"Very much like astrology, actually. So, in a way creating meaning for our lives is creating reality for them too. Does that make sense?"
Makes sense to me.
I've thought - in response to Tereza's position that Jesus was a fictional character that in some ways - now - it doesn't even matter. Sure in some contexts it might, but in terms of w…
"Very much like astrology, actually. So, in a way creating meaning for our lives is creating reality for them too. Does that make sense?"
Makes sense to me.
I've thought - in response to Tereza's position that Jesus was a fictional character that in some ways - now - it doesn't even matter. Sure in some contexts it might, but in terms of what Jesus represents there is both deep meaning and subsequent 'reality' to his existence. (And if T is also correct that we're looking at a fragmented mind when we see the world; the projection of separation; then perhaps in a Jesus figure we are looking at a projection of an attempt at healing it. IDK. Frankly it makes me a little tired to think about it. :-)
I like and use the drop/ocean image/metaphor too. Especially in that the drops continually splash back into the whole and remerge as new drops over and over.
I agree, Kathleen, I love that insight of Tonika's. It's not really about the stars, it's about the meaning for our lives that's paradoxically created in the stars BY us finding that meaning. Of course, given my OneMind Dreaming theory, I suspect all history and cosmology is written backwards, created by our current level of understanding that makes an unknown fact suddenly emerge that confirms it. It so often happens that way for me. I realize something and sha-Zam, there's 20 people showing why it's true.
It's interesting that you bring up Jesus when I was just thinking through this in my answer to Tonika with Malone and Eisenstein. It's the same formula, I think. The most dangerous propaganda is taking the truth, that we resonate with, and turning it to another purpose.
My suspicion is that the zealots and Sadducees discovered the truth of OneMind Dreaming when they rejected the Roman empire and the theocratic dynasty and its tax collectors (who I'm now thinking controlled the Roman empire rather than the other way around.) Judas was the Healer, the Nazarene, the Christ. Saduc rejected the superiority of genealogy and race. They included slaves, women and other colonies in their rebellion. What they were up against was torture, pain, fear and death. But they won, setting a precedent for every oppressed people.
The story of Jesus hijacks that truth and makes the moral of it that the empire will always win because the empire's use of torture is condoned by God except for mistaking this one guy, who was innocent. But that was God's will too.
As many people say about money, what a system does is what it was designed to do. Jesus-centric Christianity has always supported empire. Would we have figured out how to end empire without it? Dunno but it's hard to imagine it could have been worse.
I like the ocean meta pho for the same reason. And because it also goes well with Sheldrake’s morphic resonance. How can we not pick up the intelligence of the whole if we’re a drop of the ocean? (Also, nice parallel to fractals)
I LOVE this. Is it shallow of me that I also love her eyebrows? So intense!
Her statement is so cool, that we're drawn to people because of the dimension they bring out in us. I will definitely be linking this, thank you Tonika!
My best friend sent it to me this morning with the line: “I like the reflection of myself that I see through your dimension!” We’re such a bunch of lovely weirdos.
Thanks for link and yes resonates with alchemists message nicely.
"We don't think of ourselves as dimensions" she says and sure enough I don't tend to think that, but rather as having dimensions and/or layers or depth.
And I like this reconfigure of seeing ourselves and others AS dimensions. (And the recognition - sometimes instantaneously) when you find yourself in relation to another 'dimension' who feels 'flat' or 'complex' or whatever else.
I'm gonna wear this descriptor and see how it feels. :-)
jung explores the shadow and projection in relationships in his wonderful short paper 'marriage as a psychological relationship'. for audio of the paper:
I’m a bit backed up on video work, but if you record the poem and send it to me, I’ll try and add some visuals or SFX to it if you’re into that sort of thing.
That is so funny! I was just thinking, "Wouldn't that be cool?" before I read your sweet offer! Fill me in on the logistics of recording and getting it to you, and yes!
Yes, the ocean within the drop is more apt. That’s why I mentioned fractals. Not familiar with Unified Field Theory, but will put it in my notes to tumble down a rabbit hole. Thanks, Nef.
"Very much like astrology, actually. So, in a way creating meaning for our lives is creating reality for them too. Does that make sense?"
Makes sense to me.
