Jeremy
03-20-2006, 02:28 PM
--- in asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postid=gkfajk8xvjikrwxhdok5l9hkn1cf1erynq9eil xfgboomzgtokuoomira2wsul4-z-laqfzefkh-bdrgdevd), valarie vousden <vjvousden@...> wrote:
> do you think god could ever be one single entity again when we all
> enjoy being what makes us so unique? that's still a seperation of a
> sort but quite enjoyable.
this is a great philosophical question and i'm delighted to see the
group address it. this is really the crux of my own seeking as well.
understanding the dynamic between the separated self and unified self
has to be what it's all about - otherwise, what would be the purpose
of the seeming duality (indeed, asking a question along these lines
was the first post ever on this list!).
in my exploration of this topic what appears as a useful label for
this whole complex of concepts is that of *identity*. what we are
asking ourselves to juggle in our consideration of these ideas is that
of a necessarily conflicted identity: that of being two different
identities at once. the conflict doesn't exist in that we are all one
and simultaneously separate - that's heady for non-metaphysical types,
but it's pretty easy to see once it's given thought. the catch is:
"how do you become the one creator without losing your unique,
separate identity"?
seems to me that much of our experience takes place in the shadow of
that overarching question. we have some sort of basic fear of losing
ourselves within the all-encompasing existence of the creator, loving
though it may be. defining who we are as unique beings - standing out
from what we understand as the background "creation" - is something
we're enculturated and expected to do. figuring out "who we are" is a
big deal, i would argue, *precisely* because it demands we address
this paradox: who are we relative to what? the boundaries of our
skin? how arbitrary is that!?
the key imho is that our identity doesn't need definition - we don't
need to "do" anything in order to "be" who we are (whatever that is).
our experience is simply a fractal subset of a greater experience.
the usefulness of unity works both ways: we provide the creator with
experience, and the creator provides us with the choice on how much
unity we will introduce into the paradigm of separation and duality.
our need to see these two activities as separate is the faulty premise
that causes us to conclude that our identity cannot co-exist with unity.
as we move forward on our paths, i think the knowledge that our
uniqueness is a big reason why we're part of the creator begins to
sink in. the more we know our true selves, the more we manifest the
unique portion of the creator that we are. that, after all, is what
makes us unique - not our separateness from creation, but our
membership in it. our individuality represents a unique level of
fractal position within the creation.
i don't think it's about duty or morality, as zee seemed to argue
(although i liked her idea that time separates choices from
consequences, enabling our free will as uniquely understood in 3d). i
think it's about identity. duty and morality, to me, have negative
connotations that imply the range of acceptable choices is limited.
the acceptability of an action doesn't concern me so much - since
that's guaranteed by the creator. what concerns me is the
*usefulness* of a given identity complex an entity carries with it at
any given moment. again, how one defines / regards the self
determines the actions towards others that are positive or negative.
usefulness, to me, is mostly synomymous with potential, as articulated
by ra. archetypal study is of great usefulness in this area, since
the archetypes represent, as ra states, "the builded structure of
energy expenditures". there is a vocabulary of sorts within the
archetypes for understanding the dynamics of unity within third
density. polarity - the 800 pound gorilla in the law of one - is
concerned with the degree to which an entity has tuned the identity to
manifest the creator in maximally useful ways (the pole chosen is not
so important in an absolute sense).
to me, personally, the individual is the smallest unit at which
identity can be authentically and consistently understood in our
density. it happens to be the only unit we have available with which
to do work on the self. that is why individual freedom - and the
catalyst experienced by the lack thereof - is so vital: it's the
closest we get to authentically integrating the individual and the
unified creator. it is clear that our experience of individual
identities is everything to this logos. for that reason,
individualism is inseparable from the law of one. that we each are a
unique portion of the creator is not simply a byproduct of our
individuality: it's a deep truth that belies the entire mystery of
creation!
so it's not so much god being re-united at some distant point in the
future (though i've always thought that one reason seventh density
takes so long is that the dissolution into unity takes a level of
grounding and understandind that is prohibitive to third density
beings to contemplate) but rather about experiencing moments of
greater or lesser articulationg of one's true identity, which just so
happens to be the creator. :-) indeed, i think ra was expressing
this precisely when they talked about their exercises in becoming the
creator in the myriad of experiences we have in third density. the
work on identity always takes place at the fringes, where these
contemplative activities reside.
hope this convoluted post helps. it's all just my opinion, btw.
