Karen Bisson
02-21-2002, 09:57 PM
{{{jeremy}}}
oh man you make great coffee!! lol! and you'd better put another pot
on if you're gonna make it through this novel! lol!
<blockquote type="cite">
the most
> important thing is that the "goal" or the "intent"
> of the seeker be not
> for personal glory but for the love of all.
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
but doesn't the impulse to affect a certain outcome
come from a need to impose one's will, even with the
best of intentions?
</blockquote>
hmm... i was referring to the difference between service to self
and service to others but you've posed a good question here. i would have
to ask, are you viewing this as a negative or a positive thing? my answer
would vary greatly depending on that. the crux you appear to be getting
at is the "need" to do anything at all and there are greatly varying levels
from which to respond, any of which depend on (a) if the individual is
in complete faith that the creator's will is in fact one's own, (b) it
is actually the creator's "unified" will and truly not the individual's
and/or (c) the individual is setting one's self up for another catalyst
for learning and/or (d) all of the above and any number of other positions.
<blockquote type="cite">
from the perspective of unity, is
it ever neccessary to impose a certain outcome, rather
than go with the flow and with your own higher
guidance?
</blockquote>
since you put it that way, i would say yes it is necessary or we
all would not have done it at some point or another. in so doing, we created
the catalysts for learning about our higher selves in order to attain unity.
is it necessary now? that is the real question and pertains to each individual
based on their unique level of beingness and faith in the greater entity's
intent. it is one thing to look back upon it and say it is now unnecessary
and quite another to say it was never or ever necessary.
<blockquote type="cite">
i think i need to distinguish between the
imposition of the ego and the effortless action of the
higher self. so if you cannot let go of your need for
fear and control and let the higher self guide your
actions, the best you can do is project love and let
the best outcome manifest. in essence, this is what
the higher self is doing anyway, except the more
advanced soul can allow his 3d body to "channel" the
love into a proactive, more outwardly useful form.
</blockquote>
yes. such is the progression of the evolution of the self.
<blockquote type="cite">
if you are moved in a political direction, or any
direction, it doesn't matter because the best action
to take is always the one that manifests the most
love. so if you can keep a high level of love flowing
through you, you will be able to act more in
accordance with the positive polarity. making the
choice to love rather than to judge and react is akin,
i believe, to sending love out in a situation.
</blockquote>
yes! wonderful!
<blockquote type="cite">
i got the idea of sending "undifferentiated love" to people
because ra and david had both mentioned. i think the
context in which this is mentioned is whether you
should pray for something specific for a person, the
point being it is much more powerful to simply
surround the subject in love and light and allow the
best outcome to manifest as a function of that light
and love.
</blockquote>
absolutely! to enforce one's own will or "wishes" on a person is
to create a karmic situation with them. i think you are absolutely correct.
but, if you think about it, are we not then "imposing" love and light on
them if we surround them with it? splitting hairs again, i know. but clearly
you must believe that the creator's intent is "undifferentiated" love and
light otherwise you would not suggest surrounding a person in it. if so,
then do you not have faith that your will in this regard is the creator's
will? and, is this not what this entire goal is about? to attain unity
of purpose and spirit? that said... do you now perceive that you have attained
that level of unity?
<blockquote type="cite">
it means that you are not calling the shots, but are
allowing the shots to manifest through you. this
subtlely affirms the unified will over the separate
will.
</blockquote>
mmm.... yes and no. this to me seems like a separated perspective.
consider that you are already unified... there is no "separate will"...
there never was... that all the "shots" that are being manifested through
you are already the result of a unified cause. in other words, understand
that they are for the highest good of the self and the greater self and
always were. separation is but an illusion and always was!! i get the feeling
we're chewing at the same candy stick from two different ends.
<blockquote type="cite">
> great detail. the bottom line though is that here is
> where we can get a
> sense of the overall positive or negative balance
> that currently
> prevails.
exactly. what i'm trying to do is articulate the
underlying philosophical distinction between a
positive and a negative act, as they manifest in 3d
duality reality.
</blockquote>
in other words, you are trying to understand duality from a 3d perspective.
you are trying to understand being more than yourself. i think this might
explain why the creator created the illusion of duality and why there are
so many levels of multi-dimensionality. like think about it. you are still
you, are you not? i am still me. yet, you are still part of the whole!
there is your 3d perspective! it is mind bogglingly, wonderfully, multi-dimensionally
fascinating! lol!
<blockquote type="cite">
> there is also a point in case here with respect to
> the issue of
> "control". you see, in one breath you are saying
> that you enjoy the
> challenge of rising to the occasion to show your
> stuff. (we both do of
> course)
maybe i wasn't clear. i enjoy it, but i'm afraid that
it comes from an ego-centered impulse to dominate and
"be right" sometimes.
</blockquote>
i think you've voiced the problem right there. you said you are
"afraid" that it comes from an ego centered impulse to dominate and "be
right" sometimes. ask yourself... what is it that frightens you about it?
now there's a mind-blowing question to pose on one's self. is it possible
that what we really fear is actually the lack of control we have over our
selves as opposed to the control we do have? and therefore we are afraid
of relinquishing control to a greater entity? somehow, i have a feeling
that when we resolve that issue, we will be more receptive to accepting
oneself as part of the "whole".
<blockquote type="cite">
on the other hand, there are
times where it seems that i genuinely seek wisdom
through conversation and have the search for truth
foremost in my mind rather than simply being right.
the key is to be able to tell the difference, i guess.
i think before i read that q'uo reading, i was
concerned about proving my point more than learning.
now i'm having much more fun because i'm not defending
myself so much as challenging my beliefs.
