09-22-2010, 12:00 AM
~
Hi Wei! I'll put your previous comments in "quotes".
“Yes, I thought it was also very similar to the Matrix, but it had its own unique take and was actually more relevant to our experience of existence. This idea of dreams within dreams and we think there is an anchor point which is the waking realm, but the waking is just a slower vibration of dreaming for instance”.
SHM: Agreed. I like that, “a slower vibration of Dreaming.”
“Something is happening in perception, and it’s the inception of the idea of the real vs. the unreal. The real "us" is in waking, the unreal us is in dreaming. Just an inception ...this idea. Another one: the real us is separate from other things around us. Such as, the real us is the perceiver, the perceived is a result of that. So the perceiver is the essence, the reality "seen" is a byproduct of that essence. That's what is implied in the movie, that these people have essences and reside in their waking realm and that the dream layers are byproducts of their true state. The solidification of a true state is the inception doing its work in the most extreme sense. Because its been anchored, fear can then be inserted into the "dream" with the threat being the loss or hijacking of essence of what’s perceived as real self, (waking)”.
SHM: You mention, “Because its been anchored...” Thus the question, what’s being anchored? Our perception?
“The real us” is interesting as well. In chat we spoke about ‘reality.’ What’s reality? I mentioned that reality is a position of the AP (assemblage point) anchored. Our attention held in this AP position. Another idea mentioned is that reality is this here and now, this waking state. We always return to it.
Yet, if we look at it from a different perspective, as don Juan mentioned the Double dreaming us, how does it change? What if reality is the Double, and our waking state is a journey into the unknown? Reality isn’t the correct word for what I’m describing, but fun to speculate
“The movie puts forth the idea at the end, at least this is how I interpreted it, of "is there even such a thing as a true state (essence) of reality that is more than dreaming? and if not, then all is dreaming.""
SHM: Understood. Here’s one for you: If reality is nothing more than a Dream, why be concerned about death if ‘our experience’ isn’t real? Where does that leave the idea of ‘Death as an Advisor?’
Here’s another idea: If experience isn’t real or fact, what is experience?
I know these are loaded statements assuming a great deal, and I’m all over the place here, but it’s fun to throw ideas out
“My friend who was with me was uncomfortable with the ending and I see this as the uneasiness of temporarily losing the anchor point of solidification and so she tried to reestablish it by asking questions such as "ok, what happened, did he get back to his real life?" So she was going to anchor it eventually with whatever conclusion she came up with because her intent was not so much to understand, but rather to re-anchor herself to the idea of a solid reality.”
SHM: This ‘anchoring’ is interesting. It reminds me again of the AP; Dreaming is used to move it, Stalking is used to anchor it. I think where the issue comes in, with everyone at some point, is that of taking one ‘anchored point’ as MORE REAL than another.
It once again reminds me of Castaneda’s work, when he was ingesting hallucinogens. His AP (reality?) was moved and remained unstable. Juan needed him to anchor, using his shields, which of course is daily life after the hallucinogens. Daily patterns become entrenched anchors, even though we should be able to move about freely.
“To give an example, back to my friend after the movie. She was uncomfortable, not talking as we left the theater because she was still thinking about the movie, that feeling held her and she wanted to find conclusion (rest). Granted her discomfort was not extreme, keeping in perspective it was a movie, but the idea of being held by a thought that was like a current spinning and destabilizing and within all this was the implication to regain solid footing. So that alerts that her anchoring to begin with (before entering the theater) was not her own anchoring (integrity), but that of the inception of another, lets say. Obviously if it can be manipulated, then its not in her own and was put there by someone else.”
SHM: This reminds me belief and disbelief, per the movie reference.
An anchored bound AP is the same as a muscle-bound body; ineffective in a situation that requires flexibility of action. For an AP to be free, it must not be too tied to logic, or anchored.
Logic is to the mind what muscle is to the body. It is the muscle of the mind that gives power to discriminate between what works and what doesn’t. But all of knowledge is sourced through logic, and is but a tip of the iceberg of the wisdom available to mankind, or freely moving AP’s to sorcerers.
Logic, like muscle, is very useful in daily life, but taken as an end in itself, and using it to support a personal agenda, severely limits available opportunity.
Disbelief actually works in the same way as belief. We arrive at both through logical deduction. Disbelieving is believing in the impossibility of a thing because there is no logical possibility of it being so (within the sphere of our particular experience or with the movie, Inception).
However, availability to all possibility says that we must be free to act without belief, or disbelief - neither believing nor disbelieving, because these are essentially the same.
