Tag Archives: Spiritural

Electrical Reality, Emotions, Energy, Evolution, Inner universe, Metaphysics, Ontology, Physical Life, Thought

Daily language deals with separations, divisions, and distinctions

December 15, 2015 zzzesus

To some extent our language organizes our feelings and emotions. The language of the psyche, however, has at its command many more symbols that can be combined in many more ways, say, than mere letters of an alphabet.

In daily language, objects have certain names. Obviously the names are not the objects, but symbols for them. Even these symbols, however, divide us as the perceiver from the rest of the world, which becomes objectified. We can ourselves understand far more about the nature of the psyche, for example, than we think we can. To do this, however, we must leave our daily language behind at least momentarily, and pay attention to our own feelings and imagination. Our language tells us that certain things are true, or facts, and that certain things are not. Many of our most vivid and moving feelings do not fit the facts of our language, so we disregard them.

These emotional experiences, however, often express the language of the psyche. It is not that an understanding of our psyche is beyond us: It is usually that we try to understand or experience it in one of the most difficult ways — Through the use of daily language.

The imagination belongs to the language of the psyche. For this reason it often gives experiences that conflict with the basic assumptions upon which daily language is based. Therefore the imagination is often considered suspect.

We might stand alone in our doorway, or in a field — or even on a street, surrounded by many people in a large city — look upward, suddenly struck by the great sweeping clouds above, and feel oneself a part of them. We might momentarily experience a great yearning or feel our own emotions suddenly filled with that same moving majesty, so that for an instant we and the sky seem to be one.

Mundane language tells us, as we think with its patterns, that our imagination is running away with us, for obviously we are one thing and the sky is another. Us and the sky do not equate — or as friend Spock would say: “It is not logical.” The feeling swiftly fades after bemusing us briefly. We might be spiritually refreshed, yet as a rule we would not consider the feeling to be a statement of any legitimate reality, or a representation of our psyche’s existence.

The emotions and the imagination, however, give us our closest contact with other portions of our own reality. They also liberate our intellect so that its powers are not limited by concepts it has been taught are true. Instead, such concepts are relatively true — operationally true. For example, the example, the physical laws that we are familiar with operate where we are. They are true, relatively speaking. In those terms we are one person physically objectified, staring upward in the scene just mentioned at an objectified sky. We weigh so many pounds, tilt our head at such-and-such an angle to peer upward at the skyscape, and physically speaking, we can be categorized.

In those terms the clouds could be physically measured, and shown to be so far above us — composed of, say, winds of a certain velocity, ready to pour down a precise amount of rain or whatever. Physically speaking then, obviously, we are separate from the clouds, and so in those terms our momentary experience of uniting with them would seem to be a lie — at least not factual, or “the product of our imagination.”

Instead, such an event is a direct expression of the psyche’s knowledge. It senses its quite legitimate identification with nature, exercises its mobility, and feel its own emotional power leap. Our emotions in such a case would be momentarily magnified — raised, say, to a higher power. There are multitudinous such examples that could be given, as in each day our psyche presents evidence of its own greater being — evidence that we are taught to overlook, or to dismiss because it is factual.

What is imaginary is not true: We are taught this as children. The imagination, however, brings us into connection with a different kind of truth, or a different framework in which experience can be legitimately perceived. The larger truths of the psyche exist in that dimension.

From it we choose physical facts. Thoughts are real. Only some thoughts turn into physical actions, of course. Despite distorted versions of that last statement, however, there is still obviously a distant difference, say, between the though of adultery and its physical expression.

We cannot treat thoughts and imagination in such a literal manner, nor in a large respect should we try to “guard our thoughts” as if they were herds of animals that we wanted to keep purely bred. Our thoughts do form our reality. If we do not fear them, however, they create their own balances. The psyche dwells in a reality so different from the world we usually recognize that there good and evil, as we think of them, are also seen to be as operationally or relatively true as the difference between the perceiver and the object perceived.

Dreams, Electrical Reality, Evolution, Inner universe, Metaphysics, Thought, Thoughts, Uncategorized

The existence of one person implies the existence of all others who have lived or will live.

December 9, 2015 zzzesus

Our own existence is implied therefore in everyone else’s and theirs is implied in us.

Languages gain their meaning largely from the pauses and hesitations between sounds. They obviously gain their meaning also because of the sounds not used, so that any one language also implies the existence of all others. To that extent, all other languages reside silently within any given spoken language. The same applies to language written upon a page. The written characters make sense because of their arrangement, and precisely because they are chosen over other characters that do not appear. In the same kind of manner, our focused existence is dependent upon all other existences that are not us presently. We are a part of them. We ride upon their existences, though we are primarily us and no other.