</blockquote>
oh yeah!! cheers to that!! when we do not lower our defenses, we
cannot receive. i think that's what it boils down to. when we project to
the world the truth of who we are with our hearts bared ready to receive
it without judgment, come what may, it comes in by the truckload!!
i think many people are still dealing with the pain of separation compounded
by all the trials they have placed upon themselves by the catalysts they
have invoked. as hard as it is to accept, cest la vie! i had a pretty rough
go of it in this and other life times. my family has urged me on several
occasions to write a book about my teen years. turned more than a few hairs
white on their heads i tell ya. i have to say i'm really proud of the fact
that if i ever did write about it, it would be from the positive perspective
of what i have attained from it and who i have become, and not from the
need to moan about it. but that's me and right now that's bragging. lol!
but, hey, the old ego does deserve a lil pat on the head once in a while.
lol!
<blockquote type="cite">
and believe me, the ego is still being worked on :-)
</blockquote>
and as you can see, so is mine! lol!
<blockquote type="cite">
i admit that my ego enjoys control but not that it's
in my best interest.
</blockquote>
what makes you think it's not in your best interest? i mean, if
one's ego gets a little too big, it creates a catalyst for learning. so
therefore i would say that ego is one of the best assets we've got! properly
"controlled" of course. geeze! and there's that "c" word again!
<blockquote type="cite">
i don't think it's a function of
the "level" i'm at (i don't know what to think of
that) but rather simply the fact that, sometimes i am
a channel for unity and love, sometimes i'm a channel
for separation and fear and control.
</blockquote>
i wonder if the reason you are not sure what to think of that is
because of that fear of ego. maybe this is where i can express how i perceive
that all things, including "control" can be both a positive and negative
thing. when we are in "control" of ourselves then we create a healthy channel
for unity and love. control is, in essence, another aspect of unity in
its positive sense. control, of course, can also have its negative aspects.
when we lack control or try to gain too much of it this generates fear
and separation. fear (the gift) is the instinct which causes us to take
action or take "control" of a situation. fear and control are neither positive
or negative in and of themselves. too much of anything causes an imbalance
which of course is a negative thing.
<blockquote type="cite">
i can approach this conversation, for instance, from
two angles. i can approach it as a learning excercise
or as a preaching excercise. in the latter capacity,
i am acting no better than simon. in the former
capacity, i serve as a conduit for love/light and am
learning from the raw experience instead of
manipulating to achieve some outcome (such as a
concession from you). i'm highlighting two extremes
to show how i can do both those things you are
describing "in the same breath."
</blockquote>
yes, you are seeing the multi-dimensionality of the situation at
hand. look at it, if you will, from the perspective of unity. we are each
spurring each other on, creating greater and greater catalysts for learning
from each other. everything you say to me makes me think and respond and
everything i say to you makes you think and respond. in this unified way
there is no "right" or "wrong" there is simply the unity in purpose for
attaining higher levels of understanding. "concessions" are thus no longer
a knock em down drag em out game. they become the pivotal point at which
each motion expands into a greater level of understanding for each other.
in other words, every response we offer each other is a "concession". a
gift!!
<blockquote type="cite">
> "control" has both negative
> and positive connotations, as do all things. i was
> attempting to refer
> to the more positive aspects of it.
could you elaborate here?
</blockquote>
i hope i have done that in the previous few paragraphs. if it is
still unclear please let me know and i will try to further elaborate. also,
if you read this next paragraph from my previous post as well, my point
might be clearer by now.
<blockquote type="cite">
> that is that nothing,
> absolutely nothing is inherently negative or
> positive. everything is a
> gift. it's how we use it... it is our free will
> which determines whether
> it is positive or negative.
i agree here. but i'm not sure that seeing events in
the world as devoid of polarity is beneficial to our
task of polarizing.
</blockquote>
but, but, but!!! i didn't say the events were devoid of polarity,
i said the gifts were devoid of polarity. huge difference. lol! in fact,
it is through the understanding that the gifts are devoid of polarity while
the events are not that i believe we can actually begin to see where the
task of polarizing begins. that is the point at which we can actually take
responsibility for it and only when that responsibility is in hand will
we actually have the ability to polarize it. it is, in essence, very much
the same as looking back at something you've done in your past, like say
telling a big fat lie or something, and taking responsibility for it in
order to polarize it.
<blockquote type="cite">
this is a pretty strongly held belief of mine: that
the utility of 3d existence is in it's ability to
polarize beings and that, right now, that is our chief
goal. it is polarity that determines all future
evolution through the higher densities, according to
my understanding.
</blockquote>
oh yes... you're quite right here. 3d is certainly the best place
to be doing it too..
<blockquote type="cite">
> you see... the
> creator is neither positive or negative... this is
> the message which is
> constantly being relayed to us. i believe the spark
> that is free will is
> another one of those pivotal points we talked about
> yesterday.
how you define the will is crucial. we need to talk
with some common terms here.
</blockquote>
what, specifically, are you asking here?
<blockquote type="cite">
your theory certainly makes sense to me. i think we
just need to decide what constitues positive versus
negative use of will. since we're all on the positive
path, we can use this conversation as a catalyst to a
more precise understanding of what it is towards which
we're striving.
