Recovered: The Electricity of Life - a personal view

[bboyer]

Posted: Thu May 03, 2007 11:12 am Post subject: The Electricity of Life - a personal view Reply with quote
OP "arc-us"

I will speak from my heart and say that, for me, it's truly a simple matter that goes beyond complex cause-and-effect issues of classical Newtonian Physics.

The electricity of life. It's really just another, common ground for endless mentally engendered debate and polemics: Humanity is a spiritual creation, endowed with innate, divine qualities of the godhead. No, humanity is a material creation, void of divinity, his realization of consciousness purely an accidental result of the material evolution of his brain. God exists. No, she doesn't. And when you're dead, you're dead.

Blah-blah-blah.

Aren't these ongoing, ceaseless mental debates simply part-and-parcel of the mental entrapment we've come to experience so relentlessly as the Vedic Law of Karma? Souls consumed by the polar energies within the hypnotic sleep of ignorance and unawareness of who they really are?

If we believe ourselves to be only energy and form (thought, emotional, physical), then are not we doomed to forever repeat an impoverished, endless cycling from one pole of existence to the other?

It is unavoidable. For such concepts preclude other ground from which to perceive the true nature of the poles. We have no "space," no perspective from which to integrate them both within our circles of influence. We become impoverished, under-nurtured, and lacking in recognition.

But aren't diametrically opposed opposites really only experienced as being "worlds apart" if we, in our misidentification of just who we are, mistake ourselves as being one pole or the other?

I would venture to say that it is a guaranteed fact of life on and around Earth that if at one period we occupy (identify with) the position of one pole, in some relatively soon to be experienced next moment in time we will be occupying (identifying with) its polar opposite. And, if we should subscribe to the tenets of multiple lifetimes, then the phenomena is accompanied by concomitant memory lapse (amnesia, forgetfulness) of the formerly occupied state.

What I'm suggesting is a different tack in all this. Consider an electric motor. The principle of its operation is based on the dynamics between polar opposites - diametrically positioned N and S poles of magnets in between which is positioned a coil of wire that is free to spin on its axis. The coil's axis of spin is explained, in conventional electromagnetic theory, to be perpendicular to the magnetic "lines of force." So that when the coils of wire "cut" (move or cross) through the magnetic lines of force an electric current is induced in the wires.

I don't want to get into details, and I'm not that competent with it anyway. My point is that it certainly appears to be a Newtonian, dual-oriented universe where the interplay of polar opposites creates all the dynamic interplay of energies, forces, matter, and time that we are thoroughly immersed within.

Only ... one vital aspect always seems to get omitted or marginalized. What is it that holds - in this case the poles of the magnets, the magnets themselves - what is it that holds the poles apart? And what is it that enables the coil of wire to freely spin within the center of these poles, what anchors it?

The base of the motor. The "background."

So in fact, if anything, it could be said to be a triune universe and not a duality. At least in this context. Now, let's get personal. Okay, wrong word. Let's get impersonal and consider what is perhaps closer to our true, or comprehensive, natures.

I'm proposing that if we come to know ourselves as who we really are, then a ... cosmic, for lack of a better word ... reorientation occurs. All of a sudden - and in the twinkle of an eye - we find that we fulfill the function of the motor's base. We are what makes it all possible. Beyond space, beyond time, beyond any and all mental concept of ourselves, we are it. We are the eternal, timeless (without time), unborn and undying "background" presence of no-thing-ness that has always been "here," before any and all beginnings, and will always be here after any and all endings of all named and unnamed things. The ineffable presence from which all things electrical are born and to which they return. And it's ineffable - not because of some holy concept attached to it - but because it truly cannot be grasped by any thought, any word, any concept of the mind.

It (we, in and of our naked, ego-less true nature) IS what the manifest universe of already separated charges appears in, while we also as individual foci of awareness (the "I" we are constantly sensing), paradoxically, appear in it.

Not unlike how when we dream we can appear as part of the dreamscape or, sometimes, not really have an active role excepting as passive observer. But the dream is appearing within us as background while we simultaneously create and participate in the foreground activity of energy patterns in motion.