The same applies, however, to every other person. Each of them becomes a primarily focus or identity within which all others are implied. In Ordinary terms, we do not “make ourselves.” We are like a living language spoken by someone who did not originate it — the language was there for us to use. The language in this case is a molecular one that speaks our physical being. The components of that language or the earth elements that form the body were already created when we were born, as the alphabet of our particular language was waiting to be used.

Our very physical life, then, implies a “source,” a life out of which the physical one emerges, — the implied, unspoken, immaterialized, unsounded vitality that supplied the ingredients for the physical, bodily, molecular “alphabet.” Our physical life therefore implies a non-physical one. We take our particular “language” so for granted, and use it so effortlessly, that we give no thought at all to the fact that it implies other languages also, or that it gains its meaning because of inner assumptions that are never spoken, or by the use of pauses in which no sounds are made. We live our lives in the same fashion.

There are many languages, though most people speak one, or two, or three at most. Languages also have accents, each somewhat different while still maintaining the original integrity of any given language. To some extent we can learn to speak oneself with an accent, so to speak, in which case, still being oneself, we allow ourselves to take on some of the attributes of another “language.”

We can read the world in a different way, while still maintaining our own identity, or we can move into a different country of oneself that speaks our native language but with a different slant. We do this to some extent or another whenever we tune in to broadcasts to which we usually pay no attention. The news is slightly foreign, while it is still interpreted through the language that we know. We are getting a translation of reality.

The psyche, always in a state of becoming, obviously has no precise boundaries. The existence of one, implies the existence of all, and so any one given psyche comes into prominence also because of the existence of the others upon which its reality rides. One television station exists in the same manner, for if one could not be tuned into, theoretically speaking, none could.

These inner communications, reach outward in all directions. Each identity has eternal validity within the psyche’s greater reality. At one level, any person contacting his or her own psyche can theoretically contact any other psyche. Life implies death, and death implies life — that is, in the terms of our world. In those terms life is a spoken element, while death is the unspoken but still-present element “beneath,” upon which life rides. Both are equally present.

To obtain knowledge consciously other than usually available, we pay attention to the pauses, to the implied elements in language, to any felt or sensed quality upon which the recognizable experiences of life reside. There are all kind of information available to us, but it must be perceived through our own focus or identity.

All events occur at once — a difficult statement to understand. All identities occur at once also. Each event changes every other. Present ones alter past ones. Any one event implies the existence of probable events which do not “emerge,” which are not “spoken.” Physical world events therefore rest upon the existence of implied probable events. Different languages use sounds in their own peculiar manners, with their own rhythms, one emphasizing what another ignores. Other probabilities, therefore, emphasize events that are only implied in our reality, so that our physical events become the implied probable ones upon which other worlds reside.

Dreams, Evolution, Inner universe, Metaphysics, Thoughts, Uncategorized

We are part of the world, and yet we are oneself.

December 8, 2015 zzzesus

This does not confuse us, and we follow our own sense of identity without difficulty, even though we are everywhere surrounded by other individuals.

Using this as an analogy, we are a part of our psyche or our soul, dwelling within it, easily following our own sense of identity even though that psyche also contains other identities beside the one that we think of as our own. We draw sustenance from the world, and grow through its medium. We contribute our abilities and experience, helping to form the world’s civilization and culture. To some strong degree we bear the same kind of relationship to our own psyche.

Through ordinary methods of communication we are able to tell what is going on in other countries beside our own, even without traveling to them. News telecasts acquaint us with conditions around the world.

Now there are also inner “broadcasts” going on constantly — to which, however, we are not consciously attuned. These keep us in constant touch with the other portions of our own psyche. We are so a part of the world that our slightest action contributes to its reality. Our breath changes the atmosphere. Our encounters with others alter the fabrics of their lives, and the lives of those who come in contact with them.

It is easy for us to see how the cells of the body form it — that is, we understand at least the cooperative nature of the cell’s activities. An alteration on the part of one cell immediately causes changes in the others, and brings about a difference in body behavior. It is somewhat more difficult for us to understand the ways in which our own actions and those of others combine to bring about world events. On the other hand, each individual alive on the planet at any given “time.” It may seem that the individual has little power. On the other hand, each individual alive is a necessary one. It is, each of our actions is so important, contributing to the experience of others whom we do not know, that each individual is like a center about which the world revolves.

If we did not do what we did today, for example, the entire world would be in some way different.

