The LHC “nightmare scenario” has come true.

Has science taken a wrong turn? If so, what corrections are needed? Chronicles of scientific misbehavior. The role of heretic-pioneers and forbidden questions in the sciences. Is peer review working? The perverse "consensus of leading scientists." Good public relations versus good science.

Moderators: bboyer, MGmirkin

Sithri
Posts: 82
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2019 2:24 pm

Re: The LHC “nightmare scenario” has come true.

Unread post by Sithri » Thu Mar 21, 2019 3:47 pm

Bin-Ra wrote:
While I enjoy your remarks about the dynamics of consciousness and its phenomena, no where in that talk did you mention a new outlook on these phenomena nor a conclusive statement on the path to knowledge. If what is true is true, how is it true as opposed to falsehood? The 'creative' is just as prone to lies, secrets, knowledge, as well as truth! I agree that truth from the first-person perspective of consciousness there will not result in an ongoing commitment to make something else in their place, as the phenomena of consciousness are self-permitting and cannot be anything other than an 'adam.' Identity never forms from science; science is a question of how and not of existential import of why, and meaning is a question of learning from nature than about nature. It appears that you are searching for 'adams' of science rather than consciousness, or rather these together, and this would mean that molecules and atoms are not simply different hierarchal phenomena, but rather also appearances that have a certain atomistic view themselves, like you said that because there is always a part to a whole the part becomes a whole. It appears, however, that the further we dig, the further we empty ourselves of an 'elan vital' that would be an explanation for our immaterial consciousness and the existence and coming-forth of 'life' from a periodic table of elements. To accept the already true as true and the already false as false is what you deny and accept in the same breath. To stand upon the shoulders of giants, yet to topple them, both to save identity, but yet you claim the latter is 'healing' and 'wholing'. I would say that accepting the wholly alien while simultaneously accepting the self-evident is the key to 'wholing' as it opens up a vista of unknown, yet shows that these processes are known in 'truth' which is the key to the entirety of the mixture of immaterial first-person consciousness and matter itself: for instance, the cognitive capabilities of plants who lack a brain and nervous system yet defy our conceptions of how 'non-existent', 'dumb' or 'baseless', or their opposites, a plant consciousness would be.

Perhaps if we became acquainted with our respective use of terms we would find much in common.
I recall not capitalising 'creative' as Creative though I had an urge to. Many assign 'creative' to what I might call miscreative - or the split mind in division, conflict and dissociation. That is not open Creation but a closed mind of a substitute 'reality'.

What are we 'digging with' and why or for what purpose? Is such a mega-funded project really a search for truth?
The use of a mind of mechanism brings mechanically framed results.
If what we seek is only the 'maths' by which to define, predict and control, then we won't let truth get in the way of a good story (corporate/consumer marketising or weaponising).
Well, we are digging for the truth in what we believe it is as standing on the shoulders of giants with a telescope to look down to the bottom and say 'look at how tall we are! we will discover it all if we reach the top!' While doing so, we fail to explain the simplest of things such as Newton's Laws of Motion, whom stand at the bottom, but take them for granted. This is what I mean by the alien and self-evident as the same.
Bin-Ra wrote: Searching for truth out-from a belief in lack and separation brings an experience of reinforcement to current belief.
In other words a sense of lack to overcome or escape (the stick and carrot).

That there is no 'self' apart from the observed does not change that the extension of self is the measure of the meaning given and received. (Garbage in; garbage out).

The mind of definition is a differentiation from which an experience is received and lived or shared. Focusing in the experience forgets the definition - like narcissus in reflected image. At least while the shoe fits - the foot is forgotten.
What do you expect from truth? A metaphysical experience of oneness? Or a definition of how reality works and about reality's predicates? The latter require that we separate ourselves from ourselves if we truly are non-dual, and use microscopes and telescopes and scalpels.
Bin-Ra wrote: Recognition and release of the mind of definition as control, yields to the Creative - innate to the movement of being in wholeness, and is received as a gift of insight, recognition, synchronicity etc.
Wouldn't this synchronicity or wholeness be a gnosis of a definition of the reality of the divine? And how is that different from first-person experience of the definition of mind and reality a la Buddhism or Hinduism?
Bin-Ra wrote: I agree that the separation of the biological or living organism from the molecular organisation or 'material' is no more real than that of any identification in specialness - and yet there are resonant vibrational qualities to what we then experience as different 'levels' of existence.
If you think that there are different levels of existence, then what are they in your 'mind of oneness' instead of 'mind of division'?
Bin-Ra wrote:God is no less in a fingernail than a sand grain or a brick - but not 'IN' so much as through.
The material or physicalised world is a model that we experience ourselves IN - when we are no more IN it than our focus determines. (I am not IN thunderbolts forum either - but that is a metaphor of interface).

My sense of Creation is wholeness that never leaves the Mind of its Creator - and so our true mind is never separate from its Source-Nature while a misidentification runs as if in its own spin - but can not leave the its Creator/Creation regardless the split of conflicted mind in self-imaged or defined limitation.
It seems your Source-Nature is ineffable or some sort of metaphysical experience.
Bin-Ra wrote: I wrote this too late the other night and came back later.
I feel the mind in diversion has to look where the answer is NOT - in order to protect the problem as the source of its 'sense of self'. This is reflected in the world in terms of budgets and funding for anything but a true disclosure.
How is our sense of self in the pursuit of truth a barrier to truth? I don't mean metaphysically, I mean practically. For instance, how our computers are made by an intelligence and function such and such way according to certain laws of physics and information. And all of this was done by people who had egos and senses of separation of the 'I' from the rest of the world.
Bin-Ra wrote: but the mind can be used to provide the experience of a projected reality as its own image and identify and defend it as its reality - and so set up conflicted mind that generates a sense of separation
I can only see that occurring where people defend theories of their own as a sense of pride in their work, which, to me, seems natural although not very useful in the scientific world.

I vibe well with the idea of non-duality, but I prefer duality and concepts over non-duality and non-conception, even if it means that I won't reach full enlightenment.

Bin-Ra
Posts: 33
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2018 1:20 pm

Re: The LHC “nightmare scenario” has come true.

Unread post by Bin-Ra » Fri Mar 22, 2019 6:35 am

To Sithri - No one 'reaches' what they already are, but such a recognition is a matter of acceptance, not of time or conditions. Living from enlightenment grows by the law that what we appreciate, appreciates, and what we choose not to use, fades from non use. 'The Bridegroom cometh when ye thinketh not'. I hold both senses of that true - even if its symbol may seem archaic.