l/l
jeremy w.
p.s. i've written more about individualism and collectivism within the
context of the law of one here:
http://blog.6thdensity.net/?page_id=390
> do you think god could ever be one single entity again when we all
> enjoy being what makes us so unique? that's still a seperation of a
> sort but quite enjoyable.
this is a great philosophical question and i'm delighted to see the
group address it. this is really the crux of my own seeking as well.
understanding the dynamic between the separated self and unified self
has to be what it's all about - otherwise, what would be the purpose
of the seeming duality (indeed, asking a question along these lines
was the first post ever on this list!).
in my exploration of this topic what appears as a useful label for
this whole complex of concepts is that of *identity*. what we are
asking ourselves to juggle in our consideration of these ideas is that
of a necessarily conflicted identity: that of being two different
identities at once. the conflict doesn't exist in that we are all one
and simultaneously separate - that's heady for non-metaphysical types,
but it's pretty easy to see once it's given thought. the catch is:
"how do you become the one creator without losing your unique,
separate identity"?
seems to me that much of our experience takes place in the shadow of
that overarching question. we have some sort of basic fear of losing
ourselves within the all-encompasing existence of the creator, loving
though it may be. defining who we are as unique beings - standing out
from what we understand as the background "creation" - is something
we're enculturated and expected to do. figuring out "who we are" is a
big deal, i would argue, *precisely* because it demands we address
this paradox: who are we relative to what? the boundaries of our
skin? how arbitrary is that!?
the key imho is that our identity doesn't need definition - we don't
need to "do" anything in order to "be" who we are (whatever that is).
our experience is simply a fractal subset of a greater experience.
the usefulness of unity works both ways: we provide the creator with
experience, and the creator provides us with the choice on how much
unity we will introduce into the paradigm of separation and duality.
our need to see these two activities as separate is the faulty premise
that causes us to conclude that our identity cannot co-exist with unity.
as we move forward on our paths, i think the knowledge that our
uniqueness is a big reason why we're part of the creator begins to
sink in. the more we know our true selves, the more we manifest the
unique portion of the creator that we are. that, after all, is what
makes us unique - not our separateness from creation, but our
membership in it. our individuality represents a unique level of
fractal position within the creation.
i don't think it's about duty or morality, as zee seemed to argue
(although i liked her idea that time separates choices from
consequences, enabling our free will as uniquely understood in 3d). i
think it's about identity. duty and morality, to me, have negative
connotations that imply the range of acceptable choices is limited.
the acceptability of an action doesn't concern me so much - since
that's guaranteed by the creator. what concerns me is the
*usefulness* of a given identity complex an entity carries with it at
any given moment. again, how one defines / regards the self
determines the actions towards others that are positive or negative.
usefulness, to me, is mostly synomymous with potential, as articulated
by ra. archetypal study is of great usefulness in this area, since
the archetypes represent, as ra states, "the builded structure of
energy expenditures". there is a vocabulary of sorts within the
archetypes for understanding the dynamics of unity within third
density. polarity - the 800 pound gorilla in the law of one - is
concerned with the degree to which an entity has tuned the identity to
manifest the creator in maximally useful ways (the pole chosen is not
so important in an absolute sense).
to me, personally, the individual is the smallest unit at which
identity can be authentically and consistently understood in our
density. it happens to be the only unit we have available with which
to do work on the self. that is why individual freedom - and the
catalyst experienced by the lack thereof - is so vital: it's the
closest we get to authentically integrating the individual and the
unified creator. it is clear that our experience of individual
identities is everything to this logos. for that reason,
individualism is inseparable from the law of one. that we each are a
unique portion of the creator is not simply a byproduct of our
individuality: it's a deep truth that belies the entire mystery of
creation!
so it's not so much god being re-united at some distant point in the
future (though i've always thought that one reason seventh density
takes so long is that the dissolution into unity takes a level of
grounding and understandind that is prohibitive to third density
beings to contemplate) but rather about experiencing moments of
greater or lesser articulationg of one's true identity, which just so
happens to be the creator. :-) indeed, i think ra was expressing
this precisely when they talked about their exercises in becoming the
creator in the myriad of experiences we have in third density. the
work on identity always takes place at the fringes, where these
contemplative activities reside.
hope this convoluted post helps. it's all just my opinion, btw.
l/l
jeremy w.
p.s. i've written more about individualism and collectivism within the
context of the law of one here:
http://blog.6thdensity.net/?page_id=390