</blockquote>
"will" is neither positive or negative either. will is a gift and,
as you said, it is the "use" of it which "becomes" positive or negative.
that "becomes" thing is the key point to remember. the real mind blower
crux of it is that, technically speaking, there is no positive or negative
"use" of will. all use of will creates a catalyst for learning. now, if
you consider that all catalysts for learning are positive things, then
in essence you could say that all uses of will are a positive thing. that
is a very "unified" way of perceiving it. what it boils down to is that
you simply cannot claim what constitutes as a positive or negative use
of will. as hard as that may be for us to understand it is much easier
to accept when you understand that it is intent which determines a positive
or negative experience, not will.
so, the real question is, do we want a positive or negative experience?
in other words, what is our intent? that is determined by what we need
and that, i believe, stems back to our earlier discussion here about "allowing
the shots to manifest through you."
so, in essence, in order to learn and gain "control" over ourselves
and therefore become unified, we must first learn to determine our intent
for a positive or negative experience. and i think that's really all it
boils down to. i look at this experience with you as a positive experience,
for example. we both had the "positive" intent to achieve a "positive"
experience from this and look how far we've come! we've just proven that
it does not take a negative experience or negative catalyst to attain higher
levels of learning if the intent is to attain it through a positive experience.
woohoo!
<blockquote type="cite">
> > i think you're right, as long as we decide what
> > "changing the external world" means.
> now that is something that must be decided by the
> individual for that is
> the very reason and basis upon which we were given
> free will.
right, i agree; it must be decided by the individual.
the key is not the decision but the capacity in which
it is made.
</blockquote>
see... you said it! "the key is not the decision, but the capacity
in which it is made".
<blockquote type="cite">
does the individual seek to serve self or
others? if the person is changing the world to have
it conform to it's will, then i'd consider that
negative.
</blockquote>
well, seeing it as entirely negative is sort of a fragmented perspective.
try to view it from a unified perspective. the illusion of right and wrong
dissolves like alka seltzer in a glass of water. however, this spirals
out into another whole discussion and in the interest of at least attempting
to keep this short (she says rolling on the floor laughing at the very
idea of even trying to keep this entire conversation short) let's consider
that you're right... it is a negative experience for you the individual
since you are clearly stating that that person's will does not conform
to your own. think about that now. so, what do you do? you say you
choose a positive experience. and how do you do that? by "controlling"
the situation... in other words you attempt to control the will of the
individual who seeks the world to conform to his or her own will. bit of
a brain twister there isn't it? i know my poor old noggin is startin ta
smoke. lol!
<blockquote type="cite">
if the person is changing the world by
seeing the world as self and loving it, then i'd
consider that positive. where it looks like we differ
is when a person seeks to love the world as self by
manipulating it according to his/her will.
</blockquote>
is there a difference though? really. when it boils down to it.
because what you may perceive as negative for you, may be positive for
someone else. from what i understand, the whole purpose of polarizing at
this time is to come to a unified state. no one ever said it would be easy.
i think the thing we need in order to unify is a unified intent to all
attain a positive experience at the same time. but what the heck do i know.
maybe this is where you get to boost the engine for a bit. lol!
<blockquote type="cite">
> i believe that any cycle ends when the manifestation
> of its purpose is
> complete. therefore there really isn't any "time"
> limit on it other than
> the one it eventually creates for itself by having
> completed itself.
ok, i can accept that, but i don't think that the
local 3d inhabitants of the sector of the universe
experiencing the cycle's end are the only determinants
of cycle completion.
</blockquote>
no i don't think so either because we are part of a much greater
"whole".
<blockquote type="cite">
> a
> flower, for example, has a purpose... it has a "time
> frame" in which it
> takes to grow and then die. that time frame is
> different from say a
> human from birth to death. both had to complete
> their own cycle before
> the "time frame" could be determined.
my first impulse is to reject that explanation in
favor of the harmonic principle that is bringing the
cycle to a close whether we are ready or not. i don't
think the flower/human example is a good analogy for
the 75,000 year cycle that is drawing to a close soon
- i think it's a good analogy for the timetable of
ascension for each entity. in that, the personal
cycle draws to completion when a change in form or
experience occurs (like ascension) but there are also
cycles in the environment for such experience that
serve to enhance and facilitate such personal cycles
(like the 75,000 year cycle). there's more going on
in the universe than our local 3d soap opera. :-)
</blockquote>
oh yeah. absolutely. and that's a really good point.
<blockquote type="cite">
> changes. if we ask for that catalyst, it will occur.
does that asking neccessarily have to be the
concscious request of individual entities or could it
be the collective consciousness of the creator that
grows according to cycles that are larger in scope
than our progress at the individual level?
</blockquote>
oh it's definitely the collective consciousness in this regard.
which goes back to the point about why it is as important to work on the
inner world as it is the outer world.
<blockquote type="cite">
the form that such an event takes is a secondary consideration
to the purpose of the event, right?
</blockquote>
true. which is why it is important to determine whether it will
be a positive or negative experience because it's gonna happen anyway!!!
<blockquote type="cite">
of course; we're not talking about discrete events
neccessarily, since the harmonic nature of the cycle
implies a fractal nature as well. it is happening on
a wide variety of levels in a wide variety of degrees.
i think time is sometimes a distorting influence in
understanding the cycle.
</blockquote>
yes i agree. time is kinda like the lens in the creator's bi-focals.
from our perspective, it's rather distorted, from his/her perspective it's
perfectly clear! lol!
<blockquote type="cite">
well, ultimately i agree. but just because a person
chooses not to progress to 3d doesn't mean that
everything will neccessarily stay the same. actions
do have consequences.