Replying in so many pieces feels like making a humpty out of a meeting of minds. Perhaps all of your points may find some address in this reply.

The ego-alien encounter is the predicate of mistaken identity arising from untrue predicates.
A false sense of 'self-evident' operates as seeming reality - invested with all the power given it by belief. Or by running with the bait of a reaction to what isn't so - as if real that then sets a belief unknowing.

Reality or truth itself cannot be defined in beliefs or ideas, and be replaced by them - excepting in image and concept. So yes, transcendent 'experience' is the already true beneath the overlay-mind of belief and definition.

Before a sense of separateness triggers identity conflict, is the awareness of truth as true. To seek for and find is to directly ask and be answered. In truth, call and response are one, and the 'problem' is the condition in which the answer that would undo it, is kept apart by displacement so as to seek and NOT find - or ask in such a way as to make answer impossible. Hence the framing of life in terms of doublethink and self-contradiction - in which apparent questions are in fact ways to hide the problem in terms of statements that re-enact or reinforce the 'problem'.

So there are foundational differences in that make communication impossible when communication itself is being replaced by the attempt to make true, and defend against or evade communications associated with threat or change to the identity in image or model.

But where there is a willingness to share truth - truth is already moving because this is innate to creation of experience or better, awareness of existence - because you ARE the experience - regardless the 'epicycles' of a model that posits a centrality of and subjection to image and form within experience. But not as you think you are - and therefore not exclusively so or alone in such a nature.

To bring these ideas closer to our desire for a coherent world (view and shared experience), shifting from problem-defined identity to awakening as conscious communication, is served by questioning or challenging our 'reality experience' which may seem not only self-evident - but overwhelmingly so.

The ability to question is also the ability to allow the true desire or cuiosity of our being. In this way we are opening a process of integration of thought and desire - heart and mind. Such as to align and reflect true desire in thought rather than set into a mind of self-conflicted evasions and defences in fear of truth as a result of invested identity in self-illusion under and overwhelming dictate. (Which operates the demand for sacrifice and denial of the true in order to 'survive').

Our awareness in expression and embodiment is through definitions - accepted as 'working models' or alignments of recognition and resonance.
You can only separate from yourself in image - and indeed imagination - as a framework for a point of view. This is a matter of conscious focus and desire, or of reaction and wish in an anwatched mind running on choices set in habit. Confusing self in image is the nature of believing love attacked, broken, betrayed, lost and then revealed illusory, treacherous and heretical.

When I use a camera to take a photograph - I am not object-led so much as contextually guided. If I wrote out longhand the moments of such a 'decision' and these were thought about, there never would be the moment at hand to receive in image - unless reducing everything to a static and controlled studio environment - in which the 'rules' can be implemented by a robot. 'Make me an instrument of thy peace', is the most natural desire and alignment in the wordless recognition of unfolding fulfilment. NOT a wish added on top of a war-minded attempt to hunt and get something out there to add to itself.

Likewise when singing and playing guitar, I am contextually guided by the whole situation or gestalt of the moment - so as to align with the atmosphere as a shared willingness rather than to force or capture attention. The moment by moment experience is the 'feedback' by which I feel and find the balance points through which the music not only flows as 'alive' but as a shared tangibiity of giving and receiving as one. Listening in the heart draws forth the singer.

But the 'not two-ness' is always the transcendent embrace of any 'parts' and not their anihilation. Truth knows itself though us by which we know ourself and each other truly. This IS the nature of Jesus' two commandments (they were not made by him - but are two he gave in answer).

But a true appreciation is revealed through the resonant alignment of an acceptance of true - and not dogmatised, imposed or 'added to' a 'self-image' in search of its own validation or vindication.

So the extension of the mind through tools and instruments is not in itself an issue because they only extend the purpose for which the mind is being used. Possession and control or marketisation and weaponisation, operate the fear of dispossession and loss of control. That is, they are negatively polarised predicates of identification. In the balance point of a true communication - in life as with each other - such fears are exposed and released as communication is recognised AS SUCH - and trust is extended (to ourself and others) in willingness of shared purpose. (Because communication IS shared purpose and communion is its predicate).

The mind of the world-adaptation is a (collective and individual) personality construct - that may be invisible to the engagement IN its world. To such a focus in the world, all information is interpreted to its framework. (New wine into old paradigm). Which is the way the 'ego' subverts and incorporates (or rejects) the FORMS of the new to a system of definition, prediction and control. It also adulterates and dilutes the meaning from an original movement of true desire and fulfilment, to something pigeon-holed, 'explained' and dead.

Buddhist, Hindu or any other framework of idea - pertain to a living territory that is both intimate and universal - (where such is the active desire and intention), or to the maintaining of identity in the world as a social expression of shared cultural values. While the mind 'creates' experience of levels of experience by believing them, the journey of such experience operates a theme of exploration as a gift of freedom.

The nature of tangible differention within oneness is the interplay of primary qualities that are inseparable or indivisible. Joy is not 'different' from peace so much as the freedom-song rising from peace. The concept of 'oneness' as static or fixed in form is idol in the mind that grasps at its own tale. All concepts fall away to an Intimacy of Creation where All is given to all. There is no self-differentiation but the gift of a giving and receiving as one.

As you sow, so shall you reap - but time does not enter unless getting now to pay later (or getting others to pay in stead). "Now' then becomes a means of separating a past from a future. Not in truth, but in terms of the purpose you/we give it. A past of some belief in reality-lack seeks to 'get' for itself in terms of such a lack - and in 'possession' of a self-inflation, fears the loss of its 'specialness' or significance as defined by lack.

If lack of knowledge - then acquisition of knowledge as a personal attribute is defended with fig leaf thinking against naked disclosure.
Lack of love seeks possession, and lack of power seeks domination. The original sense of lack is of innate qualities of being. The modern phishing ruse works a mind of reaction to forms that seem true - and in panic and fear of loss can suffer identity theft, from which every subsequent attempt to overcome or escape, reinforces the entanglement of the original fear as Reality itself.

Regardless its attempt to control life - the ego 'leaks'. Thus the 'narrative continuity' is a damage control system for a defence against feared chaos of pain and loss, rather than pertaining to reality itself. For example creative thought comes into the world via various agencies that effort and technique or method alone cannot attain, but which often arises after intense willingness is enacted in trial and error of approach or experiment. It is the 'letting go' that lets in - but this cannot itself be faked. You have to know you want something, to then generate the conditions for it to come to you in its timing relative to the current willingness to accept it.