And just as in a personal dream, the physical universe similarly appears to us simultaneously and spontaneously with charges already separated. One viewpoint might be that life, like our dreams, just seems to happen to us. That's how inverted we are when we experience ourselves as isolated islands of little egos. Life happens. We emerge from life. And, from an ego perspective, that's perfectly true. I'm just pointing out that there is another perspective available to us in which we might find that life, that all things manifest, actually emerge from us. Just as our dreaming worlds do.

And, I suggest, it is all happening right this instant, this present moment. Not a milli- or micro-second in the past nor future. But right now. Just as it always does. If you don't consult your memory (to experience past, dead things) or imagination (to experience future, as yet unborn non-occurrences) then you are left with what is exactly present in the one precise instant of NOW.

To me, the only real difference between creating and experiencing a personal dream versus awakening to what appears as an already created and awaiting experience of the consensus-based "real" world is the notion of the collective mind of many individual awarenesses. Like a collective dream. Like raindrop patterns on a large pool of water, blinking into and out of existence (just as while some are sleeping a dreamless sleep, others are dreaming, and others are out in the work-a-day world - collective minds overlapping like raindrops, popping in and out of consciousness, dreams and so on).

The phenomenon of sleep (in some circles referred to as the "little death")is fascinating. It's interesting to entertain the notion that when each of us awaken each day that just maybe the entirety of the universe springs to life with our focal-consciousness. At least for our individual, particular ego-based experience of it. I mean, if you follow it through in enough depth, if there were no eyes to see then the sun would not be light. Not a purely cause-and-effect relationship with sun as cause and organic eyes as effect, but a reciprocating, complimentary co-creation.

But in the background, ALWAYS present as the only absolute and unchanging quality is that in which all motion, all changing relationships, and all activity occurs.

And this background, because of its very nature, can never avail itself to the probing, inquiring mind of materialism or scientific quantification and measure. This background will always be receding from our instruments of measure, anything concocted by mental/intellectual reasoning.

The mind is incapable of grasping its own essence. It'd be like the eye trying to see itself. Or your teeth trying to bite your own teeth. That's why so-called materialists will never get it. It is impossible to "prove." Because "it" is self-referent, self-grounding, self-referencing. Self-evident.

The truth is just too simple to be grasped by the mind. But, of course, this depth of truth is ungraspable, again, by its very nature. Like trying to grasp a handful of water, the mind can only produce a concept of wetness, not the full-fledged experience of the deep sea from which it springs. It can only be realized - recognized - by, in, and of itself. And it is not mind. It is that in which, from which, mind emerges.

Our quality of awareness of awareness - being aware that we are aware - which, perhaps, is the most distinguishing characteristic of a human being - is near to what I speak of. And this quality of awareness goes beyond a quality of consciousness. From my perspective, consciousness is but a form of focused awareness, requiring awareness, but one can also be aware and not necessarily be conscious (as in deep, dreamless sleep). And vice versa. A plant is conscious of sunlight, for example. It responds to light and dark. But is it aware of its own awareness? Like Descartes, does it reflexively think upon itself, and therefore, is? But we can't deny that it has a degree of consciousness, awareness of environment.

I also think the philosopher, Alan Watts, nailed it down with his concept of there being two varieties of attention: floodlight and spotlight. We are only selectively conscious (spotlight) within the broader awareness of the totality (floodlight) of what's going on in our environment at any given moment. For example, you may have been aware of what color shoes your wife, or shirt your husband, was wearing at dinner last evening, but you may not be able to consciously recall it if asked. Because, for whatever reason, you had no focus of attention to that particular detail amongst all the other details available to your total awareness.

And this - our willingness to redefine (or, actually, undefine) ourselves - opens the door of possibility for a complete reorientation to our living of life. Indeed, to our perception of life and things electrical.

In other words, polar opposites can be experienced as complimentary opposites. They oppose one another, yes, and great potential energy is generated. But the source for the required torque and tension of opposition is in, and occurs only because of, their shared unity through the commonly held (back)ground of the base.