</blockquote>
nothing ever stays the same. in fact, the only thing constant is
change itself.
<blockquote type="cite">
> still, those concepts
> are the basis upon which my current beliefs have
> grown.
throw me that url again?
</blockquote>
http://www.monisys.com/~kbisson/hippocrates.html
<blockquote type="cite">
you are probably a wanderer, since your desire to not
learn these lessons again "the hard way" signifies
that you know what the right materials are; you're
just trying to remember what they are!
</blockquote>
yep. i know i am. and you got that right about me not wanting to
do it the hard way again!!
<blockquote type="cite">
> we, as in humanity,
> haven't done a very good job of that so far.
no, but our freedom to screw up so often has also been
a gift, too, i guess.
</blockquote>
yes, it is. a most humbling one.
<blockquote type="cite">
i perceive
> the creator as
> being my dearest friend and confidant and i treat
> he/she as such.
maybe this is the real difference between us. the
more i study metaphysics, the farther i get from the
concept of a "personal" god per se.
</blockquote>
hmm... that 's funny. the more i study, the closer i feel i get.
but i don't perceive the creator as separate from me nor do i perceive
myself as separate from the creator which encompasses all. maybe that's
the difference.
<blockquote type="cite">
> if
> one believes in an
> outcome manifested by love then that is the outcome
> one will achieve.
well, this is releasing the manifestation from the
conscious control to the unified consciousness
control. i wasn't considering the concept of choice
as a neccessary part of control; control over the self
is a given... control over otherselves is where
polarity plays a part. to release those aspects of
the self (otherselves) that seem least controllable is
the ultimate act of faith in love and unity.
</blockquote>
yes... you hit the nail on the head. if we all have faith that we
all want a positive experience for ourselves and our self as a unified
whole, then letting go and having faith that that intent will manifest
itself is what it's all about.
<blockquote type="cite">
it's not so much to extract oneself from all outcome
as to accept within oneself all outcome. maybe i
should have been clearer... accept the currents as
catalyst and see what you are being shown, instead of
imposing an ego-based agenda upon your world. the
more you concentrate on dictating to the world, the
less likely you are to listen to what it is trying to
teach you.
</blockquote>
oh yeah! ya got that right brother! there is a balance that
needs to be attained. kinda what i like to think we're doing here as we
continue to bounce stuff off each other, each progressively adding more
positively to the last. we've come eons in the space of a few days by utilizing
what we know, with what the world is presenting to us through each other
and the world around us. much better than trying to control the world with
a limited view point that ends up getting stuck in no where land.
<blockquote type="cite">
> the thing is, if you believe that you are a
> manifestation of the creator's
> desire and will to experience itself, then why would
> you want to do
> that?
to demonstrate and reinforce the collective,
god-consciousness over the individual
ego-consciousness.
</blockquote>
okay... from that perspective you're dead right. lol! but i think
what i was trying to say is that we must honour the gifts we've been given.
all of them. in doing so we honour ourselves as well as our greater self
thereby honouring the whole. i think i was thinking more along the lines
of the lemming thing again where people don't utilize the gifts they've
been given and leave it up to someone else to do it for them. if everyone
were to do that then from my limited perspective i think the "stream" would
simply cease to exist. that "spark" of will that exists within each of
us is that part of us that belongs to the creator and needs be honoured
as such. we must stop looking "down" on ourselves and become the "higher"
self. and i mean that statement in all its connotations.
<blockquote type="cite">
i agree that free will is a gift, but i think we
interpret free will differently. let me offer this
excerpt from "a course in miracles" that might explain
better where i'm coming from.
"it [the course, but think catalyst] is a required
course. only the time you take it is voluntary. free
will does not mean that you can establish the
curriculum. it means only that you can elect what you
want to take at a given time."
</blockquote>
mmm... i don't think our interpretation is all that different after
all. <grin>
<blockquote type="cite">
> but, as i said, the creator exists everywhere
> including outside and
> inside of time... therefore patience is a gift.
it is a gift if you conceive of yourself as separate
from the creator, i.e. within time.
</blockquote>
hmm... you have a point from that perspective. but just think where
we'd be right now without patience. i still think it's just a gift any
old way you look at it. besides, you keep seeing time as a separate thing.
i don't. i think it's part of the parcel.
<blockquote type="cite">
> time
> as we conceive it,
> does not exist... but in a way it does for we need
> it to understand the
> nature of how events unfold and therefor understand
> the nature of
> ourselves. therefore... could the same not be said
> for the greater
> entity itself?
yes, but not in a unified sense, only in the sense
that the creator is the sum of the seemingly separate
and time-involved individual parts. separation
implies time, unity implies timelessness.
</blockquote>
agreed!!
<blockquote type="cite">
i absolutely agree, time is a tool. however, it is
only neccessary when there is something for which it
can be utilized, in this case for the journey back to
unity. it is unneccessary once in unity.
</blockquote>
hey!... this is the point i was just thinking to make! lol!!!
<blockquote type="cite">
yeah, but i guess my conception of the phenomenon was
that the creator can reap the rewards of temporal
experience while seeing through it's illusory nature.
</blockquote>
there's no buts about it! at least from my perspective.
whew! good grief! i can't believe how long these e-mails are getting! this has been
enormously fun but rather exhausting. i usually respond to these emails in the morning
when i'm bright-eyed and bushy tailed but since i was able to get the group replies
this evening i now find myself here and it's well after midnight!! lol!
tons of love & light and thanks again for this wonderful experience!
karen
oh man you make great coffee!! lol! and you'd better put another pot
on if you're gonna make it through this novel! lol!