In large part, the ego of a personal sense of credit or achievement feathers its cap with the gifts of life, and the world agrees to not look at the truth because it wants a sense of personhood in achievement as its vindication or validation - as if this is love or worth regained, allowed or permitted.

Rather than break up already broken up 'adams' in search of 'meanings' that fail to share or communicate by disection. I read your points and wrote with a sense of you from what you wrote. I am not in the business of convincing or persuading anyone, but of giving witness to a true receipt, by learning not to snap-react to objects or to try to grow music in a soil of unwillingness or untimeliness for growth, but a balancing of heart and mind within the tuning of a signal or resonance of giving and receiving. The 'oneness' is known by the movement of its expression. This is not different to saying that love is only known by its extension, and that you cannot extend what you are not willing to accept for yourself.


All the king’s horses and all the king’s men
Couldn’t put oneness together again.
because Humpty was a false flagged self-deprivation.
Let them smash eggs together, in searching that breaks to make its own image upon the fragmented entrails of a goat that only the elect can pronounce upon. If that be their desire. But it is not mine nor does it hold my allegiance.
We can only perceive through judgements that select and reject to make levels of accepted and agreed reality against discarded denials.
But we can recognise a mind of judgement as coercive, and choose not to use it. This is the 'letting go' that lets in a gift of a different order of perception - because it rises from a non-rejection of a wholeness of being. This is practical in its actions and effects - even if some or all of it operates unseen. This is a different order of 'objectivity' than the ego's attempt to clean itself up or eradicate itself. There is NO coercion in it and that is a recognisable quality of a true embrace to which natural response would have to be unnaturally blocked - and thus come to notice, instead of running 'reality as normal'. Becoming aware of our dissonance is unsettling - but is also the territory in which a true call seeks resonance and recognized response in the same way a mother bird can recognize its offsping's unique signature amidst a flock.

Sithri
Posts: 82
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2019 2:24 pm

Re: The LHC “nightmare scenario” has come true.

Unread post by Sithri » Fri Mar 22, 2019 9:33 am

Bin-Ra wrote:To Sithri - No one 'reaches' what they already are, but such a recognition is a matter of acceptance, not of time or conditions. Living from enlightenment grows by the law that what we appreciate, appreciates, and what we choose not to use, fades from non use. 'The Bridegroom cometh when ye thinketh not'. I hold both senses of that true - even if its symbol may seem archaic.

Replying in so many pieces feels like making a humpty out of a meeting of minds. Perhaps all of your points may find some address in this reply.

The ego-alien encounter is the predicate of mistaken identity arising from untrue predicates.
A false sense of 'self-evident' operates as seeming reality - invested with all the power given it by belief. Or by running with the bait of a reaction to what isn't so - as if real that then sets a belief unknowing.
The self-evident isn't a belief, it is what is that is what it is. For instance, a thought is a self-evident experience to our inner first-person experience. Yet, when we dig for what a thought is we find that it appears and disappears from and into nothingness, with a presence in time as a mental fabrication of the mind-aggregate that is wholly self-evident. To ask why is not to ask of mistaken identity, it is to ask the very foundation of our existence that is alien yet self-evident.
Bin-Ra wrote:Reality or truth itself cannot be defined in beliefs or ideas, and be replaced by them - excepting in image and concept. So yes, transcendent 'experience' is the already true beneath the overlay-mind of belief and definition.
You're confusing me. You're using the terms 'truth itself' and 'beliefs or ideas' and say that they cannot be defined in terms of such, but then say excepting in 'image and concept'. To me, these two paraphrased mental phenomena are the same.
Bin-Ra wrote:Before a sense of separateness triggers identity conflict, is the awareness of truth as true. To seek for and find is to directly ask and be answered. In truth, call and response are one, and the 'problem' is the condition in which the answer that would undo it, is kept apart by displacement so as to seek and NOT find - or ask in such a way as to make answer impossible. Hence the framing of life in terms of doublethink and self-contradiction - in which apparent questions are in fact ways to hide the problem in terms of statements that re-enact or reinforce the 'problem'.

So there are foundational differences in that make communication impossible when communication itself is being replaced by the attempt to make true, and defend against or evade communications associated with threat or change to the identity in image or model.

But where there is a willingness to share truth - truth is already moving because this is innate to creation of experience or better, awareness of existence - because you ARE the experience - regardless the 'epicycles' of a model that posits a centrality of and subjection to image and form within experience. But not as you think you are - and therefore not exclusively so or alone in such a nature.

To bring these ideas closer to our desire for a coherent world (view and shared experience), shifting from problem-defined identity to awakening as conscious communication, is served by questioning or challenging our 'reality experience' which may seem not only self-evident - but overwhelmingly so.
How can we share an idea or concept of what reality is without separation from ourselves? It's like the duality versus the trinity in epistemology: the duality is pure knowing because it is object indistinguishable from object and vice versa, like a pure, knowing mind and singular eternal thought.The trinity supersedes the duality in knowledge, as one could say that there is a sat-cit-ananda or being-consciousness-bliss, wherein bliss could be replaced by the Anthropic interface, and the three could be broken down into the 13 dhatus, which gives an exhaustive view of consciousness-object-intermediate.

Now, it appears that you are operating from the viewpoint of the duality and stating that there is only love or strife, only identification and defensive protection and misidentification and self-contradiction. If you look at the trinity, there is a far better viewpoint, as it allows for conceptuality and thoughts yet doesn't force us into a dichotomy of knower-known and self and non-self and identification, misidentification, and defense, irritation, etc.
Bin-Ra wrote: The ability to question is also the ability to allow the true desire or cuiosity of our being. In this way we are opening a process of integration of thought and desire - heart and mind. Such as to align and reflect true desire in thought rather than set into a mind of self-conflicted evasions and defences in fear of truth as a result of invested identity in self-illusion under and overwhelming dictate. (Which operates the demand for sacrifice and denial of the true in order to 'survive').
It appears that the only thing permitted in your viewpoint is questioning while all of the positing and knowing are left as wrong because they are not direct experience of some cosmic truth.
Bin-Ra wrote:Our awareness in expression and embodiment is through definitions - accepted as 'working models' or alignments of recognition and resonance.
You can only separate from yourself in image - and indeed imagination - as a framework for a point of view. This is a matter of conscious focus and desire, or of reaction and wish in an anwatched mind running on choices set in habit. Confusing self in image is the nature of believing love attacked, broken, betrayed, lost and then revealed illusory, treacherous and heretical.

