02-13-2008, 08:37 AM
O silky one, 
But being beings of energy/luminosity doesn't/hasn't helped us transcend manipulation. The whole of sorcery is based on the fact that energy CAN be manipulated, and so can we. To think or say that we're not goes against what can simply be observed. What we are capable of and what is are two different things. What is is that we are the product/result of interference, whether we see its origins as alien or terrestrial (govt, religion, corporate, social...).
No matter. We can still move forward here. I see the "what we are capable of" viewpoint as one of a dreaming frame of mind and the "start from where you are; linear" viewpoint as a stalker's. I tend towards stalking, but I'm flexible. Certainly we are free. Unconditionally so. But from my observations, we (humankind in general) exercise our freedom by dreaming we are enslaved/imprisoned and fully believing it. Is the link ACTUALLY dusty, or do we just believe/accept/dream/agree that it is? Saying/seeing that our link is dusty is the same believing that can say/see that we're manipulated. I'd ask if you agree, but to me this is just so.
I thought the scarab was rebirth, becoming. Are these synonymous- kheperi and neteru? I guess linguistics is too encompassing to really get into that here.
I'm not sure I agree that agriculture, etc were discovered instead of taught. I don't think we created them. As I said, these visitors taught them to us. That's why they appeared so suddenly. Civilisation suddenly sprouted from nothing, not because we discovered it, but because it was given to us by others.
Did we need them just to transcend them? I'm not sure yet. I used to think so, but I've been tending to think that the intent of creation is more than just to transcend it. I now see more from wholeness and oneness, so instead of transcending we would encompass or integrate all - we already are all - infinity. So transcending is seperative and exclusive, wheras I now see inclusivity and wholeness as more true, more what is. Fractionalising ourselves from something else, which is necessary for transcendence, is not a workable path as much as a belief system. We're always dividing things, self-other. That's our prison IMO. This creates a seperate self/ego. This ego cannot be transcended. It can only be seen for what it is, and we can be seen for what we are, and then the ego is one emanation, or group of emanations, in infinity.
That is also why I don't think there is some ideal state we once had in the past, some purity that we must return to. There may have been something like that, but we're not to go backwards; we're to incorporate that and this - not transcend the world but be the "purity" in the world, maybe even evolve the world by being such a being here. But not that we would be just here, but here and all/everywhere in the blink of an eye/AP. Maybe some feel a debt to the earth, as DJ spoke of. I'm not sure. I'm not there. But that may be what I become/I'm becoming.
So, as you said, not become something else, but perceive as they do. I agree. But not that only (which would be exclusive and fractioning). We can perceive that way AND this way. We can see and look. I don't think one is ideal. That would make the world and myself just as lop-sided as it is now with looking as the "ideal" or only way.
How are we, compadre? I think we still see enough in common. Where'd universal intent go? :blink:
That's where I was going - whatever the world is IS universal intent, or it wouldn't be there. So this "evolution" must be incorporated, not removed or transcended. If universal intent was to transcend, we'd already be that. Instead, that is just an ideal/idea of the fractioned mind that always wants something else or sees some other ideal or state as better. We're always struggling to be something else.
true
But being beings of energy/luminosity doesn't/hasn't helped us transcend manipulation. The whole of sorcery is based on the fact that energy CAN be manipulated, and so can we. To think or say that we're not goes against what can simply be observed. What we are capable of and what is are two different things. What is is that we are the product/result of interference, whether we see its origins as alien or terrestrial (govt, religion, corporate, social...).
No matter. We can still move forward here. I see the "what we are capable of" viewpoint as one of a dreaming frame of mind and the "start from where you are; linear" viewpoint as a stalker's. I tend towards stalking, but I'm flexible. Certainly we are free. Unconditionally so. But from my observations, we (humankind in general) exercise our freedom by dreaming we are enslaved/imprisoned and fully believing it. Is the link ACTUALLY dusty, or do we just believe/accept/dream/agree that it is? Saying/seeing that our link is dusty is the same believing that can say/see that we're manipulated. I'd ask if you agree, but to me this is just so.
I thought the scarab was rebirth, becoming. Are these synonymous- kheperi and neteru? I guess linguistics is too encompassing to really get into that here.
I'm not sure I agree that agriculture, etc were discovered instead of taught. I don't think we created them. As I said, these visitors taught them to us. That's why they appeared so suddenly. Civilisation suddenly sprouted from nothing, not because we discovered it, but because it was given to us by others.
Did we need them just to transcend them? I'm not sure yet. I used to think so, but I've been tending to think that the intent of creation is more than just to transcend it. I now see more from wholeness and oneness, so instead of transcending we would encompass or integrate all - we already are all - infinity. So transcending is seperative and exclusive, wheras I now see inclusivity and wholeness as more true, more what is. Fractionalising ourselves from something else, which is necessary for transcendence, is not a workable path as much as a belief system. We're always dividing things, self-other. That's our prison IMO. This creates a seperate self/ego. This ego cannot be transcended. It can only be seen for what it is, and we can be seen for what we are, and then the ego is one emanation, or group of emanations, in infinity.
That is also why I don't think there is some ideal state we once had in the past, some purity that we must return to. There may have been something like that, but we're not to go backwards; we're to incorporate that and this - not transcend the world but be the "purity" in the world, maybe even evolve the world by being such a being here. But not that we would be just here, but here and all/everywhere in the blink of an eye/AP. Maybe some feel a debt to the earth, as DJ spoke of. I'm not sure. I'm not there. But that may be what I become/I'm becoming.
So, as you said, not become something else, but perceive as they do. I agree. But not that only (which would be exclusive and fractioning). We can perceive that way AND this way. We can see and look. I don't think one is ideal. That would make the world and myself just as lop-sided as it is now with looking as the "ideal" or only way.
How are we, compadre? I think we still see enough in common. Where'd universal intent go? :blink:
That's where I was going - whatever the world is IS universal intent, or it wouldn't be there. So this "evolution" must be incorporated, not removed or transcended. If universal intent was to transcend, we'd already be that. Instead, that is just an ideal/idea of the fractioned mind that always wants something else or sees some other ideal or state as better. We're always struggling to be something else.
true