Our acts ripple outward in ways that we do not understand, interacting with the experience of others, and hence forming world events. The most famous and the most anonymous person are connected through such a fabric, and an action seemingly small and innocuous can end up changing history as we understand it. In metaphysical terms, we have our being in our psyche or soul in somewhat the same manner. Identities are obviously psychic environments, primarily, rather than physical ones. Physical objects cannot move through each other, as a table cannot move through a chair. Mental events behave differently. They can mix and merge, move through each other while still maintaining their own focus. they can interact on psychic levels in the way that events do on physical levels, but without physical restrictions. Though we are a portion if our psyche, then, our identity is still inviolate. It will not be submerged or annihilated in a greater self. It carries a stamp — a divine mark — or its own integrity. It follows its own focus, and knows itself as itself, even while its own existence as itself may be but a portion of another “identity.”

Moreover, there is nothing to stop it from exploring this other greater identity, or moving into it, so to speak. When this happens both identities are changed. In greater terms, the psyche or soul nowhere exists as a finished product or entity. On the other hand it is always becoming, and that becoming happens on the part of each of its own portions.

Our very physical stance and existence are dependent upon portions of our psyche’s reality, or our soul’s existence, of which we are normally unaware. Those portions are also dependent upon our existence, however.

We take our breathing, our moving, for granted, though they are unconsciously produced. In certain terms, however, “at one time” we had to learn how to do these things that we are not consciously concerned with. At still other levels of reality, activities that we now consciously claim as our own have — in those same terms and from another viewpoint — become unconscious, providing a psychic history from which other identities emerge, as it seems that our own identities emerge from unconscious bodily activity.

Dreams, Electrical Reality, Evolution, Inner universe, Lessons, Metaphysics, Ontology, Physical Life, Thoughts, Uncategorized, Unknown

Almost any question that we can ask of God, can be asked of the Psyche as well.

December 4, 2015 zzzesus

It seems to us that we know ourselves, but that we take the existence of our psyche on faith. At best, it often seems that we are all that we know of our psyche, and we will complain that we do not know oneself to begin with. When we say: “I want to find myself,” we usually take it for granted that there is a completed, done, finished version of oneself that we have mislaid somewhere. When we think of finding God, we often think in the same terms.

We are “around ourselves” all the time. We are ever becoming oneself. In a manner of speaking we are “composed” of those patterns of oneself that are everywhere coming together. We cannot help but be oneself. Biologically, mentally, and spiritually we are marked as apart from all others, and no cloak of conventionally can ever hide that unutterable uniqueness. We cannot help but be ourselves.

In a way, physically we are a molecular language that communicates to others, but a language with its own peculiarities, as if speaking an accepted tongue we spoke with a biological accent that carried its own flavor and meaning.

When we ask: “What is my psyche, or my soul, or who am I?” we are seeking of course for our own meaning as apart from what we already know about oneself. In that context, God and the psyche are constantly expanding– unutterable, and always becoming.

We will question, most likely, “Becoming what?” for to us it usually seems that all motion tends toward a stat of completion of one kind or another. We think, therefore, in terms of becoming perfect, or becoming free. The word “becoming” by itself seems to leave us up in the air, so to speak, suspended without definitions. If I say: “You are becoming what you already are,” then my remark sounds meaningless, for if you already are, how can you become what is already accomplished? In larger terms, however, what we are is always vaster than our knowledge of oneself, for in physical life we cannot keep up with our own psychological and psychic activity.

In a way our bodies speak a biological language, but in those terms we are bilingual, to say the least. We deal with certain kinds of organizations. They can be equated with biological verbs, adjectives and nouns. These result in certain time sequences that can be compared to sentences, written and read from one side, say, to the other.

Pretend that our life’s experience is a page of a book that we write, read, and experience from top to bottom, left to right, sentence by sentence, paragraph by paragraph. That is the you that you know– the wold view that we understand. But other quite as legitimate “yous” may write, read, and experience the same page backwards, or read each letter downward and back up again, as we would a column of figures. Or others might mix and match the letters in entirely different fashions altogether, forming entirely different sentences. Still another, vaster you might be aware of all the different methods of experiencing that particular page, which is our life as we understand it.

We think that our own consciousness is the only logical culmination of our body’s reality. We read oneself in a certain accepted fashion. In the “entire book of life,” however, just physically speaking, there are interrelationships on adjacent levels that we do not perceive, as other portions of our own biological consciousness or biological language relate to the entire living fabric of the world. In physical terms we are alive because of substructures — psychic, spiritual, and biological — of which we have hardly any comprehension at all.

These are implied, however, in the nature of our own consciousness, which could not exist otherwise as we know it. As language gains and attains its meaning not only by what is included in it, but also by what is excluded, so our consciousness attains its stability also by exclusions.

What we are is implied in the nature of what we are not. By the same token, we are what we are because of the existence of what we are not.