When I use a camera to take a photograph - I am not object-led so much as contextually guided. If I wrote out longhand the moments of such a 'decision' and these were thought about, there never would be the moment at hand to receive in image - unless reducing everything to a static and controlled studio environment - in which the 'rules' can be implemented by a robot. 'Make me an instrument of thy peace', is the most natural desire and alignment in the wordless recognition of unfolding fulfilment. NOT a wish added on top of a war-minded attempt to hunt and get something out there to add to itself.

Likewise when singing and playing guitar, I am contextually guided by the whole situation or gestalt of the moment - so as to align with the atmosphere as a shared willingness rather than to force or capture attention. The moment by moment experience is the 'feedback' by which I feel and find the balance points through which the music not only flows as 'alive' but as a shared tangibiity of giving and receiving as one. Listening in the heart draws forth the singer.

But the 'not two-ness' is always the transcendent embrace of any 'parts' and not their anihilation. Truth knows itself though us by which we know ourself and each other truly. This IS the nature of Jesus' two commandments (they were not made by him - but are two he gave in answer).
What's so wrong about separating yourself in order to have concepts? To question without the ability to answer is a poor state indeed.
Bin-Ra wrote:But a true appreciation is revealed through the resonant alignment of an acceptance of true - and not dogmatised, imposed or 'added to' a 'self-image' in search of its own validation or vindication.

So the extension of the mind through tools and instruments is not in itself an issue because they only extend the purpose for which the mind is being used. Possession and control or marketisation and weaponisation, operate the fear of dispossession and loss of control. That is, they are negatively polarised predicates of identification. In the balance point of a true communication - in life as with each other - such fears are exposed and released as communication is recognised AS SUCH - and trust is extended (to ourself and others) in willingness of shared purpose. (Because communication IS shared purpose and communion is its predicate).
So what are we supposed to do? Love all the time? Or lack suffering?
Bin-Ra wrote: The mind of the world-adaptation is a (collective and individual) personality construct - that may be invisible to the engagement IN its world. To such a focus in the world, all information is interpreted to its framework. (New wine into old paradigm). Which is the way the 'ego' subverts and incorporates (or rejects) the FORMS of the new to a system of definition, prediction and control. It also adulterates and dilutes the meaning from an original movement of true desire and fulfilment, to something pigeon-holed, 'explained' and dead.

Buddhist, Hindu or any other framework of idea - pertain to a living territory that is both intimate and universal - (where such is the active desire and intention), or to the maintaining of identity in the world as a social expression of shared cultural values. While the mind 'creates' experience of levels of experience by believing them, the journey of such experience operates a theme of exploration as a gift of freedom.

The nature of tangible differention within oneness is the interplay of primary qualities that are inseparable or indivisible. Joy is not 'different' from peace so much as the freedom-song rising from peace. The concept of 'oneness' as static or fixed in form is idol in the mind that grasps at its own tale. All concepts fall away to an Intimacy of Creation where All is given to all. There is no self-differentiation but the gift of a giving and receiving as one.
This is your truth? A cosmic oneness that is ineffable and intangible and only allows for questions without answers, and is a union of our 'fragmented' selves that define the world by misidentifying themselves with it?
Bin-Ra wrote:As you sow, so shall you reap - but time does not enter unless getting now to pay later (or getting others to pay in stead). "Now' then becomes a means of separating a past from a future. Not in truth, but in terms of the purpose you/we give it. A past of some belief in reality-lack seeks to 'get' for itself in terms of such a lack - and in 'possession' of a self-inflation, fears the loss of its 'specialness' or significance as defined by lack.

If lack of knowledge - then acquisition of knowledge as a personal attribute is defended with fig leaf thinking against naked disclosure.
Lack of love seeks possession, and lack of power seeks domination. The original sense of lack is of innate qualities of being. The modern phishing ruse works a mind of reaction to forms that seem true - and in panic and fear of loss can suffer identity theft, from which every subsequent attempt to overcome or escape, reinforces the entanglement of the original fear as Reality itself.
Yet again you find yourself in a duality.
Bin-Ra wrote: Regardless its attempt to control life - the ego 'leaks'. Thus the 'narrative continuity' is a damage control system for a defence against feared chaos of pain and loss, rather than pertaining to reality itself. For example creative thought comes into the world via various agencies that effort and technique or method alone cannot attain, but which often arises after intense willingness is enacted in trial and error of approach or experiment. It is the 'letting go' that lets in - but this cannot itself be faked. You have to know you want something, to then generate the conditions for it to come to you in its timing relative to the current willingness to accept it.

In large part, the ego of a personal sense of credit or achievement feathers its cap with the gifts of life, and the world agrees to not look at the truth because it wants a sense of personhood in achievement as its vindication or validation - as if this is love or worth regained, allowed or permitted.

Rather than break up already broken up 'adams' in search of 'meanings' that fail to share or communicate by disection. I read your points and wrote with a sense of you from what you wrote. I am not in the business of convincing or persuading anyone, but of giving witness to a true receipt, by learning not to snap-react to objects or to try to grow music in a soil of unwillingness or untimeliness for growth, but a balancing of heart and mind within the tuning of a signal or resonance of giving and receiving. The 'oneness' is known by the movement of its expression. This is not different to saying that love is only known by its extension, and that you cannot extend what you are not willing to accept for yourself.


All the king’s horses and all the king’s men
Couldn’t put oneness together again.
because Humpty was a false flagged self-deprivation.
Let them smash eggs together, in searching that breaks to make its own image upon the fragmented entrails of a goat that only the elect can pronounce upon. If that be their desire. But it is not mine nor does it hold my allegiance.
We can only perceive through judgements that select and reject to make levels of accepted and agreed reality against discarded denials.
But we can recognise a mind of judgement as coercive, and choose not to use it. This is the 'letting go' that lets in a gift of a different order of perception - because it rises from a non-rejection of a wholeness of being. This is practical in its actions and effects - even if some or all of it operates unseen. This is a different order of 'objectivity' than the ego's attempt to clean itself up or eradicate itself. There is NO coercion in it and that is a recognisable quality of a true embrace to which natural response would have to be unnaturally blocked - and thus come to notice, instead of running 'reality as normal'. Becoming aware of our dissonance is unsettling - but is also the territory in which a true call seeks resonance and recognized response in the same way a mother bird can recognize its offsping's unique signature amidst a flock.
Is love the answer to your duality?

Bin-Ra
Posts: 33
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2018 1:20 pm

Re: The LHC “nightmare scenario” has come true.

Unread post by Bin-Ra » Fri Mar 22, 2019 10:01 am

Communication failure.

Sithri
Posts: 82
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2019 2:24 pm

Re: The LHC “nightmare scenario” has come true.

