Mystics Only: Extended Discussion

[Willamena]

Grasp this: The totality of reality that we each experience is the totality of reality. Beyond that, there is nothing; there is nothing beyond that. It is not arrogance to think so --on the contrary, it is arrogance to tell others that what you, or anyone, have experienced in totality is something they must also experience in order to be more total. In that, you throw "reality" across the divide and assign it to objective reality.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

We are the Universe experiencing itself. The reality we perceive is built of symbols, but these symbols are no more separated from reality than our experience of them. A virtual world is still part of the same reality as the non-virtual.

When Neo sucked down the pill and "awoke," he was still in the same reality, just experiencing a different framework of it.

 

[doppelganger]

Grasp this: The totality of reality that we each experience is the totality of reality. Beyond that, there is nothing; there is nothing beyond that. It is not arrogance to think so --on the contrary, it is arrogance to tell others that what you, or anyone, have experienced in totality is something they must also experience in order to be more total. In that, you throw "reality" across the divide and assign it to objective reality.

I like that very much, Patty. Of course, you could convince someone their reality should be "more total," but they still have to realize it for themselves. And if they don't, their reality is still the totality of reality, as is yours. And what they realize, no matter how familiar it sounds, will never be exactly like what you've realized, but its meaning will be affected by the context into which it is realized - the unique universe of some other subject's experience.

 

[doppelganger]

When Neo sucked down the pill and "awoke," he was still in the same reality, just experiencing a different framework of it.

I always thought that the better ending to the story would be to find that waking from the Matrix just puts you into another level of Matrix meant to hold those who "awaken" from the first level.

 

[YmirGF]

Grasp this: The totality of reality that we each experience is the totality of reality. Beyond that, there is nothing; there is nothing beyond that. It is not arrogance to think so --on the contrary, it is arrogance to tell others that what you, or anyone, have experienced in totality is something they must also experience in order to be more total. In that, you throw "reality" across the divide and assign it to objective reality.

Ok, think of me as being especially thick on this point. Would you care to explain this further?

 

[Willamena]

Ok, think of me as being especially thick on this point. Would you care to explain this further?

I'll try, but later. It will take some time.

 

[YmirGF]

I'll try, but later. It will take some time.

Thanks, I do appreciate the extra effort. I do think it is important that we try to understand each other. :flirt:

 

[blackout]

As far as "things" are concerned,
in as much as everything is sacred,
nothing is sacred.

Most people do not actively participate
in the co-creation of reality,
so much as they allow others to define it for them.
Theirs is a kind of "passive" creation.
Like "I'll pass"... you tell me what to think,
and see, and believe, and how to "live",
and I'll just make that my own.

Passive mind sets,
live out passive realities,
in their very nature.

Most people live within the reality constructs
of church/govt/pop culture/tradition/habit/
or any chosen institution/group/persons/causes.

The masses live by the "laws” of the “state”
(the pre-scribed "state” of being/thinking/believing... )
The world of the "concrete" construct.
A world of mortar and brick and institution.
The pillars of society.
The universe of the university (universe-city)
The "corner" stone of thought & belief.

"Believers" in the world system
continue to REALize that very system,
as they literally live WITHIN that mind"set".
(this would be "limited/guided/handed down" creation of reality)
(ie. your reality IS what you REALize,
what you believe... what is REAL to you....)

Unless we awaken to the master artist within...
unless we step up to author our own limitless realities...
we remain "cast" players, with pre-ordained roles,
living out "directed" realities on THE WORLD STAGE,
taking part in the current "world drama",
each according to the "inner scripts" ,
that have been "inscripted/inscribed" in us
since the moment society "took us in"to it's fold.

Yes.
These realities are truly REAL to each life participant,
but the "construct" itself is a set (up).
The stage literally BECOMES the world.
"Common place" things are viewed as "ordinary".
Things new to the world "scene"/”seen” are "extaordinary".
Things of religion and antiquity/tradition are "sacred".
All props of a larger story perhaps?

The masses live lives authored by "authorities".

They learn to read in schools,
but they never learn to read LIFE.
They learn to listen to experts,
but never to their inner selves,
They learn to listen to doctrine/church,
the ordained and invested.....
but not G-d directly.
They are told to bow to the "media" illusion of reality,
instead of creating a life of personal limitless wonder
for themselves.