This is symbolized by the empty circle (or sphere) within which fullness and emptiness, the feminine and masculine aspects, the yin and yang dualities, interplay with one another in full dynamic opposed complementarity. And it all arises spontaneously and simultaneously.

The containing empty spaces, the form-defining circle, the swirling, dancing, spiraling energies. Circuits complete, parts become energized, and the whole motor turns, currents move, and a harmony of integrative life, a uni-verse, happens.

As if magically orchestrated, our relationship to life, to others, to ourselves is no longer consumed by only being able to provincially perceive opposites at war or conflict with one another in our lives.

Of course, these are just words and symbolic analogies, not the unspeakable reality being spoken about. After all, even the base of the motor needs a resting, reference ground such as a table; and a table, the floor; the floor, a building etc.. Anything that is manifest, anything that is susceptible to change, these things can never exist absolutely without some form of ground for a reference point. And the grounding for words, for human language, is the collectively shared energy patterns of the human mind.

What I'm speaking to goes even beyond grounding, it goes to an absolute stillness from which grounding itself emerges. As I believe Siddartha Gautama put it, words are like mere fingers pointing at the reality of the moon - we don't want our attention getting wrapped up in and involved with what the fingers are all about when it's of the moon that's being spoken. Or, another way I've heard it commonly expressed, don't confuse the map with the territory.

It actually goes much more beyond, much deeper, than a physical analogy is capable of expressing. Some phrasing like the "emptiness that is full," or a "pregnant nothingness" approach it. But even those are poor substitutes of description.

Sure, I'm still part of the circuit here, and have and express opinions (like I'm doing here). But am I "polarized" by my opinion(s)? Do I take them seriously any more? No. I can sincerely express them (as Alan Watts might say) but I no longer have to compulsively take them or any other part of my ego-based self seriously. It's like a big sigh of relief. Like being aware of other possibilities in life for the first time.

Can change - and what is life and living but change? - can it still spook me and provoke anxiety from time-to-time. Oh yeah. Can I still find myself worrying about an unknown future or fret over things that are in the past? Certainly so. But am I anxious about my anxiety? Or do I take it - or "me" seriously anymore? Rarely, by comparison. And, perhaps best of all, aside from it not requiring a medical prescription, is that I no longer mistake it as defining who "I" am.

If anyone has actually bothered, perhaps foolishly, to wade and wander this far down in my meandering, I thank you for lending an ear to these unsatisfactory words and apologize for the length.

And bid you my best regard,
@rc-us
_________________
The moment of recognizing what cannot be thought is the moment of recognizing who you are. It is a moment of the mind's surrender to silence. The only obstacle to realizing the truth of who you are is thinking who you are. It's that simple. -- Gangaji

Last edited by @rc-us on Sun Jun 17, 2007 6:52 am; edited 3 times in total

[bboyer]

Posted: Sat May 05, 2007 2:56 am Post subject: Reply with quote
OP "Jeff Moore"

Beautiful writing. Thank you. This is certainly written by one who knows. Believe me, I know.
_________________
How many licks does it take to get to the center of a Tootsie Roll Tootsie Pop? The world may never know...

[bboyer]

Posted: Sun May 06, 2007 6:55 am Post subject: Reply with quote
OP "arc-us"

Namaste.

Beautiful writing. Thank you. This is certainly written by one who knows. Believe me, I know.

[bboyer]

Posted: Thu May 10, 2007 5:08 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
OP "Steger"

"But in the background, ALWAYS present as the only absolute and unchanging quality is that in which all motion, all changing relationships, and all activity occurs.

"And this background, because of its very nature, can never avail itself to the probing, inquiring mind of materialism or scientific quantification and measure. This background will always be receding from our instruments of measure, anything concocted by mental/intellectual reasoning.

"The mind is incapable of grasping its own essence. It'd be like the eye trying to see itself. Or your teeth trying to bite your own teeth. That's why so-called materialists will never get it. It is impossible to "prove." Because "it" is self-referent, self-grounding, self-referencing. Self-evident.