Unread post by Sithri » Fri Mar 22, 2019 11:15 am

Bin-Ra wrote:Communication failure.
If I gather the sum-total of what you're saying, it is that there is a sort of 'schizophrenia' (literally defined as 'split mind') that occurs with oneness being the remedy. Love itself, while participating in a unity, is opposite to hatred or power, which is a schism of self, which is held together by defense mechanisms and pride and lack of existential qualities that are innate. For you, reality is already 'one' underlying all of all, and to grasp it is the key. You say that questioning is to break these power barriers of identification with the outer as a sense of self. But what is answering is as questioning in the viewpoint of the one, as it is aimless, formless, and striving-less and to attain it is to become what already is. Am I correct on all of these points?

Bin-Ra
Posts: 33
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2018 1:20 pm

Re: The LHC “nightmare scenario” has come true.

Unread post by Bin-Ra » Fri Mar 22, 2019 1:30 pm

Sithri wrote:
Bin-Ra wrote:Communication failure.
If I gather the sum-total of what you're saying, it is that there is a sort of 'schizophrenia' (literally defined as 'split mind') that occurs with oneness being the remedy. Love itself, while participating in a unity, is opposite to hatred or power, which is a schism of self, which is held together by defense mechanisms and pride and lack of existential qualities that are innate. For you, reality is already 'one' underlying all of all, and to grasp it is the key. You say that questioning is to break these power barriers of identification with the outer as a sense of self. But what is answering is as questioning in the viewpoint of the one, as it is aimless, formless, and striving-less and to attain it is to become what already is. Am I correct on all of these points?
Call it mankind in amnesia, split mind, mind control, or anything that serves you - but until you notice it, the terms means nothing - and so any such term will be assigned some made up supposition from what you already learned - ie schizophrenia - which does not hold the same meaning.

Love is itself and isn't so much a remedy brought TO a split mind as the nature or condition in which fear is undone. Fear splits the mind of conflicted purpose, and thus of conflicting realities under a narrative seeking continuity or survival IN ITS TERMS.

This is reflected in the saying 'perfect love casts our fear'. This could also be said as unadulterated love is one without a second. Clearly 'trying to love' or seeking for love is rooted in a communication breakdown. Love extends of itself as the nature of creation - and only an attempt to DO this as a private agenda can get in the way - and so the remedy is to GET OUT OF THE WAY. Science has of course uncovered facets of this because a love of truth is the basis for the uncovering or the truth of love - but not in terms of emotional manipulations, masking and fantasy gratification. So 'love' is less often used - but is in this sense no different from Self, God, Reality - or any other symbolic reference to our Source and Nature.
So yes, because we have a 'mind' or are of Mind - we can create symbolic references, imaged models and conceptual frameworks - but none of those are separation from 'What Is' - and insofar as they operate as a virtual world through which to experience, they are in the mind that made them and not in space and time. Evidently, the personal adaptation to such a model or world is not the maker of the script - and yet beneath the adaptations are beliefs and definitions acquired or inherited, that are lived from without any awareness or question - as IF self evident. But they are learned and maintained and protected against exposure in the same way psychological defences protect hidden fears or past trauma - often without hardly any consciousness - BECAUSE they have been displaced and dissociated from.

So unless there is a readiness to revisit such 'inner terrain' the mind protects against knowing by looking anywhere else. This self-evasion isn't only a mapping out of consciousness or unconsciousness, but an active suppression and undermining of the restoring of consciousness or healing. This is not perceived as healing but as threat. And so the basic idea of a model defended against truth. A split mind engaged in its OWN symbolic replacements for relationship - acted out as if true.

When love is blocked in its expression and therefor in our awareness - this effects the separation, conflict and struggle of the 'human conditioning'. But insofar as willingness allows life to move through us - we experience everything from a different perspective - but without consciousness or vigilance against identifying in the mind of conflict, its interjection generally cancels any such opening - even as it begins to open, or redefines after the event to reinstate narrative continuity or 'normal service'. Because the sense of control is the core aspect of the 'thinking self', any sense of losing control triggers fear - be that love, beauty, truth, joy or peace - the ego-sense interjects some sense of possession or control as default - until more responsibility for noticing grows.

I don't see any point in trying to speak of what love is and shares excepting to say that there are no limits but those we accept as part of the themes of our exploration. the exploring of a sense of separateness from our being and subjection to an alien will is the result of accepting or invoking an alien will from a sense of lack, chaos and conflict seeking order or limit to pain and loss.

The Nature of Creation is expressed well in these archaic terms; "Behold I make all things new" and Behold this is my Son whom is my delight". The former pertains not just to the opening of a New Epoch, but to the very nature of this and every instant. True desire or will, is the always unfolding of such recognition through the freedom of exploring, knowing, feeling being - along the line of your joy - just as you are created of and for joy.

Where is the bridge from Always to our current predicament? Is it not in the willingness to recognize truth here in this moment, situation, relationship, or endeavour? If you know your joy and are free to follow it, you have no sense of struggle or striving in following its fulfilment - but if you carry all kinds of reasons or beliefs as to why you cannot have it then you will manifest these or attract them into your life and experience challenge. If you truly want something, you meet its conditions. Truth makes no conditions if it is The Obvious - but a mind of its own conditioning will set all kind of conditions in ways that then seem to happen to it or be imposed.
Some of these are easy to become aware of because we can begin to notice our 'patterns' and habits just by paying attention while events unfold.
The principle block that sets fear into denial rather than brings it to healing is guilt, blame and shame.
"Why risk the truth if it brings you rejection, vilification, persecution or penalty? Better the devil you know".
Truth and fear or indeed truth and conflict or war are mutually exclusive. Because the moment conflict is identified is the moment 'truth' becomes war's first casualty. And the mind then runs of a narrative in service of protecting against the feared - and in so doing protects the fear. This is becoming Obvious in political matters - where 'war on Fear' is actually operating fear and limitation via a false sense of security. But if it cant keep fear out of mind, it can no longer serve the function assigned it - and we have to find another way than denial and attack of anything 'different' to our sense of possession and control. Ie: some willingness to change. I see this growing in a few - but those with the most investment are most defended against change - in any field of identity and endeavour.

If I gave the sense of futility to always already being then that is a reversal. persisting in what cannot ever truly work is futile and meaningless - regardless the seemingly robotic willingness to persist over and over and over again as if this time will be different. As if this time the obstacles, evils, or adversities can be defeated, got rid of, annihilated, excommunicated - and a new world reached...