<blockquote type="cite">
the most
> important thing is that the "goal" or the "intent"
> of the seeker be not
> for personal glory but for the love of all.
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
but doesn't the impulse to affect a certain outcome
come from a need to impose one's will, even with the
best of intentions?
</blockquote>
hmm... i was referring to the difference between service to self
and service to others but you've posed a good question here. i would have
to ask, are you viewing this as a negative or a positive thing? my answer
would vary greatly depending on that. the crux you appear to be getting
at is the "need" to do anything at all and there are greatly varying levels
from which to respond, any of which depend on (a) if the individual is
in complete faith that the creator's will is in fact one's own, (b) it
is actually the creator's "unified" will and truly not the individual's
and/or (c) the individual is setting one's self up for another catalyst
for learning and/or (d) all of the above and any number of other positions.
<blockquote type="cite">
from the perspective of unity, is
it ever neccessary to impose a certain outcome, rather
than go with the flow and with your own higher
guidance?
</blockquote>
since you put it that way, i would say yes it is necessary or we
all would not have done it at some point or another. in so doing, we created
the catalysts for learning about our higher selves in order to attain unity.
is it necessary now? that is the real question and pertains to each individual
based on their unique level of beingness and faith in the greater entity's
intent. it is one thing to look back upon it and say it is now unnecessary
and quite another to say it was never or ever necessary.
<blockquote type="cite">
i think i need to distinguish between the
imposition of the ego and the effortless action of the
higher self. so if you cannot let go of your need for
fear and control and let the higher self guide your
actions, the best you can do is project love and let
the best outcome manifest. in essence, this is what
the higher self is doing anyway, except the more
advanced soul can allow his 3d body to "channel" the
love into a proactive, more outwardly useful form.
</blockquote>
yes. such is the progression of the evolution of the self.
<blockquote type="cite">
if you are moved in a political direction, or any
direction, it doesn't matter because the best action
to take is always the one that manifests the most
love. so if you can keep a high level of love flowing
through you, you will be able to act more in
accordance with the positive polarity. making the
choice to love rather than to judge and react is akin,
i believe, to sending love out in a situation.
</blockquote>
yes! wonderful!
<blockquote type="cite">
i got the idea of sending "undifferentiated love" to people
because ra and david had both mentioned. i think the
context in which this is mentioned is whether you
should pray for something specific for a person, the
point being it is much more powerful to simply
surround the subject in love and light and allow the
best outcome to manifest as a function of that light
and love.
</blockquote>
absolutely! to enforce one's own will or "wishes" on a person is
to create a karmic situation with them. i think you are absolutely correct.
but, if you think about it, are we not then "imposing" love and light on
them if we surround them with it? splitting hairs again, i know. but clearly
you must believe that the creator's intent is "undifferentiated" love and
light otherwise you would not suggest surrounding a person in it. if so,
then do you not have faith that your will in this regard is the creator's
will? and, is this not what this entire goal is about? to attain unity
of purpose and spirit? that said... do you now perceive that you have attained
that level of unity?
<blockquote type="cite">
it means that you are not calling the shots, but are
allowing the shots to manifest through you. this
subtlely affirms the unified will over the separate
will.
</blockquote>
mmm.... yes and no. this to me seems like a separated perspective.
consider that you are already unified... there is no "separate will"...
there never was... that all the "shots" that are being manifested through
you are already the result of a unified cause. in other words, understand
that they are for the highest good of the self and the greater self and
always were. separation is but an illusion and always was!! i get the feeling
we're chewing at the same candy stick from two different ends.
<blockquote type="cite">
> great detail. the bottom line though is that here is
> where we can get a
> sense of the overall positive or negative balance
> that currently
> prevails.
exactly. what i'm trying to do is articulate the
underlying philosophical distinction between a
positive and a negative act, as they manifest in 3d
duality reality.
</blockquote>
in other words, you are trying to understand duality from a 3d perspective.
you are trying to understand being more than yourself. i think this might
explain why the creator created the illusion of duality and why there are
so many levels of multi-dimensionality. like think about it. you are still
you, are you not? i am still me. yet, you are still part of the whole!
there is your 3d perspective! it is mind bogglingly, wonderfully, multi-dimensionally
fascinating! lol!
<blockquote type="cite">
> there is also a point in case here with respect to
> the issue of
> "control". you see, in one breath you are saying
> that you enjoy the
> challenge of rising to the occasion to show your
> stuff. (we both do of
> course)
maybe i wasn't clear. i enjoy it, but i'm afraid that
it comes from an ego-centered impulse to dominate and
"be right" sometimes.
</blockquote>
i think you've voiced the problem right there. you said you are
"afraid" that it comes from an ego centered impulse to dominate and "be
right" sometimes. ask yourself... what is it that frightens you about it?
now there's a mind-blowing question to pose on one's self. is it possible
that what we really fear is actually the lack of control we have over our
selves as opposed to the control we do have? and therefore we are afraid
of relinquishing control to a greater entity? somehow, i have a feeling
that when we resolve that issue, we will be more receptive to accepting
oneself as part of the "whole".
<blockquote type="cite">
on the other hand, there are
times where it seems that i genuinely seek wisdom
through conversation and have the search for truth
foremost in my mind rather than simply being right.
the key is to be able to tell the difference, i guess.
i think before i read that q'uo reading, i was
concerned about proving my point more than learning.
now i'm having much more fun because i'm not defending
myself so much as challenging my beliefs.
