally accepted dictionary, to words that are not already fully accepted and understood, e.g., 'intelligence', 'intellect', 'love', 'Mind', 'thoughts', 'consciousness', 'awareness', etc., etc.
If a new way of looking is needed to see not just what is "behind the curtain" but to also be able to look back in front of the curtain, and thus see always
from "behind the curtain", then I think a relatively "new', but not really a new, set of definitions for our present language is needed. The way we look at any and everything and then 'see',
understand, mostly comes from language itself. Without words and language how would human beings be able to differentiate, and thus be able to understand (all) things.
Lacewing wrote:ken wrote:changing "this" way by creating a pollution-free way would be a better way to go, which would naturally "fix" what we human beings have already created, could that be agreed?
Of course, yes. A person would have to be crazy not to think so. To clarify -- and perhaps I didn't do a good enough job the first time -- I was not talking about the "fixes" WITHIN the system... WITHIN the world we know and operate in... WITHIN the dream... etc. For our discussion, I have really been focused on the idea of "all that is", "the one", "the collective", etc. being perfect ABOVE AND BEYOND what our little system/experience (here) looks like.
This is now confusing for me. When "all that is", "the one", "the collective", etc. is being mentioned I thought that would include absolutely EVERYTHING, operating as One. Would this not include the "system", i.e., this world, (we human beings think), we know and operate in, also?
Lacewing wrote:And from that larger view... the tapestry is perfection... even with all the supposed "flaws" that we might think we see. And still looking from THAT view, I fail to see why the collective could be disappointed or surprised or striving or needing in any way... so when I think that someone might be saying that, I want to question it.
I do not recall every saying that the one collective Mind was or could be disappointed or surprised or striving or needing in any way. What i have been undecided about was how much if any the one collective Mind was wanting to be heard and understood. I asked a couple of questions last reply and am waiting your responses to them to see how much, if any, the collective Mind "wants" or "needs" to be heard.
Lacewing wrote:Sometimes you seem to switch between the views, within the same description, and I get confused because they seem like different channels to me... with very different characteristics and implications.
Fully understand and agree, this is the main reason why being here in this forum. This is just another learning experience. I try to separate two different views:
The view coming from the collective of everything, which comes from the truly open Mind, is expressed from the capital I.
The view coming from the individual person, which comes from the organic functioning brain, is expressed from the little i.
If what is written, which is confusing, was repeated back and explained why it is confusing, then I could help to make it better understood or less confusing.
Lacewing wrote:ken wrote:I do not recall every saying I do not know this, thus surprised.
I was talking about the collective (not you) as I described above.
Examples would help me here a lot more.
Lacewing wrote:ken wrote:I, the One, KNOW the communication is distorted because just like if ken communicated to his wife...
I have a hard time with these examples which compare "all that is", "the one", "the collective" with these examples you use from our lives within the dream and within the system.
I am not sure why the word "dream" is used?
What is happening in the environment around the body that i am in appears to be real to me. To me 'dream' happens when the body is usually just laying still in bed and eye lids closed, generally known as sleep state. What happens in what is generally known as waking state appears real, or near enough to real, to me.
What do you mean by 'dream' and 'within the system'?
Lacewing wrote: My goal is to draw a distinction between that which we are intoxicated by (here)... and that which transcends that intoxication. Beyond our intoxication, there is -- I'm guessing -- no judgment, need, agenda, "meaning"... none of it. It is just pure being or is-ness or what might seem like "nothing" to us because we are so used to all of our noise and density.
But the two, and absolutely everything, happens within the One, generally or sometimes known as, Life or Existence.
The only distinction i found is in the way an observer looks at 'Life',
everything. I found absolutely everything is relative to the observer. Therefore, if one is looking from the individual brain, as one individual, OR, if One is looking from the collective Mind, as Thee One, then this will show or give two distinct different views.
To Me:
That which people are intoxicated by (here on earth) is 'themselves', i.e., the thoughts, feelings, beliefs, assumptions, preconceptions, etc, which are held only within one individual brain.
That which transcends that intoxication is Thee Mind.
How to draw that distinction i found was in being to 'look at', see, thoughts objectively and decide where that actual thought came from and if it was only coming from the individual or if could be agreed upon by and with everything, for the better of everything and not just some. Learning how to do that showed me how to accurately make the distinction between the two.