We read ourselves from the top of the page to the bottom, or from what we think of as the beginning to the end. Our greater reality, however, is read in terms of intensities, so that the psyche puts us together in a different way. The psyche does not mark time. To it the intense experiences of our life exist simultaneously. In our terms they would be the psyche’s present. The psyche deals with probable events, however, so some events– perhaps some that we dreamed of but did not materialize — are quite real to the psyche. They are far more real to it than most innocuous but definite physical events, as for example yesterday morning’s breakfast.

The inner events of the psyche compose the greater experience from which physical events arrive. They cast an aura that almost magically make our life our own. Even as two people encountered precisely the same events in their lives at precisely the same time, their experiences of reality would still hardly be approximately connected.

Dreams, Electrical Reality, Evolution, Inner universe, Metaphysics, Thoughts, Uncategorized

Before the birth of images and words, the world existed in different terms.

December 3, 2015 zzzesus

Images as we consider them had not taken the form that we recognize. It seems to us that visually, for example, the natural world must be put together or perceived in a certain fashion.

Whatever our language, we perceive trees, ,mountains, people, oceans. We never see a man merge with a tree, for example. This would be considered an hallucinatory image. Our visual data are learned and interpreted so that they appear as the only possible results of those data. Inner vision can confound us, because in our mind we often see images quite clearly that we would dismiss if our eyes were open. In the terms of which we are speaking, however, the young species utilized what I have called the “inner senses” to a far greater degree than we do. Visually, early man did not perceive the physical world in the way that seems natural to us.

When a man’s and woman’s consciousness, for example, blended with that of a tree, those data, became “visual” for others to perceive. When a man’s/woman’s consciousness merged with an animal’s that blending became visual data also.

In a manner of speaking, the brain put visual information together so that the visual contents of the world were not as stationary as they are now. We have learned to be highly specific in our physical sight and interpretations. Our mental vision holds hints as to data that could be, but are not visually, physically perceived. We have trained ourselves to react to certain visual cues which trigger our mental interpretations, and to ignore other variations.

These later can be described as too subtle. Yet actually they are no more subtle than those cues we acknowledge.

Data, we say, are stored in the chromosomes, strung together in a certain fashion. Now biologically that is direct cognition. The inner senses perceive directly in the same fashion. To us, language means words. Words are always symbols for emotions or feelings, intents or desires. Direct cognition did not need the symbols. The first language, the initial language, did not involve images or words, but dealt with a free flow of directly cognitive material.

A man or woman, wondering what a tree was like, became one, and let his or her own consciousness flow into the tree. Man’s/woman’s consciousness mixed and merged with other kinds of consciousness with the great curiosity of love. A child did not simply look at an animal, but let its consciousness merge with the animal’s and so to some extent the animal looked out through the child’s eyes.

In ways most difficult to explain, man and woman “absorbed” an animal’s spirit before he/she killed it, so that the spirit of the animal merged with his or her own. In using the animal’s flesh, then, the hunter believed that he or she was giving the animal a new focus of existence. He/she could draw on the animal’s strength, and therefore were one.

Our own kind of focus emerged from such a background, so that within ourselves we contain myriad consciousnesses of which we are unaware. Through our own particular focus, the consciousnesses of the natural world merged to form a synthesis in which, for example, symphonies can emerge. We act not only for ourselves, but also for other kinds of consciousness that we have purposefully forgotten. In following our own purposes, which are ours, we also serve the purposes of others we have forgotten.

In thinking our own private thoughts, we also add to a larger psychic and mental reality of which we are part. Our language program our perceptions, and limit our communications in certain terms, as much as they facilitate it.

A musician writing a symphony, however, does not use all of the notes that are available to him. He or she chooses and discriminates. His/her discrimination is based upon his/her knowledge of the information available, however. In the same way, our languages are based upon an inner knowledge of larger available communications. The “secrets” of language are not to be found, then, in the available sounds, accents, root words or syllables, but in the rhythms between the words; the pauses and hesitations; the flow with which the words are put together, and the unsaid inferences that connect verbal and visual data.

As a species “We” sought certain kinds of experience. Individually, and as tribes or nations, we follow certain “progressions” — and yet in so doing we act also on the part of the whole of nature. We take into our bodies in transmuted form the consciousness of all the things we consume.

The consciousness then merge to perceive the world in a fashion we call our own. Through our eyes the beasts, vegetables, birds, and dust perceive the dawn and sunlight as we do — as us, and yet on the other hand our experience is our own.

To some extent it is true to say that languages emerged as we began to lose direct communication with our own experience, and with that of others. Language is therefore a substitute for direct communication. The symbols of the words stand for our own or someone else’s experience, while protecting us or them from it at the same time.

Visual data as we perceive them amount to visual language; the images perceived are like visual words. An object is presented to our visual perception so that we can safely perceive it from the outside. Objects as we see them are also symbols.

