01-02-2013, 12:00 AM
Archaos wrote:Hi! Nice to meet you.
Hello-
Okay. But the warrior's usage supersedes the idea of a "they".
"Nobody is doing anything to anyone, much less to a warrior."
This assumes that everyone has the same definition of 'a warrior' as you do! There are many who are making efforts to become what you call a warrior, and they do benefit from a perspective that exposes manipulation.
Can you be in the second attention and be aware of incompleteness?
or completeness for that matter?
Is the second attention relative/comparative consciousness?
Can you know incompleteness without the internal dialogue, without thinking and comparison,
without a past?
And there's nothing the 1st attention can do about it.
So now what?
Again, we have the question of your definition of the second attention! For conversation's sake, let me share my definitions of the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd attentions! Then you can do the same. That way we will be talking apples to apples!
First attention- The consensual program that we experience here as anchored beings.
Second attention- ALL frequencies / layers / worlds that manifest form and duality. For me, this includes the physical and lesser realms. These layers greatly differ in laws, forms, truths, and perceptual abilities. Thus no statement about the "second attention" can be addressed without more specific frequency designations.
Third attention- any and all existence beyond form, individuality, time, space, and separateness. No individual can exist in the third attention. No perception can be executed in the third attention. It is ONE.
Dimensions... I see the first attention as a dimension.
The first attention is thinking, which is self-reflection, recycling past knowledge onto a virgin present...
Let's say the 2d plane of the first attention is built of knowledge/thinking/inventory/memory...
Each item of the inventory is a line used to build the plane of the 1st attention.
A thought in motion is thinking, is a line...
There's an infinite number of 1d lines in a 2d plane.
Ok. Lines are fibrous intentions. Got it!
Do we really have to recapitulate an infinite number of lines to enter the 2d plane?
Or after recapitulating, say, 100,000 lines, do we get the idea that the same will apply to the rest of the lines
and we're suddenly "enlightened"... the whole plane is owned or realised as wisdom in a flash.
Some people will only need to recapitulate 100 lines. Others may need to do 10,000...
The point is, no one recapitulates an infinite number of lines. Completeness is a realisation waiting to be had.
Focussing on incompleteness could potentially push that realisation into the infinite future...
could be the difference between 500 lines and 50,000.
A couple of thoughts come to mind. Recapitulation removes the energetic leaks of the past. It allows one to recover power and accumulate power. However, recapping any segment or even all of our lines / filaments does not grant us entry into the second (or any higher) attentions! And for the record, I feel that recapping the right history creates a domino effect and addressing every line / filament is unnecessary.
What about intending completeness?
What's incompleteness got to do with it?
Intent is not a mental process. We cannot intend completeness with an incomplete consciousness. Intent is an inside job.
The idea of working on incompleteness is liken to stalking/hunting/tracking - one step at a time.
The idea of intending completeness is more like dreaming - not a linear progression but a
"quantum leap" or movement of the AP. I'm using the terms a little differently, according to my seeing.
1st attention/stalking is linear time.
2nd attention/dreaming is nagual's time.
If the 1st attention is a plane of lines, the 2nd attention is a solid (cube, tetrahedron) of planes.
The 2nd attention can do wonders due to its extra dimension of action available to it.
It doesn't think about incompleteness.
There is some truth in those comments, but even in what you call dreaming or the second attention there is a learning going on. The curve is much different. Again, it seems your definition of the second attention is a cohesive one. My mileage varies...
Are you sure you want to tell people to be aware of their incompleteness?
That's just the stalking/1st attention way.
No. This focus will identify the completed parts. My glass is half full!
And the 1st attention doesn't ever truly reach/become the 2nd...
nor does incompleteness ever become completeness.
See my comments on the second attention definition above.
It's a matter of attention/dimension.
The first attention cannot solve itself.
More self-reflection cannot solve self-reflection.
Can you be aware of incompleteness without self-reflection?
Throughout all realms or dimensions of duality (the 1st and 2nd attentions) there is self reflection. Once one realizes that parts of the self are complete, those parts will come into play. It is the perception from completeness that resolves the incomplete self.
What I am saying is just as dangerous as what you are saying to the wrong ears.
Ahhhh... I quote you- "Nobody is doing anything to anyone, much less to a warrior."
My arguments are reasonable. But I am not suggesting we solve this by reasoning.
What is seeing to me may be reason to another, and it makes all the difference.
You seem concerned about people pretending completeness... what about all those pretending incompleteness?
Is incompleteness the root of completeness? The Gospel of Thomas put it this way:
"Jesus said, "If the flesh came into being because of spirit, it is a wonder. But if spirit came into being because of the body,
it is a wonder of wonders! Indeed, I am amazed at how this great wealth has made its home in this poverty."
I don't know man. These are all just perspectives. Controlled folly is still folly, thank God!
LOL! Forgive me. That last sentence was stalking too far without permission.
I usually reserve such intimacies for the third conversation. I guess we're good friends now!
Time is moving so fast since that 2012 thing!
This is a place of communication. Growth is experienced via objective discussion. Thanks for the conversation!
Dok
Nice to meet you Doktor Green. I don't know where this silliness is coming from.
I love the heart of your post. I hear you. I don't know why I'm picking on the details.
This is all a big spirit dance. Wyrd.
Most of the time i pee standing up.
What I meant to say is, this is all so random.
Who are you?
Who am I?
Why am I still talking?
Will you be my friend?