Jung advocated embracing our shadow. But unless we recognize it is our shadow, we persist in attacking it here, there and in everyone.

What is formless is not at all intangible. Our lack of receptivity is a form blindness - in which form-assigned meanings operate as if reality - without any intimacy of relation to feel and know the truth or this moment. Fear is the collaps into the fight and flight reflex. Everything else gets shut down. The trigger is persisting long past that trauma in that fear is become the guide and upholder of 'order'. And love does not really exist - cant be trusted, is some sort of trick or treachery and makes you weak and stupid.

Because I felt engaged with I have engaged with you. It is of course yours to take from it what resonates or serves you. Fear will always distort any interpretations - and recognising this is the ability to bring that conscious rather than be run by unconscious patterns or habits of thought and response that perhaps once served us but now get in the way. Abilities transform under awakened purpose. Holding to true purpose is different from struggle and strife.

I am not here to mark you - and if you miss the mark is not the issue if you have some desire to question, understand and appreciate. The idea of 'discovering' truth properly understands it is revealing the already true to our capacity to accept, recognize and share in appreciation of. To think in terms of being famed or fortuned from flagging or patenting the 'discovery' is all about 'me' and only seeks 'truth' as a prop to the story. But that is not to say that there is not a true blessing in being part of serving a true fulfilment. No one in the sharing of life need stop to question its value - because the fruits of this are truly and tangibly known - and lived.
We don't become someone else so much as release the attempt to be someone or something we are not.
The attempt to become someone we are not sets up the 'Forgetting' in whatever pathways and patterns of action and reaction follow. 'Remembering' is the movement in being in which the past is undone in the present to release the present to extend to the future. In scientific terms, this is the ability and desire to revisit the choices that set the framework into dead ends and reopen to wonder and discovery - and likely find there were then those who opened a truer vision but were denied.

Sithri
Posts: 82
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2019 2:24 pm

Re: The LHC “nightmare scenario” has come true.

Unread post by Sithri » Fri Mar 22, 2019 2:58 pm

Bin-Ra wrote:
Sithri wrote:
Bin-Ra wrote:Communication failure.
If I gather the sum-total of what you're saying, it is that there is a sort of 'schizophrenia' (literally defined as 'split mind') that occurs with oneness being the remedy. Love itself, while participating in a unity, is opposite to hatred or power, which is a schism of self, which is held together by defense mechanisms and pride and lack of existential qualities that are innate. For you, reality is already 'one' underlying all of all, and to grasp it is the key. You say that questioning is to break these power barriers of identification with the outer as a sense of self. But what is answering is as questioning in the viewpoint of the one, as it is aimless, formless, and striving-less and to attain it is to become what already is. Am I correct on all of these points?
Call it mankind in amnesia, split mind, mind control, or anything that serves you - but until you notice it, the terms means nothing - and so any such term will be assigned some made up supposition from what you already learned - ie schizophrenia - which does not hold the same meaning.
I don't literally mean schizophrenia, only the original meaning of the etymology of the term as 'split mind'. I have certainly noticed a certain kind of defensive behavior as to knowledge and paradigms.
Bin-Ra wrote: Love is itself and isn't so much a remedy brought TO a split mind as the nature or condition in which fear is undone. Fear splits the mind of conflicted purpose, and thus of conflicting realities under a narrative seeking continuity or survival IN ITS TERMS.
I would say Love is its own power that is a way of attaining enlightenment along with other positive emotions such as Shared-Joy, Serenity, and Contentedness. Also, fear can help as well as harm, as it can protect from evil and give a motive to live, to find meaning in chaos, as well as the negatives of 'splitting' the mind against itself and 'controlling' it.
Bin-Ra wrote:This is reflected in the saying 'perfect love casts our fear'. This could also be said as unadulterated love is one without a second. Clearly 'trying to love' or seeking for love is rooted in a communication breakdown. Love extends of itself as the nature of creation - and only an attempt to DO this as a private agenda can get in the way - and so the remedy is to GET OUT OF THE WAY. Science has of course uncovered facets of this because a love of truth is the basis for the uncovering or the truth of love - but not in terms of emotional manipulations, masking and fantasy gratification. So 'love' is less often used - but is in this sense no different from Self, God, Reality - or any other symbolic reference to our Source and Nature.

I distinguish love by its two forms: friendly and unfriendly. Unfriendly love causes jealousy, comes from a communication breakdown, emotional manipulations, masking, and fantasy gratification, all predicated upon 'ownership' and 'domination' as well as fear of loss and other things. Friendly love comes from a mutual appreciation without 'ownership' and can put up boundaries that block certain ways of toxic relationships with a gratification of one another that has no true aim or focus but to benefit one another in a rapport. True love is not a whole and part, but rather a whole meeting a whole. They say “God is love.” For man, for all intents and purposes “Love is God.” Why should we subordinate love to a God instead of loving for love’s sake? Love is a whole and not a whole-from-part or even a part-from-whole because regardless of its meaning, self and other are the focus of love, just as the self is made of a whole, and the other, when considered a part, loses that love. The self and the other are both wholes, and the whole is needed as it gives both their meaning. This is also why the virtue of Temperance does not result in love, but rather beauty. When one has love, one cannot say, I give this much love to you; this wouldn't make any sense in that love is something that is desired over and over again; it is its own justification.