"The truth is just too simple to be grasped by the mind. But, of course, this depth of truth is ungraspable, again, by its very nature. It can only be realized - recognized - by, in, and of itself. And it is not mind. It is that in which, from which, mind emerges."

Thanks for so eloquently articulating that which, by its very nature, eludes articulation so well! I've found the topic(s) of consciousness and "reality" to be very slippery and, indeed, something that can only be realized rather than grasped.

I have come to view existence (the subject-object split), in all of its infinite forms, as simply being Consciousness experiencing Itself. Put another way, we - all-that-is - are the thoughts of God (although, I usually refrain from using the "G" word in most circles because it has become saddled with too much distortion, too much baggage), and I find that perception, that realization, to be most empowering and freeing!

When I was first exposed to the "electric universe" a couple years ago, the concept just clicked in the very core of my being. Heh, it was one of those "Eureka! Of course!" moments. It meshed perfectly with my perception of my own spiritual beingness and the illusory arena which I project around me, all of which is a manifestation of energy which, itself, springs forth from, and is a manifestation of, the "background" or Primary Consciousness. It makes perfect sense to me that this universe that we "inhabit" would be electrically-driven and, essentially, electrical in nature.

I know that the question has been posed and acknowledged by many plasma cosmologists, and their detractors, regarding the ultimate source of all of this energy that we are a part of. Some have suggested hyper-dimensional sources, and I have no reason to doubt that perspective. But that only pushes the question out there a few more notches and doesn't really deliver a satisfactory answer. As I stated above, I feel that Primary Consciousness is that ultimate energy source. Of course, as you stated, that can never be proved by any intellectual application... especially from "here." But then, hey, something as simple and universally basic as "LOVE" can never be proved either - only realized! In fact, I see love (not as a mere sentiment but as the very basis of all-that-is, as stated by Deepak Chopra), by its very un-dissectible, un-quantifiable, indefinable nature, as being the most crucial "clue" that we are far more than this 3rd density projection which we perceive as being "reality."

- S
_________________
"It's just a ride." ~ Bill Hicks

[bboyer]

Posted: Thu May 10, 2007 8:02 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
OP "arc-us"

Thanks for so eloquently articulating that which, by its very nature, eludes articulation so well! I've found the topic(s) of consciousness and "reality" to be very slippery and, indeed, something that can only be realized rather than grasped.

Namaste

When I was first exposed to the "electric universe" a couple years ago, the concept just clicked in the very core of my being. Heh, it was one of those "Eureka! Of course!" moments. It meshed perfectly with my perception of my own spiritual beingness and the illusory arena which I project around me, all of which is a manifestation of energy which, itself, springs forth from, and is a manifestation of, the "background" or Primary Consciousness. It makes perfect sense to me that this universe that we "inhabit" would be electrically-driven and, essentially, electrical in nature.

Yes. Just so.

I know that the question has been posed and acknowledged by many plasma cosmologists, and their detractors, regarding the ultimate source of all of this energy that we are a part of. Some have suggested hyper-dimensional sources, and I have no reason to doubt that perspective. But that only pushes the question out there a few more notches and doesn't really deliver a satisfactory answer. As I stated above, I feel that Primary Consciousness is that ultimate energy source. Of course, as you stated, that can never be proved by any intellectual application... especially from "here." But then, hey, something as simple and universally basic as "LOVE" can never be proved either - only realized! In fact, I see love (not as a mere sentiment but as the very basis of all-that-is, as stated by Deepak Chopra), by its very un-dissectible, un-quantifiable, indefinable nature, as being the most crucial "clue" that we are far more than this 3rd density projection which we perceive as being "reality."

- S

Well said.

The wonder-full mystery, the elusive source of the extant separation of charge that is the universe that we "find" ourselves in. As a Sufi teacher (Abu Yazid Al-Bistami) once put it about 1300 years ago, "This thing we tell of can never be found by seeking, but only seekers find it." Lovely.