Dreams, Evolution, Inner universe, Metaphysics, Thought, Uncategorized

Channels of interrelatedness

December 1, 2015 zzzesus

Connecting all physical matter — channels through consciousness flows.

Man’s/woman’s identification with nature allowed him/her to utilize those inner channels. He/she could send his/her own consciousness swimming, so to speak, through many currents, in which other kinds of consciousness merged. The language of love is one basic language. Man/woman loved nature, identified with its many parts, and added to his/her own sense of being by joining into its power and identifying with its force.

It is not so much that “Man”/”Woman” personified the elements of nature as that he/she threw his or her personality into its elements and rode them, so to speak. Love incites the desire to know, and communicate with the beloved; so language began as man/woman tried to express his/her love for the natural world.

Initially language had nothing to do with words, and indeed verbal language emerged only when man or woman had lost a portion of his/her love, forgotten some of his or her identification with nature, so that he or she no longer understood its voice to be his/her also. In those early days man and woman possessed a gargantuan arena for the expression of his/her emotions. He or she did not symbolically rage with the storms, for example, but quite consciously identified with them to such a degree that he or she and his or her tribesman or tribeswoman merged with the wind and lightning, and became a part of the storm’ forces. They felt, and knew as well, that the storms would refresh the land, whatever their fury.

Because of such identification with nature, the death experience, as we understand it, was in no way considered an end. The mobility of consciousness was a fact of experience. The self was not considered to be stuck within the skin. The body was considered more or less like a friendly home or cave, kindly giving the self refuge but not confining it.

The language of love did not initially involve images, either. Images in the mind, as they are understood, emerged in their present form only when man or woman had, lost a portion of his or her love and identification, and forgotten how to identify with an image from its insides, and so began to view it from outside.

In a way the language of love followed molecular roots — a sort of biological alphabet, though “alphabet” is far too limiting a term.

Each natural element had its own key system that interlocked with others, forming channels through which consciousness could flow from one kind of life to another. Man and woman understood himself/herself to be a separate entity, but one that was connected to all of nature. The emotional reaches of his/her subjective life, then, lept far beyond what we think of as private experience. Each person participating fully in a storm, for example, still participated in his or her own individual way. Yet the grandeur of the emotions was allowed full sway, and the seasons of the earth and the world were jointly felt.

The language or the method of communication can best be described perhaps as direct cognition. Direct cognition is dependent upon a lover’s kind of identification, where what is known is known. At that stage no words or even images were needed. The wind outside and the breath were felt to be one and the same, so that the wind was the earth breathing out the breath that rose from the mouths of the living, spreading out through the earth’s body. Part of a man or woman went out with breath — therefore, man’s and woman’s consciousness could go wherever the wind traveled. A man or woman’s consciousness, traveling with the wind,became part of all places.

A person’s identity was private, in that man/her always knew who he/she was. He or her was so sure of his/her identity that he/she did not feel the need to protect it, so that he or her could expand his/her awareness in away now quite foreign to us.

Take the English sentence: “I observe the tree.” If the original language had words, the equivalent would be: “as a tree, I observe myself.”

Or: “Taking on my tree nature, I rest in my shade.” Or even: “From my man/woman nature, I rest in the shade of my tree nature.” A man/woman did not so much stand at the shore looking down at the water, as he/she immersed his/her consciousness within it. Man’s or woman’s initial curiosity did not involve seeing, feeling, or touching the object’s nature as much as it involved a joyful psychic exploration in which he or she plunged his or her consciousness, rather than, say, his or her foot into the stream — though he or she did both.

If that language I speak of had been verbal, man/woman never would have said: “The water flows through the valley.” Instead, the sentence would have read something like this: “Running over the rocks, my water self flows together with others in slippery union.” That translation is not the best, either. Man or woman did not designate his or her own as the only kind of consciousness by any means. He/she graciously thanked the tree the gave him or her shade, for example, and he/she understood that the tree retained its own identity even when it allowed his or her awareness to join with it.

In our terms, the use of language began as man and woman lost his/her kind of identification. I must stress, that the identification was not symbolic, but practical, daily expression. Nature spoke for man/woman and man/woman for nature.

In a manner of speaking, the noun and the verb were one. The noun did not disappear, but expressed itself as the verb.

In a kind of emotional magnification unknown to us, each person’s private emotions were given an expression and release through nature’s changes — a release that was understood, and taken for granted. In the most profound of terms, weather conditions and the emotions are still highly related. The inner conditions cause the exterior climatic changes, though of course it now seems to you that it is the other way around.