Bin-Ra wrote:So yes, because we have a 'mind' or are of Mind - we can create symbolic references, imaged models and conceptual frameworks - but none of those are separation from 'What Is' - and insofar as they operate as a virtual world through which to experience, they are in the mind that made them and not in space and time. Evidently, the personal adaptation to such a model or world is not the maker of the script - and yet beneath the adaptations are beliefs and definitions acquired or inherited, that are lived from without any awareness or question - as IF self evident. But they are learned and maintained and protected against exposure in the same way psychological defences protect hidden fears or past trauma - often without hardly any consciousness - BECAUSE they have been displaced and dissociated from.
So are you saying that the phenomena of mind themselves in first-person experience that are common to nearly all human minds are not self-evident? For instance, imagination, or thought?
Bin-Ra wrote: So unless there is a readiness to revisit such 'inner terrain' the mind protects against knowing by looking anywhere else. This self-evasion isn't only a mapping out of consciousness or unconsciousness, but an active suppression and undermining of the restoring of consciousness or healing. This is not perceived as healing but as threat. And so the basic idea of a model defended against truth. A split mind engaged in its OWN symbolic replacements for relationship - acted out as if true.
I agree, it takes a holism of mind to search the mind, but then again, anyone can come to the same conclusions I have had about my mind, as it is shared by many minds in humans. I even wonder if it extends to the plant world as well.
Bin-Ra wrote: When love is blocked in its expression and therefor in our awareness - this effects the separation, conflict and struggle of the 'human conditioning'. But insofar as willingness allows life to move through us - we experience everything from a different perspective - but without consciousness or vigilance against identifying in the mind of conflict, its interjection generally cancels any such opening - even as it begins to open, or redefines after the event to reinstate narrative continuity or 'normal service'. Because the sense of control is the core aspect of the 'thinking self', any sense of losing control triggers fear - be that love, beauty, truth, joy or peace - the ego-sense interjects some sense of possession or control as default - until more responsibility for noticing grows.
I would say that love, beauty, truth, joy, and peace are enlightening in themselves and the ego naturally responds favorably to these emotions unless conditioned otherwise. For instance, what once brought joy may bring dullness and boredom. What once brought hatred may next bring joy. It also depends upon the networks of thoughts and emotions and the bodymind that encapsulates these emotions and thoughts that evoke themselves in certain conditions or happenstance or with deliberate evocation.
Bin-Ra wrote: I don't see any point in trying to speak of what love is and shares excepting to say that there are no limits but those we accept as part of the themes of our exploration. the exploring of a sense of separateness from our being and subjection to an alien will is the result of accepting or invoking an alien will from a sense of lack, chaos and conflict seeking order or limit to pain and loss.
How can we seek order in chaos? Unless we are accepting the self-evident as alien, and not vice-versa, we are on a true path to understanding.
Bin-Ra wrote:The Nature of Creation is expressed well in these archaic terms; "Behold I make all things new" and Behold this is my Son whom is my delight". The former pertains not just to the opening of a New Epoch, but to the very nature of this and every instant. True desire or will, is the always unfolding of such recognition through the freedom of exploring, knowing, feeling being - along the line of your joy - just as you are created of and for joy.
I agree.
Bin-Ra wrote: Where is the bridge from Always to our current predicament? Is it not in the willingness to recognize truth here in this moment, situation, relationship, or endeavour? If you know your joy and are free to follow it, you have no sense of struggle or striving in following its fulfilment - but if you carry all kinds of reasons or beliefs as to why you cannot have it then you will manifest these or attract them into your life and experience challenge. If you truly want something, you meet its conditions. Truth makes no conditions if it is The Obvious - but a mind of its own conditioning will set all kind of conditions in ways that then seem to happen to it or be imposed.
What exactly would be the truth in the 'here and now, this situation, relationship, and endeavor'' except for what they all have in common which is self-knowledge? It appears that this is one of your main endeavors because you speak of the ego as controlling what it can and bringing order and the shadow being known as a process of healing, etc.
Bin-Ra wrote: Some of these are easy to become aware of because we can begin to notice our 'patterns' and habits just by paying attention while events unfold.
Exactly! Mindfulness is a great thing!
Bin-Ra wrote:The principle block that sets fear into denial rather than brings it to healing is guilt, blame and shame.
"Why risk the truth if it brings you rejection, vilification, persecution or penalty? Better the devil you know".
Truth and fear or indeed truth and conflict or war are mutually exclusive. Because the moment conflict is identified is the moment 'truth' becomes war's first casualty. And the mind then runs of a narrative in service of protecting against the feared - and in so doing protects the fear. This is becoming Obvious in political matters - where 'war on Fear' is actually operating fear and limitation via a false sense of security. But if it cant keep fear out of mind, it can no longer serve the function assigned it - and we have to find another way than denial and attack of anything 'different' to our sense of possession and control. Ie: some willingness to change. I see this growing in a few - but those with the most investment are most defended against change - in any field of identity and endeavour.

If I gave the sense of futility to always already being then that is a reversal. persisting in what cannot ever truly work is futile and meaningless - regardless the seemingly robotic willingness to persist over and over and over again as if this time will be different. As if this time the obstacles, evils, or adversities can be defeated, got rid of, annihilated, excommunicated - and a new world reached...
Sometimes the truth can be painful even if it is true. That is where I disagree with you on how the truth is opposed to conflict or war. Love is opposed to conflict and war, not truth. Truth brings conflict and war by its very nature: it is the light in darkness, and darkness is ever-conquered and truth ever-victorious, even if it takes time to reach the furthest distances we see.
Bin-Ra wrote: Jung advocated embracing our shadow. But unless we recognize it is our shadow, we persist in attacking it here, there and in everyone.
I disagree with jung here. Bringing up past traumas doesn't always heal, and can hurt more than heal. For instance, try not to think of the word 'car'. I bet you will end up thinking of it simply by that fact of trying not to think of it. Our mental processes are problem-solving tinkerers, appreciators of goodness and evil, not healing eternal divine beings like angels that may manifest in our lives at some time or another in some form or another.
Bin-Ra wrote:What is formless is not at all intangible. Our lack of receptivity is a form blindness - in which form-assigned meanings operate as if reality - without any intimacy of relation to feel and know the truth or this moment. Fear is the collaps into the fight and flight reflex. Everything else gets shut down. The trigger is persisting long past that trauma in that fear is become the guide and upholder of 'order'. And love does not really exist - cant be trusted, is some sort of trick or treachery and makes you weak and stupid.
I think you psychologize a bit too much. Like I said, fear can help or hurt. Hatred can help or hurt. Pride can help or hurt. Craving can help or hurt. Sadness can help or hurt.
Bin-Ra wrote:Because I felt engaged with I have engaged with you. It is of course yours to take from it what resonates or serves you. Fear will always distort any interpretations - and recognising this is the ability to bring that conscious rather than be run by unconscious patterns or habits of thought and response that perhaps once served us but now get in the way. Abilities transform under awakened purpose. Holding to true purpose is different from struggle and strife.
Sometimes life is less of a struggle between fear and evil and the good and courageous, but rather a walk in the park where each specific detail of the beauty of nature can be appreciated for what it is, and what is in the current moment in this walk can be focused upon or not. Mindfulness itself can be healing, and it can help us let go of old fears and live in the moment as it is the way it is.
Bin-Ra wrote:I am not here to mark you - and if you miss the mark is not the issue if you have some desire to question, understand and appreciate. The idea of 'discovering' truth properly understands it is revealing the already true to our capacity to accept, recognize and share in appreciation of. To think in terms of being famed or fortuned from flagging or patenting the 'discovery' is all about 'me' and only seeks 'truth' as a prop to the story. But that is not to say that there is not a true blessing in being part of serving a true fulfilment. No one in the sharing of life need stop to question its value - because the fruits of this are truly and tangibly known - and lived.
We don't become someone else so much as release the attempt to be someone or something we are not.
The attempt to become someone we are not sets up the 'Forgetting' in whatever pathways and patterns of action and reaction follow. 'Remembering' is the movement in being in which the past is undone in the present to release the present to extend to the future. In scientific terms, this is the ability and desire to revisit the choices that set the framework into dead ends and reopen to wonder and discovery - and likely find there were then those who opened a truer vision but were denied.
Like I said, remembering everything leads to a long-held problem and further resistance, or a gracious release if perspective on the issue is changed or something about it changes. It depends upon the circumstances of the pain, the pain itself, the way it is viewed, and far more. For instance, when I realized that God can be evil, through karma, a whole vista opened for me even though it sounds outlandish. But this evil isn't really evil; it's justice in its purest form! To cause evil upon people for committing evil and good for good people sounds somewhat barbaric, but to me it is the ultimate justice and simple cause and effect of our willing which causes thought, speech, and deed and can be for good or evil, even in happiness as in suffering.