</blockquote>
oh yeah!! cheers to that!! when we do not lower our defenses, we
cannot receive. i think that's what it boils down to. when we project to
the world the truth of who we are with our hearts bared ready to receive
it without judgment, come what may, it comes in by the truckload!!
i think many people are still dealing with the pain of separation compounded
by all the trials they have placed upon themselves by the catalysts they
have invoked. as hard as it is to accept, cest la vie! i had a pretty rough
go of it in this and other life times. my family has urged me on several
occasions to write a book about my teen years. turned more than a few hairs
white on their heads i tell ya. i have to say i'm really proud of the fact
that if i ever did write about it, it would be from the positive perspective
of what i have attained from it and who i have become, and not from the
need to moan about it. but that's me and right now that's bragging. lol!
but, hey, the old ego does deserve a lil pat on the head once in a while.
lol!
<blockquote type="cite">
and believe me, the ego is still being worked on :-)
</blockquote>
and as you can see, so is mine! lol!
<blockquote type="cite">
i admit that my ego enjoys control but not that it's
in my best interest.
</blockquote>
what makes you think it's not in your best interest? i mean, if
one's ego gets a little too big, it creates a catalyst for learning. so
therefore i would say that ego is one of the best assets we've got! properly
"controlled" of course. geeze! and there's that "c" word again!
<blockquote type="cite">
i don't think it's a function of
the "level" i'm at (i don't know what to think of
that) but rather simply the fact that, sometimes i am
a channel for unity and love, sometimes i'm a channel
for separation and fear and control.
</blockquote>
i wonder if the reason you are not sure what to think of that is
because of that fear of ego. maybe this is where i can express how i perceive
that all things, including "control" can be both a positive and negative
thing. when we are in "control" of ourselves then we create a healthy channel
for unity and love. control is, in essence, another aspect of unity in
its positive sense. control, of course, can also have its negative aspects.
when we lack control or try to gain too much of it this generates fear
and separation. fear (the gift) is the instinct which causes us to take
action or take "control" of a situation. fear and control are neither positive
or negative in and of themselves. too much of anything causes an imbalance
which of course is a negative thing.
<blockquote type="cite">
i can approach this conversation, for instance, from
two angles. i can approach it as a learning excercise
or as a preaching excercise. in the latter capacity,
i am acting no better than simon. in the former
capacity, i serve as a conduit for love/light and am
learning from the raw experience instead of
manipulating to achieve some outcome (such as a
concession from you). i'm highlighting two extremes
to show how i can do both those things you are
describing "in the same breath."
</blockquote>
yes, you are seeing the multi-dimensionality of the situation at
hand. look at it, if you will, from the perspective of unity. we are each
spurring each other on, creating greater and greater catalysts for learning
from each other. everything you say to me makes me think and respond and
everything i say to you makes you think and respond. in this unified way
there is no "right" or "wrong" there is simply the unity in purpose for
attaining higher levels of understanding. "concessions" are thus no longer
a knock em down drag em out game. they become the pivotal point at which
each motion expands into a greater level of understanding for each other.
in other words, every response we offer each other is a "concession". a
gift!!
<blockquote type="cite">
> "control" has both negative
> and positive connotations, as do all things. i was
> attempting to refer
> to the more positive aspects of it.
could you elaborate here?
</blockquote>
i hope i have done that in the previous few paragraphs. if it is
still unclear please let me know and i will try to further elaborate. also,
if you read this next paragraph from my previous post as well, my point
might be clearer by now.
<blockquote type="cite">
> that is that nothing,
> absolutely nothing is inherently negative or
> positive. everything is a
> gift. it's how we use it... it is our free will
> which determines whether
> it is positive or negative.
i agree here. but i'm not sure that seeing events in
the world as devoid of polarity is beneficial to our
task of polarizing.
</blockquote>
but, but, but!!! i didn't say the events were devoid of polarity,
i said the gifts were devoid of polarity. huge difference. lol! in fact,
it is through the understanding that the gifts are devoid of polarity while
the events are not that i believe we can actually begin to see where the
task of polarizing begins. that is the point at which we can actually take
responsibility for it and only when that responsibility is in hand will
we actually have the ability to polarize it. it is, in essence, very much
the same as looking back at something you've done in your past, like say
telling a big fat lie or something, and taking responsibility for it in
order to polarize it.
<blockquote type="cite">
this is a pretty strongly held belief of mine: that
the utility of 3d existence is in it's ability to
polarize beings and that, right now, that is our chief
goal. it is polarity that determines all future
evolution through the higher densities, according to
my understanding.
</blockquote>
oh yes... you're quite right here. 3d is certainly the best place
to be doing it too..
<blockquote type="cite">
> you see... the
> creator is neither positive or negative... this is
> the message which is
> constantly being relayed to us. i believe the spark
> that is free will is
> another one of those pivotal points we talked about
> yesterday.
how you define the will is crucial. we need to talk
with some common terms here.
</blockquote>
what, specifically, are you asking here?
<blockquote type="cite">
your theory certainly makes sense to me. i think we
just need to decide what constitues positive versus
negative use of will. since we're all on the positive
path, we can use this conversation as a catalyst to a
more precise understanding of what it is towards which
we're striving.