We are robbed, then, or we rob ourselves, of one of the most basic kinds of expression, since we can no longer identify ourselves with the forces of nature. Man and woman wanted to pursue a certain kind of consciousness, however. In our terms, over a period of time he/she pulled his/her awareness in, so to speak; he/she no longer identified as he/she did before, and began to view objects through the object of his own body. He or she no longer merged his or her awareness, so that he/she learned to look as a tree as one object, where before he/she would have joined with it, and perhaps viewed his/her own standing body from the tree’s vantage point. It was then the mental images became important in usual terms — for he or she had understood these before, but in a different way, from the inside out.

Now he and she began to draw and sketch, and to learn how to build images in the mind that were connected to real exterior objects in the presently accepted manner. Now he/she walked, not simply for pleasure, but to gain the information he or she wanted, to cross distances that before his/her consciousness had freely traveled. So he or she needed primitive maps and signs. Instead of using whole images he/she used partial ones, fragments of circles or lines, to represent natural objects.

He/she had always made sounds that communicate emotions, intent, and sheer exuberance. When he/she became involved with sketched or drawn images, he or she began to imitate their form with the shape of his/her lips. The “O” was perfect, and represents one of his or her initial, deliberate sounds of verbalized language.

Dreams, Electrical Reality, Evolution, Inner universe, Metaphysics, Thoughts

Consciousness is far more mobile

November 28, 2015 zzzesus

Operationally, we have focused ours primarily with the body. We cannot experience subjective behavior “from outside,” so this natural mobility of consciousness, which for example the animals have retained, is psychologically invisible to us.

We think in terms of units and definitions, so even when we consider our own consciousness we think of it as “a thing,” or a unit — an invisible something that might be held in invisible hands perhaps. Instead consciousness is a particular quality of being. Each portion of “it” contains the whole, so theoretically as far as we are concerned, we can leave our body and be in it simultaneously. We are rarely aware of such experiences because we do not believe them possible, and it seems that even consciousness, particularly when individualized, must be in one place or another.

In those early times, then, consciousness was more mobile. Identity was more democratic. In a strange fashion this does not mean that individuality was weaker. Instead it was strong enough not to accept within its confines many divergent kinds of experience. A person then, looking out into the world of trees, waters and rock, wildlife and vegetation, literally felt that he/she was looking at the larger, materialized, subjective areas of personal selfhood.

To explore that exterior world was to explore the inner one. Such a person, however, walking through the forest, also felt that he or she was also a portion of the inner life of each rock or tree, materialized. yet there was no contradiction of identities.

A man/woman might merge his/her own consciousness with a running stream, traveling in such a way for miles to explore the layout of the land. To do this he/she became part water in a kind of identification we can barely understand– but so did the water then become part of the man/woman.

We can imagine atoms and molecules forming objects with little difficulty. In the same way, however, portions of identified consciousness can also mix and merge, forming alliances.

Dreams, Evolution, Metaphysics, Thought, Uncategorized

Language of Love

November 25, 2015 zzzesus

It is almost commonplace to say that those who are in love can converse without words. Dramas and stories of all kinds have been written about the inner kind of communication that seems to take place between mother and children, sister and brother, or love and beloved.

Love itself seems to quicken the physical senses, so that even the most minute gestures attain additional significance and meaning. Myths and tales are formed in which those who love communicate, though one is dead while the other lives. The experience of love also deepens the joy of the moment, even while it seems to emphasize the briefness or morality. Though love’s expression brilliantly illuminates its instant, at the same time that momentary brilliance contains within it an intensity that defies time, and is somehow eternal.

In our world we identify as oneself only, and yet love can expand that identification to such an extent that the intimate awareness of another individual is often a significant portion of our own consciousness. We look outward at the world not only through our eyes, but also, to some extent at least, through the eyes of another. It is true to say, then, that a portion of us figuratively walks with this other person as he or she goes about separate from us in space.

All of this also applies to the animals to varying degrees. Even in animals groups, individuals are not concerned with personal survival, but with the survival of “family” members. Each individual in an animal group is aware of others’ situations. The expression of love is not confined to our own species, therefore, nor is tenderness, loyalty, or concern. Love indeed does have its own language — a basic nonverbal one with deep biological connotations. It is the initial basic language from which all others spring, for all languages’ purposes rise from those qualities natural to love’ expression — the desire to communicate, create, explore, and to join with the beloved. If you want to express your love for someone but you’re not sure what to say, search for inspirational-love-quotes-sayings, look at this site for some ideas.

Speaking historically in our terms, man and woman first identified with nature, and loved it, for he/she saw it as an extension of himself or herself even while he or she felt himself or herself a part of its expression. In exploring it he/she explored love, he/she identified also with all those portions of nature with which he/she came into contact. This love was biologically ingrained in him or her, and is even now biologically pertinent.

Physically and psychically the species is connected with all of nature. Man and woman did not live in fear, as is now supposed, nor in some idealized natural heaven. He/she lived at an intense peak of psychic and biological experience, and enjoyed a sense of creative excitement that in those terms only existed when the species was new.