A fruitful line in inquiry, for me at least (I only spent 40 years on it! since my high school electrical shop days) was doggedly "seeking," plumbing for the true sense of what the blazes charge as a concept is really all about at its heart. For the life of me I simply could not grasp it but always found myself coming back to it. Something just never seemed to add up.

And that eventually opened the doorless threshold to recognizing the "Sacred Mystery." The path led through grappling with the mental concepts of physics, chemistry, and astrophysics/astronomy in terms of the various physical descriptions of charge and that was useful only in the sense of it kept refining what it was not. And truthfully, I still don't fully get it mentally. But one day it just popped.

I recognized that charge is simply, fundamentally difference: difference of potential, difference of spatial relation and position, difference of magnitude, just all this cascade of conceptual difference of whatever variety. Yin/Yang, Masculine/Feminine, Up/Down, In/Out, Background/Foreground, on and on.

And I kept trying to drive my mind to more fundamentals, more comprehensiveness, on and on. And when I finally relaxed entirely I recognized it. And it will not be found in words and concepts of physical description. When I'm mentally bored then I can always count on my mind serving me well in this regard ... it will endlessly and ceaselessly seek for me.

It is a *fine* tool for searching, and it's (now) quite fun and amusing. But, as you know, what we are telling of will never be found by the search itself. It's true usefulness is in the accumlated realizations of what something is not (neti, neti), and that keeps moving forward, keeps moving forward, not this, not this, until ... POP ... an awakening, a realization, re-cognition occurs.It's a re-cognition, a re-union, with what remains after all the frantic searching ceases in a moment of complete surrendering stillness. With what has ALWAYS been there as the true, undiluted, unmitigated, self. That which cannot be born and cannot die. That which is already and has always been completely free, whole, and perfect; beyond any concept of blemish or lack, wanting nothing.

When you (the rhetorical you) can finally admit to not knowing even how you perform the simplest action such as how you make a fist, when you own up to the fact that you really just do it, without any thought at all ... then you will see that in the same fashion you also shine the sun. That we (call it what you like; soul, spirit, G(g)od, whatever), that we serve the simultaneous and spontaneous function of subject|verb|object happening of all that happens. We, as physical embodiment of experiencers, are not separate from the experiencing or the experienced. That apparent separation of subject|verb|object is a linguistic illusion of cultural, grammatical convention. That, in fact, everything is all process, all "verbing." And, in the experience of the energy continuum, if you are your foot then you are the sun as Allan Watts put it.

Charge emerges from the very heart of our being and non-being. We are the ultimate paradox of the unification of difference. How do we make a fist? We just do it. How do we beat our hearts? We just do it. How do we dream? We just do it.

Now engage the mind, and it will fill the libraries of the world with reams of pages and books that give description to physical processes. Chapter 35, How The Heart Works. But it won't be telling you at all how *you* beat your heart. Never will. Or how you make a fist, either. Or how you think a thought.

But science will tell you, "Oh, that's easy, you don't know how you beat your heart because you really don't. That's the job of the autonomic, involuntary nervous system." So some things we do voluntarily and some things we do (or don't do) involuntarily. Hmmm. Okay, so where's the hard and fast dividing line between what we're willing to accept as ourselves doing and that to which we feel no connection?

How about our breathing? Most would probably agree that most of the time we're unaware of it, it goes on automatically, involuntarily, out of our control. Partly why it's difficult to strangle oneself; consciousness will cease and the body will take over "on its own." But, we can normally and consciously, with intent, regulate our breathing if we so choose. Until we become bored with it and give control back over to the body.

So, as Alan Watts points out, "Do you do it, or does it do you?" All a matter of perspective.

Various branches of science will go through many trees and reams of paper and storage space in describing how separation of charge occurs. And always the universe will accomodate and provide another mystery to solve, another reason to crank up the power of telescopes and microscopes. There will never be a shortage of wavicles to be discovered and described. And there's not a thing wrong with any of that - it can be equisitely fun!

But not if we take it as seriously meaningful in describing it as defining our most basic, truest nature.

I am so sorry. I had no intent to ramble, but sheesh this was fun.

Best Regards,
Arc-us

[bboyer]

Posted: Fri May 11, 2007 3:58 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
OP "Steger"

There will never be a shortage of wavicles to be discovered and described. And there's not a thing wrong with any of that - it can be equisitely fun!

I am so sorry. I had no intent to ramble, but sheesh this was fun.

Ha! If it is at all possible to entertain this topic without considerable wordiness and a good measure of rambling, then I've not yet discovered it!

And whenever I'm presented with that age-old question: Why do we exist? I like to shrug my shoulders and respond with: How 'bout because we CAN?... Because it's so much FUN!

[bboyer]

Posted: Fri May 11, 2007 5:19 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
OP "Mojidoji"

Steger, that was truly exquisite!

[bboyer]

Posted: Sun May 13, 2007 4:55 am Post subject: Reply with quote
OP "arc-us"

But then, hey, something as simple and universally basic as "LOVE" can never be proved either - only realized! In fact, I see love (not as a mere sentiment but as the very basis of all-that-is, as stated by Deepak Chopra), by its very un-dissectible, un-quantifiable, indefinable nature, as being the most crucial "clue" that we are far more than this 3rd density projection which we perceive as being "reality."

- S

Here's a couple of my favorites along this line:

When I see I am nothing, that is wisdom.
When I see I am everything, that is love.
And between those two my life moves.

Nisargadatta Maharaj (1897 - 1981)

______________________________________

Vedas say that God sleeps in minerals, breathes in plants, walks in animals and thinks in men.
_____

God sleeps in the mineral, dreams in the vegetable, stirs in the animal, and awakens in the fusion of the completed Man.

per Rumi (1207 - 1273) - National Poet of Persia
_____

God sleeps in the Minerals,
Dreams in the Plants,
Thinks in the Animals,
And Awakes in Man.

per German philosopher Schelling (1775 - 1854)

Best,
Arc-us

[bboyer]

Posted: Fri May 18, 2007 10:03 am Post subject: Reply with quote
OP "arc-us"

This is interesting from a mathematical view of the non-dual, complementarity of polar opposites. There's also a hint of a possible connection with the ideas contained in the Cymatics thread, but I may be reading too much into it.

Introduction To Wholistic Mathematics
http://www.iol.ie/~peter/CyberMath.htm


Regards,
Arc-us

[bboyer]

Posted: Mon Jun 25, 2007 8:29 am Post subject: describing the undescribable Reply with quote
OP "biknewb"

Why do we exist?

We exist to appreciate writing like this thread.

regards

[bboyer]

Posted: Mon Jun 25, 2007 1:19 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
OP "davesmith_au"

I think I'm in love, but I'm not sure who with...

Namaste to all on this thread.

Cheers, Dave.
_________________
PlasmaResources.com
"If you are not prepared to think outside the square, you will always be confined within it..." Dave Smith.

[bboyer]

Posted: Mon Jun 25, 2007 1:34 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
OP "Plasmatic MnemoHistory"

If most threads in this forum are expressions of the "Mind"Of those who persue E.U., then this thread is an expression of the "heart" of said persuants.

I must confess a certain "resonance " of my own experience of the forms expressed in this thread.It causes reflection whithin me of my own journey to , in and through this conscious experience of "duality" In its many manifest macrocosmic,and microcosmic forms. The journey which led to Bertrand Russel,Godel{incompleteness theorom/Self referential paradox},Jungian ego /self axis,and the process of individuation in the persuit of a Unio Coniunctiones.The intellectual desert of quantum duality to say nothing of the many membered religious manifestations of the same querry.The violent disunion of one who discovers a conscious reflexivity of the coexistence in "all" things of diametric fusion,if you would. The realization of recieved forms/concepts within not subjected to the light of "the other side" The illumination of which, when viewed collectivley,leaves one in a marooned isle of ones own introspection,a endless osscillation of circular effort.A bipolar conundrum of diametric equals. That spirit numbing constancy of the inability to be untrue , to the vision of this whirling dance of the universes insistence on braiding together the 2 into 1. Until finaly one accepts the position that one can only observe the difference.To dwell In the nuetrality of acceptance of both sides. This mental conundrum so wonderfully explained by Julian Jaynes.
The ontological endnote of centuries of trust in the "dark" mystical constructs of those we have deferred to in our inability to find a logical method of application of said dance.

But the Electric Universe theory for me has been just that, a application of living ,purposeful signifigance within the endless oscillation of the universes desire to balance itself .A rejuvinating wind of illumination of this new participant in humanity's individuation.The ironic recognition of yet another undifferentiated aggregate .The assimilation of which has for me provided an insulating whirl of hope if you would.An actual usefulness of ones awareness of this dynamic circles flowing current.The realization that this dipole is precisley what creates the pathway of that currents journey. The endlessnes of which, now bestows not a stagnant nuetrality,but an energizing realization that there will always be the opposite pole for it to flow to.
_________________
"Logic is the art of non-contradictory identification"....Ayn Rand

[bboyer]

Posted: Tue Jun 26, 2007 8:35 am Post subject: Reply with quote
OP "arc-us"

I think I'm in love, but I'm not sure who with...

Namaste to all on this thread.

Cheers, Dave.

Might I suggest: You are the one you have been waiting for.

Indeed. A respectful Namaste to all.

Arc-us

[bboyer]

Posted: Tue Jun 26, 2007 8:43 am Post subject: Reply with quote
OP "Rduke"

Namaste

[bboyer]

Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2007 6:00 am Post subject: Reply with quote
OP "lk"

How do we make a fist? We just do it.

_I realized just before I turned 20 that I'm consciousness, which I define as awareness, knowing, knowledge, experience. But it was much more recently that I went a bit farther to see that I must also be my subconscious. I had, at about age 20, noticed that my awareness does not include awareness of making decisions. When I make a decision, such as the decision to make a fist, I know I have awareness of the initial thought of doing it, when I do it, but I don't see that first thought as me making the decision. I only see the thought as my first awareness of the decision after it's already been made [in parts unknown]. So it seems that it's not I who makes the decision.
_However, it occurred to me that it must be non-sensical for me to say or think that I don't make the decisions that I carry out. If I don't make my decisions, then who is this who's imagining that I don't make my decisions? Whoever the being is who does make my decisions, such as the decision on how to word this sentence, should rightfully acknowledge that it is "me," even if "it" doesn't observe "itself" making "its" own choices.
_So it seems after all these years I've made a little progress in understanding "me" better. If my boss, the decision maker, who's me, is subconscious, then it seems likely that my entire subconscious is me as well. That means all of my memories, including those that are hard to remember, and my dreaming self and all the perceptions, emotions and thoughts that I don't notice, except under heightened awareness, like hypnosis, are also me. My subconscious has remarkable abilities, including probable precognition and telepathy. There seems to be a lot more to me than I had the habit of imagining most of my life.
_Despite its remarkable abilities, my subconscious seems to have a tendency to be very naive too. In the mid 1980s I discovered that I had subconscious barriers to getting close to God. When I asked myself why I feared being close to God, the answer came immediately that I was afraid God would expect too much of me, would expect me to obey God's wishes perfectly, instantly and constantly. I was afraid I'd never have a moment's rest, that God would have an endless array of impossible tasks planned for me, that no matter how well I accomplished God's tasks, God would always be able to tell me I could have done better and there'd never be any compliments or meaningful rewards. When I got done thinking all those things, I realized those were nothing like what I had always consciously imagined God to be like. I thought of God as all-loving. But subconsciously I obviously thought otherwise.
_And, when I became aware of all these subconscious thoughts, I realized that this subconscious concept of God came from my experiences with my Dad. My subconscious mind based my God concept on Dad's behavior. I never thought about it much beyond that, but I think my concept was based on Mom to some extent too, and maybe on some other elders from my childhood. I suppose this happens with many, most, or all people.
_When all this came out into the open for me, I was immediately able to correct my subconscious misconceptions about God, was able to see God as my best friend and best advisor and have learned to ask for God's advice as often as I can think to. The advice now is to go to bed.