Sincerely crazy and innocent,
Your friend and brother from another mother,
Archaos
Hello-
Okay. But the warrior's usage supersedes the idea of a "they".
"Nobody is doing anything to anyone, much less to a warrior."
This assumes that everyone has the same definition of 'a warrior' as you do! There are many who are making efforts to become what you call a warrior, and they do benefit from a perspective that exposes manipulation.
Can you be in the second attention and be aware of incompleteness?
or completeness for that matter?
Is the second attention relative/comparative consciousness?
Can you know incompleteness without the internal dialogue, without thinking and comparison,
without a past?
And there's nothing the 1st attention can do about it.
So now what?
Again, we have the question of your definition of the second attention! For conversation's sake, let me share my definitions of the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd attentions! Then you can do the same. That way we will be talking apples to apples!
First attention- The consensual program that we experience here as anchored beings.
Second attention- ALL frequencies / layers / worlds that manifest form and duality. For me, this includes the physical and lesser realms. These layers greatly differ in laws, forms, truths, and perceptual abilities. Thus no statement about the "second attention" can be addressed without more specific frequency designations.
Third attention- any and all existence beyond form, individuality, time, space, and separateness. No individual can exist in the third attention. No perception can be executed in the third attention. It is ONE.
Dimensions... I see the first attention as a dimension.
The first attention is thinking, which is self-reflection, recycling past knowledge onto a virgin present...
Let's say the 2d plane of the first attention is built of knowledge/thinking/inventory/memory...
Each item of the inventory is a line used to build the plane of the 1st attention.
A thought in motion is thinking, is a line...
There's an infinite number of 1d lines in a 2d plane.
Ok. Lines are fibrous intentions. Got it!
Do we really have to recapitulate an infinite number of lines to enter the 2d plane?
Or after recapitulating, say, 100,000 lines, do we get the idea that the same will apply to the rest of the lines
and we're suddenly "enlightened"... the whole plane is owned or realised as wisdom in a flash.
Some people will only need to recapitulate 100 lines. Others may need to do 10,000...
The point is, no one recapitulates an infinite number of lines. Completeness is a realisation waiting to be had.
Focussing on incompleteness could potentially push that realisation into the infinite future...
could be the difference between 500 lines and 50,000.
A couple of thoughts come to mind. Recapitulation removes the energetic leaks of the past. It allows one to recover power and accumulate power. However, recapping any segment or even all of our lines / filaments does not grant us entry into the second (or any higher) attentions! And for the record, I feel that recapping the right history creates a domino effect and addressing every line / filament is unnecessary.
What about intending completeness?
What's incompleteness got to do with it?
Intent is not a mental process. We cannot intend completeness with an incomplete consciousness. Intent is an inside job.
The idea of working on incompleteness is liken to stalking/hunting/tracking - one step at a time.
The idea of intending completeness is more like dreaming - not a linear progression but a
"quantum leap" or movement of the AP. I'm using the terms a little differently, according to my seeing.
1st attention/stalking is linear time.
2nd attention/dreaming is nagual's time.
If the 1st attention is a plane of lines, the 2nd attention is a solid (cube, tetrahedron) of planes.
The 2nd attention can do wonders due to its extra dimension of action available to it.
It doesn't think about incompleteness.
There is some truth in those comments, but even in what you call dreaming or the second attention there is a learning going on. The curve is much different. Again, it seems your definition of the second attention is a cohesive one. My mileage varies...
Are you sure you want to tell people to be aware of their incompleteness?
That's just the stalking/1st attention way.
No. This focus will identify the completed parts. My glass is half full!
And the 1st attention doesn't ever truly reach/become the 2nd...
nor does incompleteness ever become completeness.
See my comments on the second attention definition above.
It's a matter of attention/dimension.
The first attention cannot solve itself.
More self-reflection cannot solve self-reflection.
Can you be aware of incompleteness without self-reflection?
Throughout all realms or dimensions of duality (the 1st and 2nd attentions) there is self reflection. Once one realizes that parts of the self are complete, those parts will come into play. It is the perception from completeness that resolves the incomplete self.
What I am saying is just as dangerous as what you are saying to the wrong ears.
Ahhhh... I quote you- "Nobody is doing anything to anyone, much less to a warrior."
My arguments are reasonable. But I am not suggesting we solve this by reasoning.
What is seeing to me may be reason to another, and it makes all the difference.
You seem concerned about people pretending completeness... what about all those pretending incompleteness?
Is incompleteness the root of completeness? The Gospel of Thomas put it this way:
"Jesus said, "If the flesh came into being because of spirit, it is a wonder. But if spirit came into being because of the body,
it is a wonder of wonders! Indeed, I am amazed at how this great wealth has made its home in this poverty."
I don't know man. These are all just perspectives. Controlled folly is still folly, thank God!
LOL! Forgive me. That last sentence was stalking too far without permission.
I usually reserve such intimacies for the third conversation. I guess we're good friends now!
Time is moving so fast since that 2012 thing!
This is a place of communication. Growth is experienced via objective discussion. Thanks for the conversation!
Dok
Nice to meet you Doktor Green. I don't know where this silliness is coming from.
I love the heart of your post. I hear you. I don't know why I'm picking on the details.
This is all a big spirit dance. Wyrd.
Most of the time i pee standing up.
What I meant to say is, this is all so random.
Who are you?
Who am I?
Why am I still talking?
Will you be my friend?
Sincerely crazy and innocent,
Your friend and brother from another mother,
Archaos