So this is the "ordinary"/"ordained"/"ordered"/higherarchical life.

The EXTARODINARY life,
the "mystical" life,
is touched .... and experienced....
only in ACTIVE FAITH of the EXTRAordinary.
(extra= above/higher/more)

THINGS HAPPEN in the "extra" ordinary life,
that simply don't happen in "ordin-ary" life.
When you throw away the scripts….
When you throw out the “rule books”….
Ordinary things become wonderful,
they become sacred....
inanimate things speak....
reality becomes (is realized as) syncronistic.

Mountains do indeed move.
THIS for me, is the SACRED life.

All realities are not "created" equal.

 

[Ozzie]

Grasp this: The totality of reality that we each experience is the totality of reality. Beyond that, there is nothing; there is nothing beyond that. It is not arrogance to think so --on the contrary, it is arrogance to tell others that what you, or anyone, have experienced in totality is something they must also experience in order to be more total. In that, you throw "reality" across the divide and assign it to objective reality.

In my opinion this is a very contained view of the totality of reality. Isn't it the case that gradations are present within this for any individual and they are unaware? I think this is what so called mystics try to point out, rather than that their awareness is somehow larger than others.

 

[Willamena]

In my opinion this is a very contained view of the totality of reality. Isn't it the case that gradations are present within this for any individual and they are unaware? I think this is what so called mystics try to point out, rather than that their awareness is somehow larger than others.

Isn't it the case that gradations they can be aware of are infinite? In my opinion, it's a very large view.

 

[Ozzie]

Isn't it the case that gradations they can be aware of are infinite? In my opinion, it's a very large view.

Why should gradations be infinite? That's an enormous assumption. There is no evidence we are biologically hardwired to be "infinite'". The evidence suggests we have serious limitations and cut corners constantly.

 

[Ozzie]

I like that very much, Patty. Of course, you could convince someone their reality should be "more total," but they still have to realize it for themselves. And if they don't, their reality is still the totality of reality, as is yours. And what they realize, no matter how familiar it sounds, will never be exactly like what you've realized, but its meaning will be affected by the context into which it is realized - the unique universe of some other subject's experience.

I understand and agree with this in the context of the statement, "language is the limit of your world". IMO there are worlds beyond language, that of imagery for example.

 

[Willamena]

Why should gradations be infinite? That's an enormous assumption. There is no evidence we are biologically hardwired to be "infinite'". The evidence suggests we have serious limitations and cut corners constantly.

What limitations? What corners?

 

[Ozzie]

What limitations? What corners?

Isn't linguistic and even hardwired reality a construction from bits?

 

[Willamena]

Isn't linguistic and even hardwired reality a construction from bits?

And how many bits are there?

And which of those bits don't you think I could possbily break down into other bits?

 

[Ozzie]

And how many bits are there?

Herein lies the "infinity" misconception. Bits are arbitrary, contextual and infinite. Mechanism is not.

Discovery of mechanism is the "mystic" reference point.

I offered the term "gradations" here in terms of mechanism.

 

[Willamena]

Herein lies the "infinity" misconception. Bits are arbitrary, contextual and infinite. Mechanism is not.

Discovery of mechanism is the "mystic" reference point.

I offered the term "gradations" here in terms of mechanism.

I don't understand, then. Can you explain?

 

[Ozzie]

And which of those bits don't you think I could possbily break down into other bits?

To answer your important edit. The process of attempting to break down arbitrary bits you speak of is what gives rise to concepts such as interpretation.

 

[Ozzie]

I don't understand, then. Can you explain?

That's a huge challenge. Bits are bounded in linguistic reality, which is the limit of your world. Language is a stimulus prompting meaning. So I am afraid I fall into the trap of attempting to use the tool to explain itself. Something like the trap of attempting to use the mind to explain itself. An object cannot be the observer and the observed and achieve coherence.

In order to understand mechanism I have mentioned introspection is the key, always with reference to the mind trap, the logical impossibility of being at once, observer and observed.

Sorry I can't give you a better answer.

 

[Willamena]

To answer your important edit. The process of attempting to break down arbitrary bits you speak of is what gives rise to concepts such as interpretation.

I have no significant disagreement with that, except that I would assign "interpretation" as the process of breaking down and ordering bits.