I've thought - in response to Tereza's position that Jesus was a fictional character that in some ways - now - it doesn't even matter. Sure in some contexts it might, but in terms of what Jesus represents there is both deep meaning and subsequent 'reality' to his existence. (And if T is also correct that we're looking at a fragmented mind when we see the world; the projection of separation; then perhaps in a Jesus figure we are looking at a projection of an attempt at healing it. IDK. Frankly it makes me a little tired to think about it. :-)
I like and use the drop/ocean image/metaphor too. Especially in that the drops continually splash back into the whole and remerge as new drops over and over.
I agree, Kathleen, I love that insight of Tonika's. It's not really about the stars, it's about the meaning for our lives that's paradoxically created in the stars BY us finding that meaning. Of course, given my OneMind Dreaming theory, I suspect all history and cosmology is written backwards, created by our current level of understanding that makes an unknown fact suddenly emerge that confirms it. It so often happens that way for me. I realize something and sha-Zam, there's 20 people showing why it's true.
It's interesting that you bring up Jesus when I was just thinking through this in my answer to Tonika with Malone and Eisenstein. It's the same formula, I think. The most dangerous propaganda is taking the truth, that we resonate with, and turning it to another purpose.
My suspicion is that the zealots and Sadducees discovered the truth of OneMind Dreaming when they rejected the Roman empire and the theocratic dynasty and its tax collectors (who I'm now thinking controlled the Roman empire rather than the other way around.) Judas was the Healer, the Nazarene, the Christ. Saduc rejected the superiority of genealogy and race. They included slaves, women and other colonies in their rebellion. What they were up against was torture, pain, fear and death. But they won, setting a precedent for every oppressed people.
The story of Jesus hijacks that truth and makes the moral of it that the empire will always win because the empire's use of torture is condoned by God except for mistaking this one guy, who was innocent. But that was God's will too.
As many people say about money, what a system does is what it was designed to do. Jesus-centric Christianity has always supported empire. Would we have figured out how to end empire without it? Dunno but it's hard to imagine it could have been worse.
Weirdly I just saw this little short about projection and relationship ships right before reading your comment and I thought it was a bit relevant: https://www.instagram.com/reel/C6mCC3Nx41P/?igsh=MzRweHBpMGtod294
I like the ocean meta pho for the same reason. And because it also goes well with Sheldrake’s morphic resonance. How can we not pick up the intelligence of the whole if we’re a drop of the ocean? (Also, nice parallel to fractals)
I LOVE this. Is it shallow of me that I also love her eyebrows? So intense!
Her statement is so cool, that we're drawn to people because of the dimension they bring out in us. I will definitely be linking this, thank you Tonika!
My best friend sent it to me this morning with the line: “I like the reflection of myself that I see through your dimension!” We’re such a bunch of lovely weirdos.
And no, her eyebrows were en pointe.
Thanks for link and yes resonates with alchemists message nicely.
"We don't think of ourselves as dimensions" she says and sure enough I don't tend to think that, but rather as having dimensions and/or layers or depth.
And I like this reconfigure of seeing ourselves and others AS dimensions. (And the recognition - sometimes instantaneously) when you find yourself in relation to another 'dimension' who feels 'flat' or 'complex' or whatever else.
I'm gonna wear this descriptor and see how it feels. :-)
Yes, I’m trying it on for size as well. :)
jung explores the shadow and projection in relationships in his wonderful short paper 'marriage as a psychological relationship'. for audio of the paper:
https://youtu.be/tNjIwOgLXGs
Thanks, Guy! I’ll add it to my cue!
You are not just a Drop in the Ocean, you are The Ocean within a Drop.
An expression of Oneness can also be found in very advanced math.
According to Osho, the Part and the Whole are one Energy. Even though, the Part appears to be separate from the Whole.
This concept can be expressed by the Unified Field Theory, found in the Planck Equation.
Ah, I've said the same, even in a poem I have somewhere called Drops of God. Maybe I'll bring that out and record it. Thanks for the reminder!
I’m a bit backed up on video work, but if you record the poem and send it to me, I’ll try and add some visuals or SFX to it if you’re into that sort of thing.
That is so funny! I was just thinking, "Wouldn't that be cool?" before I read your sweet offer! Fill me in on the logistics of recording and getting it to you, and yes!
I’ll email you.
I always look forward to your video presentations, especially your poetry. 😎
Yes, the ocean within the drop is more apt. That’s why I mentioned fractals. Not familiar with Unified Field Theory, but will put it in my notes to tumble down a rabbit hole. Thanks, Nef.