What i also found in the process was that 'meaning' came naturally to and for those meaningful questions like, what is the meaning of life, what is 'our', human beings, purpose for being here, why are 'we', human beings, here for, etc., etc.
Lacewing wrote:To apply our models to that which is beyond our limited world is similar to what many theists do... and it doesn't seem realistic to me at all. So I have a hard time with it. Maybe it makes sense to other people.
But remember to every generation of peoples for thousands upon thousands of years there was always a 'beyond our limited world' view, with the 'world' always obviously getting bigger and bigger or more known about.
If a person or persons assume or believe that there is a 'beyond', which is further then 'our limited world' or there is an 'unknown' perspective 'beyond what could be known', then this will affect this person or persons. Whatever is assumed or believed to be impossible and/or seen and understood to be impossible, will by its very nature, also be absolutely impossible. Everything is relative to the observer.
By the way what I want to express is a different model of looking or observing.
Generally speaking (and this is not aimed at you)...
I'm not trying to define or claim to know what "all that is", "the one", "the collective" IS... I'm trying to point to what it is SURELY NOT... because for some reason, when people try to superimpose our tiny ideas/rules/agendas on it... and even possibly personify it... that feels like a hideous distortion and delusion. I guess I shouldn't care (as I don't believe any of this is serious anyway)... and I should have more compassion for people NOT KNOWING WHAT THEY DO!
Lacewing wrote:ken wrote:I do KNOW how much My communication is being distorted.
Surely it goes the other way too, Ken -- where you might be misunderstanding what someone else is trying to communicate. I think you and I have done reasonably well... but we've both put that effort into it.
Yes totally agree, it is just more proof, to me anyway, how much more can be learned and understood by just being and remaining open to what another is saying. And, through just asking for clarification by questioning what it is the other is actually saying/meaning, then even more is learned and it is learned and understood far quicker, simpler and easier, also.
I should have added to; 'I do KNOW how much My communication is being distorted'
by the way I express through the words and language that I use. I was not trying to infer that the distortion is solely because of others. To be better understood by more people more quickly then i need to learn to express/inspire better.
But in saying that I have noticed there is still far more we need to understand from each other to gain a much better perspective of where the "other" is truly "coming from" exactly.
Lacewing wrote:ken wrote:I say 'unfortunately' just like when ken sees their son miss the bus...
Again, for me, this example does not translate to my
intended point regarding the "all that is", "the one", "the collective" -- as there surely is nothing "unfortunate" from that view.
The actual view I, Collective Mind or God or whatever else It is called, is certainly not unfortunate.
But what is unfortunate is when I, the Collective Mind or God, inspire people, for example, moses, jesus, mohammed, and absolutely every person in fact, and the actual inspiration gets taken out of context, distorted, misconstrued, misinterpreted, and then passed on through this wrong way.
Lacewing wrote:ken wrote:Just say, for example, Thee collective One...
No, no, Ken... no more new language (for me) -- this almost made my brain short-circuit. I can't help but notice that you say you want to LEARN how to communicate... and yet you are doing so much to RE-DEFINE common communication... with all the upper and lower-case letters, and quotes, etc. Most people are not going to be willing to look for the gem within the communication, if they have to struggle so much getting there. You know?I do KNOW how much.
Yes I understand.
What i want to LEARN is how to express a brand new idea. If I am not allowed to re-arrange words and/or re-define words, then the amount of "new knowledge" gained by others will not be that much at all really from what is in common communication now. The gem within the communication is not held within common communication. For example you use the word 'the one' to 'all that is' does not necessarily make a distinction between one person or one thing or one everything, whereas, i am learning new ways to express the distinction between the different things. You telling me that you do not want "more new language" is teaching me. These are the specific things I want to hear. What thoughts that are actually appearing within an individual brain, which would not necessarily be past on into words in this forum, are what I am really seeking. Those thoughts that express what is being understand AND what is not and WHY not I want to draw out.
Lacewing wrote:ken wrote:Sorry, I do not think that 'you' was directed at 'you', lancewing.
Minor point... but do you see that my name is Lacewing... not Lancewing? I haven't said anything 'til now because it's kind of cute, and I do like medieval stuff.
AND, that shows HOW MUCH the brain can actually prevent and stop something that is so blatantly obvious to others, that it is even written there before these eyes, that 'i', the thoughts within this brain could not even see it. I have even purposefully gone back a few times already to check I have read your name correctly before i have written it down.