I have enjoyed talking about you on this issue so much. Thank you, and a prayer for you:

Light extends as far as loving life. Life extends as far as light loves. I wish for love for my own and your life as much as the light extends.

But let this not be a closing prayer! I am interested in your perspective, if you wish sharing!

Bin-Ra
Posts: 33
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2018 1:20 pm

Re: The LHC “nightmare scenario” has come true.

Unread post by Bin-Ra » Sat Mar 23, 2019 6:31 am

I do not find we are opening real communication here, and leaning to that possibility is feeding an entanglement in futility. Not unlike the resources poured into the Hadron collider except I gave willingly and gained through the experience - whereas seeking order in chaos is generating or maintaining the conditions in which all the king's horses - and men - persist in futility by design.

The order/chaos operates the split mind of mutually justified reaction.

I know there are other ways to use the term 'chaos' that are not ills or evils to destroy ...with evil (sic), but is a previously unrecognised patterning of emerging coherence. But this is not employ for the thin-king motivation or manpower, but the desisting of such for listening in the heart.

The thinking mind can be fed forever and never but wants more.
What we appreciate, appreciates.
What we leave unused, fades from non use.

Cargo
Posts: 294
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 7:02 pm

Re: The LHC “nightmare scenario” has come true.

Unread post by Cargo » Sat Mar 23, 2019 9:48 am

You two exchanging mythical mind tomes with each other has been my own "nightmare scenario" as it has sent this thread off the rails.
interstellar filaments conducted electricity having currents as high as 10 thousand billion amperes

Bin-Ra
Posts: 33
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2018 1:20 pm

Re: The LHC “nightmare scenario” has come true.

Unread post by Bin-Ra » Sat Mar 23, 2019 11:36 am

Cargo wrote:You two exchanging mythical mind tomes with each other has been my own "nightmare scenario" as it has sent this thread off the rails.
But it is a thread on a mythic narrative that has 'failed' to hold up as coherent science, so on some level the conversation is invited to look at what contributes to this, or what such 'stuck' or politically 'settled science' is a symptom of.

What would be on the rails in for your dream come true?

Cargo
Posts: 294
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 7:02 pm

Re: The LHC “nightmare scenario” has come true.

Unread post by Cargo » Mon Mar 25, 2019 9:27 pm

That it failed is not surprising, since Myth is the opposite of Science. And Theory based on an entrenched mythical dreams of Dark Energy Bangs lead to what we have now. The only thing that could make it real, are dreams in fact. So the people that put their dream theory into this, are having a nightmare. All they have to do is wake up though, and get over it. Then the Dark will go away, and we call a move forward in the light.
interstellar filaments conducted electricity having currents as high as 10 thousand billion amperes

Bin-Ra
Posts: 33
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2018 1:20 pm

Re: The LHC “nightmare scenario” has come true.

Unread post by Bin-Ra » Tue Mar 26, 2019 3:38 am

Cargo wrote:That it failed is not surprising, since Myth is the opposite of Science. And Theory based on an entrenched mythical dreams of Dark Energy Bangs lead to what we have now. The only thing that could make it real, are dreams in fact. So the people that put their dream theory into this, are having a nightmare. All they have to do is wake up though, and get over it. Then the Dark will go away, and we call a move forward in the light.

A dark or negative economy works as 'failure by design'. When seen in such terms a different version operates the underbelly of apparent failure. So a bigger better toolset, sucking more funds, is a success story to those who chase the carrot that justifies such cost, sacrifice, side-effects, collateral damage, etc.

Perhaps it is as simple as that everyone protects their investments.
WANTING something to be true - but is not - becomes like a rogue or robot identity habit - running as IF it is the cause demanding effects (compliance, allegiance, funding, protection against critical challenge.

How far are we willing to go in subordinating or sacrificing truth to invested self illusions?
Or to put it another way, how willing are we to deny the dissonances of conflict, pain and loss by fitting them into a false model that becomes increasing and obviously absurd and insane (to any but its addicts),or denying and ignoring them in a no less insane divorce from reality?

Perhaps there are hidden agenda in such experiments that are strictly for insider dealing.
The wish to replace truth is always associated with an active denial of truth - and deceit is always associated with fear, secrecy and retaliation - because a mind can ONLY expect in the terms it has accepted by setting as the measure of its giving. One set on holding false witness, is to a world of liars born. In other words we project our mind into others and our world - whether we realise that this is so, or whether we fight and defend against it as an 'alien will' or 'hidden agenda'.

I find it fitting to note the metaphors of the gravity-disconnection model have revealed its psychic underpinnings.
Dark energy, and dark matter, Black holes of overwhelming negative attraction, a Big Bang of fragmenting explosion into irrevocable and ever increasingly vast separations.

Here's to recognising we but dream a dream in which cause is given to the distortions of wishes and fears that are assigned real effects - under which we then adapt as subjects to a model or indeed an idol of Reality - be-lived (suffered and died under) as true.

If the call to wake is heard only as the call to fear, it will be suppressed by the fearfully invested.
Beneath all else, if fear is allowed to dictate or determine accepted 'truth' then love of truth or true Self-Recognition in resonance - is ruled out, under the attempt to rule over a substitute 'reality' that must forever justify or prove itself in shifting goals and against shifting 'enemies' and 'evils' so as to maintain allegiance and support that gives it all the power and existence it seems to embody.

The stirring of a true resonant recognition - is of a different order or purpose than the 'command and control' system invoked and developed for surviving a nightmare scenario.

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests