I always notice the conscious use of language and phrasing in Stephen Smith's expositions with appreciation but the above sentence felt to be vague and so felt dissonant to the whole.When plasma moves through a dust or gas, it tends to ionize the material and cause electric current to flow.
Either moving plasma does or does not ionise the dust or gas it moves through or there are other factors as the whether it does or the degree to which it does. As plasma is ionised dust or gas, I also enquire as to what such movement is (caused by) and get such answers as resulting forces of other electrical charge events such as 'Solar wind' or in geophysical realms the action of winds.
So does moving plasma or doesn't it always ionise material through which it passes and if not - why not?
I understand that plasma embodies self organising field of charge relation in different forms of expression in different contexts as an 'electrically expressing universe' and am following the wondering that opened from what read to me as an incongruous 'tends to'.
Thinking aloud in my own question, is the curiosity around charge separation as an ongoing counterpoint to discharge of equalisation. Friction arising from the interface of moving charged matter or ions being obviously part of this equation. But what is the source of charge separation as the core 'driver' of a self sustaining dynamic dis-equilibrim that is always moving to equilibrium - or is that rising from equilibrium?
Because both - at once - can be said to apply.
Does the 'desire' for completion 'move' within wholeness as its own unfolding expression or communication of wholeness as an expression of embodied informational energy (form)?
As may be apparent, I am also considering the nature of consciousness (of anything) within the realm of charged relational differentiations that are not other to or separated from the primary 'source' whose centre is the 'one that seems to divide itself two and many, and yet remains the balance point within and embracing every expression.
In human relational terms, polarising identities operate an exclusion zone to our invested engagement in them. Within the perceptual framework of polarised and oppositional identity, unified field embrace and extension are perceived to be 'zero' points and reacted to as threat-condition in which a personalised sense of power is undone - as loss of self, life or control. Yet clearly this generates or drives an 'out of control' or chaotic charge separation that must generate instabilities demanding discharge - but as a boom and bust stuttering rather than as a flow - and with cyclic busts occurring as a replication of partial 'extinction events' through human agency as the logical outcome of the priming or activation of such a subjecting and subjected 'consciousness'. I put it in 'quotes' because something of the double layered exclusion field occurs in the bubble of a seemingly individuated node.
Consider this; you are also a star in an enlivening embrace of a total communication or totality that extends communication as your natural function.
'It's Life. but not as we (thought to) know it, Jim'.
The use of the mind to self differentiate or segregate into seemingly compartmentalised layers or frequency domains is a tool of division and limitation within any total relational moment - and as such is integral to holding a focus within and express a relational appreciation or resonance. But at a critical juncture, growth in terms of self-division becomes obstructive to purpose or functional expression and the identity of a seeming self-becoming yields or is undone to that which truly identifies all within and of itself - as distinct from a 'local' distortion filtering' (mind).
This is a shift of purpose and perspective and not an inherently destructive event - excepting from within the framework of invested and defended illusions - that are experienced real while employed as the lens or framework of self-definition through which we are fruiting experience of feedback to the ideas held significant and resonant to our active and accepted purpose.
I started out with a particular or specific and opened to the universal or abstract, and welcome response at either or both poles of resonance and reflection.
Is there a movement of being itself that is not polarised - but as the communication of qualities of resonant coherence through the forms of what seemed set in conflicting and mutually destructive opposition? Perhaps 'movement' is a metaphor here because we associated movement with objects in process over time, but the movement of being is within itself as the nature and function of a 'self-awareness' prior to object-focus or subjection to objectification - that is underlying and embracing the 'model' of a specifically themed mind or lens of meaning,
The appreciation of a seeming polarised experience of an object-world is not its denial so much as its transformational perspective. Resonant reflection of coherence within being is the wonder from which a grasping sense of possession seems to wander off alone - but may only wake such a recognition when the breakdown of such a bubble occurs as a charge 'correction' or reconnection - interpreted as separation trauma - and predicating the mind to sacrificial emulation as 'covenant' with power conceived and perceived as destructive, and set over the life or being of the 'Movement' Itself to a threat and promise life set in limitation, division, and loss as if the only god, truth meaning or power. Our true appreciation of being (ours to know and share in but not to patent or control) is covered over by maps of meaninglessness - because they are conflicted, and contested as if truth could be vulnerable to error.
Bringing back the 'Golden Age' may be a right motive wrongly applied and hence working against itself.
Science and Religion or Mind and Heart are one in that truth is already true - and is revealed to the willingness to un-cover its recognition as a shared and tangible fruit or result. But as I implied above, the investment in searching can structure so as to ensure not finding - so as to maintain the funding and investment in the 'growth' or 'sustainability' of ways to rule out under the guise of ruling over, a polarised and fearful conflicted narrative identity.
Coming back into - or re-waking - to a coherent purpose is a different story than subjection to object collisions and its development through power struggle as if to 'win' or forfend disaster and loss in death and destruction. There is more to the nature and quality of being than fight of flight - and while such a mind rules out a true discernment, we are investing in a past conditioning rather than a present appreciation.