Difficult to explain, for these concepts themselves exist beyond verbalization. Some seeming contradictions are bound to occur. In comparison with those times, however, children are now born ancient, for even biologically they carry with in themselves the memories of their ancestors. In those pristine ears, however, the species itself arose, in those terms, newly from the womb of timelessness into time.

In deeper terms their existence still continues, with offshoots in all directions. The world that we know is one development in time, the one that we recognize. The species actually took many other routes unknown to us, unrecorded in our history fresh creativity still emerges at that “point.” In the reckoning that we accept, the species in its infancy obviously experienced selfhood in different terms from our own. Because this experience is so alien to our present concepts, and because it predated language as we understand it, it is most difficult to describe.

Generally we experience the self as isolate from nature, and primarily enclosed within our skin. Early man/woman did not feel like an empty shell, and yet selfhood existed for him/her as much outside of the body as within it. There was a constant interaction. It is easy to say that such people could identify, say, with the trees, but an entirely different thing to try and explain what it would be like for a mother to become so a part of the tree underneath which her children played that she could keep track of them from the tree’s viewpoint, though she was herself far away.

Evolution, Metaphysics, Thoughts, Uncategorized

All love is not Sexually oriented

November 24, 2015 zzzesus

Yet love naturally seeks expression, and one such expression is through sexual activities.

Although sexual activity is just one of the many different ways that humans can express love, it is usually one of the most popular.

After all, it is, in fact, our natural fascination with human sexuality that makes adult websites such as PornHub so beloved. As well as our willingness to explore our sexuality with each other through our sexual activity with the use of sex toys and other items that you can find at stores similar to “Adult Book Shops”.

When love and sexuality are artificially divided, however, or considered as antagonistic to each other, then all kinds of problems arise. Permanent relationships become most difficult to achieve under such conditions, and often love finds little expression, while one of its most natural channels is closed off. Many children give their greatest expression of love to toys, dolls, or imaginary playmates, because so many stereotyped patterns have already limited other expressions. Their feelings toward parents become ambiguous as a result of the identification procedures thrust upon them. Love, sexuality, and play, curiously and explorative characteristics, merge in the child in a natural manner. Yet it soon learns that areas of exploration are limited even as far as its own body is concerned. The child is not free to contemplate its own parts. The body is early forbidden territory, so that he child feels it is wrong to love itself in any fashion.

Ideas of love, then, become highly distorted, and its expression also. We do not fight wars for the sake of the brotherhood of man, for example. People who are acquainted with undistorted versions of love in their relationships would find such a concept impossible. Men brought up to be ashamed of the “feminine” sides of their nature cannot be expected to love women. They will see in women instead the despised, feared, and yet charged aspects of their own reality, and behave accordingly in their relationships.

Women taught to be frightened of the “masculine” sides of their nature cannot be expected to love men, either, and the same kind of behavior results.

The so-called war of the sexes originates in the artificial divisions that we have placed about the nature of the self. The psyche’s reality is beyond such misunderstandings. Its native language usually escapes us. It is closely connected with what can be loosely called the language of love.

Dreams, Evolution, Inner universe, Metaphysics, Thought

Obsessed With Sexual Behavior

November 23, 2015 zzzesus 9 Comments

We Are Obsessed With Sexual behavior (like that found on porn videos) when we proclaim it evil or distasteful or debasing,hide it, and pretend that its is primarily “Animalistic.”

We are also obsessed with sexual behavior when we proclaim its merits in an exaggerated fashion from the marketplace. We are obsessed with sexual behavior, no wonder watch my girlfriend porn is prevalent . Our daily dose of Girlfriend porn is available at “Watch-my-gf” sex and is so popular, when we put tight, unrealistic bans upon its expression, and also when we set up just as unrealistic standards of active performance to which the normal person is expected to comply.

Sexual freedom, then, does not involve an enforced promiscuity in which young people, for example, are made to feel unnatural if their encounters with the other sex do not lead to bed. Sexual freedom is shown within dominant and submissive dynamics such as seen in “My Little Princess” this interesting article and other similar fetishes.

We begin to program sexual activity when we divorce it from love and devotion. It is very easy then for church or state to claim and attract our uncentered loyalty and love, leaving us with the expression of a sexuality stripped of its deepest meanings.

I am not saying here that any given sexual performance is “wrong,” or meaningless, or debased if it is not accompanied by the sentiments of love and devotion. Of course, there can be acts of sexual expression found on PornHub and other adult websites that don’t actually have to be meaningless, but it doesn’t have to be romantic either. Over a period of time, however, the expression of sex will follow the inclination of the heart. These inclinations will color sexual expression, then. To that degree, it is “unnatural” to have sexual desire for someone whom you dislike or look down upon. The sexual ideas of domination and submission have no part in the natural life of our species, or that of the animals. We have interpret animal behavior according to our own beliefs.