</blockquote>
"will" is neither positive or negative either. will is a gift and,
as you said, it is the "use" of it which "becomes" positive or negative.
that "becomes" thing is the key point to remember. the real mind blower
crux of it is that, technically speaking, there is no positive or negative
"use" of will. all use of will creates a catalyst for learning. now, if
you consider that all catalysts for learning are positive things, then
in essence you could say that all uses of will are a positive thing. that
is a very "unified" way of perceiving it. what it boils down to is that
you simply cannot claim what constitutes as a positive or negative use
of will. as hard as that may be for us to understand it is much easier
to accept when you understand that it is intent which determines a positive
or negative experience, not will.
so, the real question is, do we want a positive or negative experience?
in other words, what is our intent? that is determined by what we need
and that, i believe, stems back to our earlier discussion here about "allowing
the shots to manifest through you."
so, in essence, in order to learn and gain "control" over ourselves
and therefore become unified, we must first learn to determine our intent
for a positive or negative experience. and i think that's really all it
boils down to. i look at this experience with you as a positive experience,
for example. we both had the "positive" intent to achieve a "positive"
experience from this and look how far we've come! we've just proven that
it does not take a negative experience or negative catalyst to attain higher
levels of learning if the intent is to attain it through a positive experience.
woohoo!
<blockquote type="cite">
> > i think you're right, as long as we decide what
> > "changing the external world" means.
> now that is something that must be decided by the
> individual for that is
> the very reason and basis upon which we were given
> free will.
right, i agree; it must be decided by the individual.
the key is not the decision but the capacity in which
it is made.
</blockquote>
see... you said it! "the key is not the decision, but the capacity
in which it is made".
<blockquote type="cite">
does the individual seek to serve self or
others? if the person is changing the world to have
it conform to it's will, then i'd consider that
negative.
</blockquote>
well, seeing it as entirely negative is sort of a fragmented perspective.
try to view it from a unified perspective. the illusion of right and wrong
dissolves like alka seltzer in a glass of water. however, this spirals
out into another whole discussion and in the interest of at least attempting
to keep this short (she says rolling on the floor laughing at the very
idea of even trying to keep this entire conversation short) let's consider
that you're right... it is a negative experience for you the individual
since you are clearly stating that that person's will does not conform
to your own. think about that now. so, what do you do? you say you
choose a positive experience. and how do you do that? by "controlling"
the situation... in other words you attempt to control the will of the
individual who seeks the world to conform to his or her own will. bit of
a brain twister there isn't it? i know my poor old noggin is startin ta
smoke. lol!
<blockquote type="cite">
if the person is changing the world by
seeing the world as self and loving it, then i'd
consider that positive. where it looks like we differ
is when a person seeks to love the world as self by
manipulating it according to his/her will.
</blockquote>
is there a difference though? really. when it boils down to it.
because what you may perceive as negative for you, may be positive for
someone else. from what i understand, the whole purpose of polarizing at
this time is to come to a unified state. no one ever said it would be easy.
i think the thing we need in order to unify is a unified intent to all
attain a positive experience at the same time. but what the heck do i know.
maybe this is where you get to boost the engine for a bit. lol!
<blockquote type="cite">
> i believe that any cycle ends when the manifestation
> of its purpose is
> complete. therefore there really isn't any "time"
> limit on it other than
> the one it eventually creates for itself by having
> completed itself.
ok, i can accept that, but i don't think that the
local 3d inhabitants of the sector of the universe
experiencing the cycle's end are the only determinants
of cycle completion.
</blockquote>
no i don't think so either because we are part of a much greater
"whole".
<blockquote type="cite">
> a
> flower, for example, has a purpose... it has a "time
> frame" in which it
> takes to grow and then die. that time frame is
> different from say a
> human from birth to death. both had to complete
> their own cycle before
> the "time frame" could be determined.
my first impulse is to reject that explanation in
favor of the harmonic principle that is bringing the
cycle to a close whether we are ready or not. i don't
think the flower/human example is a good analogy for
the 75,000 year cycle that is drawing to a close soon
- i think it's a good analogy for the timetable of
ascension for each entity. in that, the personal
cycle draws to completion when a change in form or
experience occurs (like ascension) but there are also
cycles in the environment for such experience that
serve to enhance and facilitate such personal cycles
(like the 75,000 year cycle). there's more going on
in the universe than our local 3d soap opera. :-)
</blockquote>
oh yeah. absolutely. and that's a really good point.
<blockquote type="cite">
> changes. if we ask for that catalyst, it will occur.
does that asking neccessarily have to be the
concscious request of individual entities or could it
be the collective consciousness of the creator that
grows according to cycles that are larger in scope
than our progress at the individual level?
</blockquote>
oh it's definitely the collective consciousness in this regard.
which goes back to the point about why it is as important to work on the
inner world as it is the outer world.
<blockquote type="cite">
the form that such an event takes is a secondary consideration
to the purpose of the event, right?
</blockquote>
true. which is why it is important to determine whether it will
be a positive or negative experience because it's gonna happen anyway!!!
<blockquote type="cite">
of course; we're not talking about discrete events
neccessarily, since the harmonic nature of the cycle
implies a fractal nature as well. it is happening on
a wide variety of levels in a wide variety of degrees.
i think time is sometimes a distorting influence in
understanding the cycle.
</blockquote>
yes i agree. time is kinda like the lens in the creator's bi-focals.
from our perspective, it's rather distorted, from his/her perspective it's
perfectly clear! lol!
<blockquote type="cite">
well, ultimately i agree. but just because a person
chooses not to progress to 3d doesn't mean that
everything will neccessarily stay the same. actions
do have consequences.