Have you noticed by the way if i have been writing it wrongly all along or just started doing at some point?
Lacewing wrote:ken wrote:Lacewing wrote:
ALL, is part of this experience -- which (I'm guessing) is temporary, perfect, and not serious.
Why think it is temporary?
I'm saying this physical, worldly experience is temporary... for each of us. And (I'm guessing) that "all that is", "the one", "the collective" experiences through each individual's physical experience, yet is in no way defined by or limited by that.
Maybe this is where "a" confusion might be slipping in between us. I see 'ALL that is', 'the One', 'the Collective' is absolutely EVERYTHING as ONE. This includes everything physical, worldly experience from beginning to end or from always eternal and how that has been in all its ways, AND, everything non-physical from beginning till end or from eternity. The reason I use capital letters is to distinguish the ALL, as One, between an individual, of the One, a little letter is used. ken is just an individual so when i am writing from ken a little i is used. When I am writing from ALL a big I is used.
Lacewing wrote:ken wrote:I describe it as My self. Capital M referring to the Oneness of I as the little s referring to one of the many players
Okay, I'm quite sure smoke started coming out of my ears when I read this. Seriously, Ken, how can you expect/ask people to learn this language you are making up? It's too much. These concepts are hard and confusing enough to share between people of such different experiences... to then also start using a new language that no one except you resonates with.
Obviously I would, and WILL, have to explain ALL of this language before I start writing the actual story. Learning here how much this language causes confusion, or smoke to appear from ears, is great to hear, because what I could take for granted is not known until actually shown to Me.
Lacewing wrote:Here's a thought that just popped into my head... and I hope you won't be offended for me to share it with you: Could it be that you're so familiar with being misunderstood throughout your life, that you are actually perpetuating it unnecessarily even now? You know, people crave and recreate what they're used to, even when they say they suffer from it. Familiarity is more desirable for most of us than freedom. Else, why would you be creating such a convoluted set of rules and meanings that no one understands? It seems harder than it needs to be.
That is a great observation and exactly right that i could actually be perpetuating this because it feels so much more comfortable and familiar because it is actually, in one sense, all that i know. I could NEVER be offended with the truth from what others see. I thank you very very much for sharing that with us. That experience of familiarity, and lose, is also one thing I want to express and also show how and why it happens, which obviously you already are partly aware of. I think you have just pointed out another thing that I wanted to, subconsciously, prove in these writings. Actually you pointing this out, which I did not even notice here until you pointed it out, will be further and far better evidence and proof for future generations to see and understand. What I want to and WILL write and express about, which i think will be able to be proven scientifically, WILL be more and better understood through these very writings here.
One reason I not just want to, but think is necessary to, to create such a seemingly convoluted set of rules and meanings
now that no one, yet, understands is so that I can learn how to write much better, without giving the story away yet. If I can draw out of others here a way that they then very quickly can learn and fully understood what it is that I want to express, then that will be just one more way I can use in My theory/hypothesis/story or whatever else we want to name It.
Lacewing wrote:ken wrote:I would just like to question for clarity what is the reason for coming and writing here? And, what is the drive to put things into words?
For me, I think it is to have more clarity.
More clarity about what exactly? By the way all questions I ask are totally open-ended questions with absolutely no preconceived ideas or expectations at all. I am just extremely curious, by Nature.
Lacewing wrote: That's something I ask for in life every day.
What exactly are you asking for, in life every day?
Lacewing wrote:The interactions here reveal a lot about people and myself
Yes very, very true. Hopefully exactly who/what people are, and, who/what the 'my' and who/what the 'self' is in 'my/self' is also revealed and fully understood here also.
Lacewing wrote:-- and thereby inspire contemplation about how it's all connected and working.
Any idea/s of what the 'it' actually could be?
Lacewing wrote: It helps reveal "stuck ways" of thinking, it reveals self-defeating ego, I can see myself in others -- and them in me, and it is exhilarating to try to put "far-out ideas" into simple words, and to discover more about it while I do it!
This appears, to me anyway, that you are looking/searching for something, and/or, trying to express something new. Is this close at all?
Lacewing wrote: For me it is a creative unfolding of limitless potential... rather than getting too fixated on anything.
Could that 'limitless potential' be something other than the individual person on here, generally known as lacewing, and sometimes mistakenly known as lancewing? hehe
?
Could there be a limitless potential, which is unfolding creatively, from within and through lacewing and others?