Dominance and submission have often been used in religious literature in periods when love and devotion were separated from sexuality. They became unified only through religious visions or experiences, for only God’s love was seen as “good enough” to justify a sexuality otherwise felt to be animalistic. Instead, the words “Domination” and Submission” have to do with areas of consciousness that to a certain extent was bent upon dominating nature. We considered this male in essence. The female principle then became connected with the earth and all those elements of its life over which we as a species hoped to gain power.

God, therefore, became male. The love and devotion that might otherwise be connected with the facets of nature and the female principle had to be “snacthed away from” any natural attraction to sexuality. In such a way, religion, echoing our state of consciousness, was able to harness the powers of love and use them for purposes of domination. They became state-oriented. A man’s love and devotion was a political gain. Fervor was as important as a government’s treasury, for a state could count upon the devotion of its lieutenants in the same way that many fanatics will work without money for a cause.

Some people are naturally solitary. They want to live lone lives, and are content. Most, however, have a need for ending, close relationships. These provide both a psychic and social framework for personal growth, understanding, and development. It is an easy enough matter to shout to the skies: “I love my fellow men,” when on the other hand we form no strong, enduring relationship with others. It is easy to claim an equal love for all members of the species, but love itself requires an understanding that at our level of activity is based upon intimate experience. We cannot love someone we do not know — not unless we water down the definition of love so much that it becomes meaningless.

To love someone, you must appreciate how that person differs from yourself and from others. We must hold that person in mind so that to some extent love is a kind of meditation — a loving focus upon another individual. Once you experience that kind of love we can translate it into other terms. The love itself spreads out, expands, so that we can then see others in love’s light.

Love is naturally creative and explorative — that is, we want to creatively explore the aspects of the beloved one. Even characteristics that would otherwise appear as faults attain a certain loving significance. Because these are still attributes of the beloved attains prominence over all others.

The span of a god’s love can perhaps equally hold within its vision the existences of all individuals at one time in an infinite loving glance that beholds each person, seeing each with all his or her peculiar characteristics and tendencies. Such a god’s glance would delight in each person’s difference from each other person. This would not be a blanket love, a soupy porridge of a glance in which individuality melted, but a love based on a full understanding of each individual. The emotion of love brings us closet to an understanding of the nature of All That Is. Love incites dedication, commitments. It specifies. We cannot, therefore, honestly insist that we love humanity and all people equally if we do not love one other person. If we do not love oneself, it is quite difficult to love another

Dreams, Evolution, Metaphysics, Thoughts

The Church did not restrain the sexuality of its priests

November 19, 2015 zzzesus

Or the expression of sexuality in previous centuries as much as it tried to divorce the expression of love and devotion from sexuality.

A high percentage of priests of the Middle Ages, for example, had illegitimate children. These were considered products of the weak and lustful flesh– bad enough, but considering man’s fallen state, understandable lapses. Such situations were overlooked, if not condoned, as long as a priest’s love and devotion still belonged to the Church and were not “squandered” upon the mother of such offspring.

The nuns were kept in subservient positions. Yet the nunneries also served as refugees for many women, who managed to educate themselves even under those conditions.

A good number of nuns were of course carrying the seed of those priests, and bearing children who acted as servants in monasteries, sometimes, as well as in covenants. There were numerous rebellions on the part of nuns in various convents, however, for these women found themselves operating rather efficiently though in segregated surroundings. They began to question the entire framework of the Church and their position with it. Some left in groups, particularly in France and Spain, forming their own communities.

The Church, however, never really found a suitable method of dealing with its women, or with the intuitive elements of its own beliefs. Its fear of a goddess emerging was renewed each time another apparition of Virgin appeared in one corner or another of the world.

There were also some women who passed as monks, living lives of a solitary nature and carrying on for years. No works bear their feminine names, for they used male ones. It goes without saying that lesbian and homosexual relationships flourished in such surroundings. The Church closed its eyes as long as the relationships were sexual in nature just like many of the sexual relations you’d find in shemale sex, only when love and devotion were diverted from the Church was there real concern. intellect and emotions became further divided then. This resulted of course in an overemphasis upon dogma– rules and the ritualization that had to be colorful and rich because it would be the one outlet allowed in which creativity could be handled. The Church believed that sexual experience belonged to the so-called lower or animal instincts, and so did usual human love. On the other hand, spiritual love and devotion could not be muddied by sexual expression that everyone could enjoy even lesbians, even if the church in the past didn’t always agree with this approach. So any normal strong relationship became a threat to the expression of piety.

CITY OF VANGUARD