</blockquote>
nothing ever stays the same. in fact, the only thing constant is
change itself.
<blockquote type="cite">
> still, those concepts
> are the basis upon which my current beliefs have
> grown.
throw me that url again?
</blockquote>
http://www.monisys.com/~kbisson/hippocrates.html
<blockquote type="cite">
you are probably a wanderer, since your desire to not
learn these lessons again "the hard way" signifies
that you know what the right materials are; you're
just trying to remember what they are!
</blockquote>
yep. i know i am. and you got that right about me not wanting to
do it the hard way again!!
<blockquote type="cite">
> we, as in humanity,
> haven't done a very good job of that so far.
no, but our freedom to screw up so often has also been
a gift, too, i guess.
</blockquote>
yes, it is. a most humbling one.
<blockquote type="cite">
i perceive
> the creator as
> being my dearest friend and confidant and i treat
> he/she as such.
maybe this is the real difference between us. the
more i study metaphysics, the farther i get from the
concept of a "personal" god per se.
</blockquote>
hmm... that 's funny. the more i study, the closer i feel i get.
but i don't perceive the creator as separate from me nor do i perceive
myself as separate from the creator which encompasses all. maybe that's
the difference.
<blockquote type="cite">
> if
> one believes in an
> outcome manifested by love then that is the outcome
> one will achieve.
well, this is releasing the manifestation from the
conscious control to the unified consciousness
control. i wasn't considering the concept of choice
as a neccessary part of control; control over the self
is a given... control over otherselves is where
polarity plays a part. to release those aspects of
the self (otherselves) that seem least controllable is
the ultimate act of faith in love and unity.
</blockquote>
yes... you hit the nail on the head. if we all have faith that we
all want a positive experience for ourselves and our self as a unified
whole, then letting go and having faith that that intent will manifest
itself is what it's all about.
<blockquote type="cite">
it's not so much to extract oneself from all outcome
as to accept within oneself all outcome. maybe i
should have been clearer... accept the currents as
catalyst and see what you are being shown, instead of
imposing an ego-based agenda upon your world. the
more you concentrate on dictating to the world, the
less likely you are to listen to what it is trying to
teach you.
</blockquote>
oh yeah! ya got that right brother! there is a balance that
needs to be attained. kinda what i like to think we're doing here as we
continue to bounce stuff off each other, each progressively adding more
positively to the last. we've come eons in the space of a few days by utilizing
what we know, with what the world is presenting to us through each other
and the world around us. much better than trying to control the world with
a limited view point that ends up getting stuck in no where land.
<blockquote type="cite">
> the thing is, if you believe that you are a
> manifestation of the creator's
> desire and will to experience itself, then why would
> you want to do
> that?
to demonstrate and reinforce the collective,
god-consciousness over the individual
ego-consciousness.
</blockquote>
okay... from that perspective you're dead right. lol! but i think
what i was trying to say is that we must honour the gifts we've been given.
all of them. in doing so we honour ourselves as well as our greater self
thereby honouring the whole. i think i was thinking more along the lines
of the lemming thing again where people don't utilize the gifts they've
been given and leave it up to someone else to do it for them. if everyone
were to do that then from my limited perspective i think the "stream" would
simply cease to exist. that "spark" of will that exists within each of
us is that part of us that belongs to the creator and needs be honoured
as such. we must stop looking "down" on ourselves and become the "higher"
self. and i mean that statement in all its connotations.
<blockquote type="cite">
i agree that free will is a gift, but i think we
interpret free will differently. let me offer this
excerpt from "a course in miracles" that might explain
better where i'm coming from.
"it [the course, but think catalyst] is a required
course. only the time you take it is voluntary. free
will does not mean that you can establish the
curriculum. it means only that you can elect what you
want to take at a given time."
</blockquote>
mmm... i don't think our interpretation is all that different after
all. <grin>
<blockquote type="cite">
> but, as i said, the creator exists everywhere
> including outside and
> inside of time... therefore patience is a gift.
it is a gift if you conceive of yourself as separate
from the creator, i.e. within time.
</blockquote>
hmm... you have a point from that perspective. but just think where
we'd be right now without patience. i still think it's just a gift any
old way you look at it. besides, you keep seeing time as a separate thing.
i don't. i think it's part of the parcel.
<blockquote type="cite">
> time
> as we conceive it,
> does not exist... but in a way it does for we need
> it to understand the
> nature of how events unfold and therefor understand
> the nature of
> ourselves. therefore... could the same not be said
> for the greater
> entity itself?
yes, but not in a unified sense, only in the sense
that the creator is the sum of the seemingly separate
and time-involved individual parts. separation
implies time, unity implies timelessness.
</blockquote>
agreed!!
<blockquote type="cite">
i absolutely agree, time is a tool. however, it is
only neccessary when there is something for which it
can be utilized, in this case for the journey back to
unity. it is unneccessary once in unity.
</blockquote>
hey!... this is the point i was just thinking to make! lol!!!
<blockquote type="cite">
yeah, but i guess my conception of the phenomenon was
that the creator can reap the rewards of temporal
experience while seeing through it's illusory nature.
</blockquote>
there's no buts about it! at least from my perspective.
whew! good grief! i can't believe how long these e-mails are getting! this has been
enormously fun but rather exhausting. i usually respond to these emails in the morning
when i'm bright-eyed and bushy tailed but since i was able to get the group replies
this evening i now find myself here and it's well after midnight!! lol!
tons of love & light and thanks again for this wonderful experience!
karen