In Dreams, we can fly like a bird, breathe under water like a fish, and even pass through walls. These are examples of suspending disbelief. Loving our enemy, in spite of his obvious perfidy, persevering at a task when failure seems immanent, these are examples of suspending disbelief.
Walking on hot coals and not burning the feet, or staring at the sun and not harming your eyes are exercises in this regard. Ultimately, of course there is no need for us to test ourselves, self-consciously, because the Universe is already doing it at every moment.
However, we use self-conscious testing at times because it can awaken us to what is going on around us, when otherwise we might remain ignorant of the great opportunities available to us through suspension of disbelief.
We must learn to let go of disbelief.
This gives us the ability to act without motive – from a state of emptiness or freedom. This then is true action, unpremeditated.
Living in the relative world or an anchored AP is like going to the movies; suspending disbelief.
“And I realize I'm bringing up the notion of self here, but for the sake of the unfolding of the story, this is something clearly seen and I think relevant here. That, why would an anchorpoint that is supposed to offer self-stability actually do the opposite? That is, actually serve as a means, very direct means, for another to be able to destabilize someone”?
SHM: My first thought on this is personal history. Our socialized nature. It’s not our true nature. It becomes destabilized because we’re defending a false point; our personal history. It goes back to what you mentioned, being real. We ‘think’ that reality is this AP position we’re most familiar with. For the majority of us, this ‘here and now’ is reality. Yet, what of the sorcerer? Or, the mental patient? If one’s ever been to a mental ward, I can assure you that these folks do not see ‘real’ and ‘reality’ the way the majority of us do. Is their ‘world’ any less ‘real’?
Another answer may be that life is full of contradictions, or, just our limited perception and understanding of an ‘anchor point.’
“And to present this in another way...the fact that we have essences should comfort us, yet how many people walk around in comfort? Most don't. For example, many attend church because they fear their essence will not have an afterlife. Yet if they have an essence, why the fear? Is not the assuption then that such essence isn't truly theirs and they must fight for it? So essence has been tampered with in a way to make it what its not. And this gioes beyond religious people, everyone has a fear that can be manipulated and so any idea of essence does not help them in any way”.
SHM: I’ve read this a couple of times and am still a bit foggy on what you refer to as ‘essence.’ Could you define it for me? Is essence our soul? The totality of the self? The habitual AP position?
As to fear….huge topic.
I think fear in the manner you are using the word, is of not understanding the two words, “I-Am.” It’s the thinking mind that brings about the fear of not understanding who or what we are. Similar to the purpose of life. Why are we here? This of course brings me to duality, which is another topic for another time
Thanks Wei for your time and your thoughtful replies. Hopefully this post makes sense, as I realize I’m all over the place with it
SHM
Hi Wei! I'll put your previous comments in "quotes".
“Yes, I thought it was also very similar to the Matrix, but it had its own unique take and was actually more relevant to our experience of existence. This idea of dreams within dreams and we think there is an anchor point which is the waking realm, but the waking is just a slower vibration of dreaming for instance”.
SHM: Agreed. I like that, “a slower vibration of Dreaming.”
“Something is happening in perception, and it’s the inception of the idea of the real vs. the unreal. The real "us" is in waking, the unreal us is in dreaming. Just an inception ...this idea. Another one: the real us is separate from other things around us. Such as, the real us is the perceiver, the perceived is a result of that. So the perceiver is the essence, the reality "seen" is a byproduct of that essence. That's what is implied in the movie, that these people have essences and reside in their waking realm and that the dream layers are byproducts of their true state. The solidification of a true state is the inception doing its work in the most extreme sense. Because its been anchored, fear can then be inserted into the "dream" with the threat being the loss or hijacking of essence of what’s perceived as real self, (waking)”.
SHM: You mention, “Because its been anchored...” Thus the question, what’s being anchored? Our perception?
“The real us” is interesting as well. In chat we spoke about ‘reality.’ What’s reality? I mentioned that reality is a position of the AP (assemblage point) anchored. Our attention held in this AP position. Another idea mentioned is that reality is this here and now, this waking state. We always return to it.
Yet, if we look at it from a different perspective, as don Juan mentioned the Double dreaming us, how does it change? What if reality is the Double, and our waking state is a journey into the unknown? Reality isn’t the correct word for what I’m describing, but fun to speculate
“The movie puts forth the idea at the end, at least this is how I interpreted it, of "is there even such a thing as a true state (essence) of reality that is more than dreaming? and if not, then all is dreaming.""
SHM: Understood. Here’s one for you: If reality is nothing more than a Dream, why be concerned about death if ‘our experience’ isn’t real? Where does that leave the idea of ‘Death as an Advisor?’
Here’s another idea: If experience isn’t real or fact, what is experience?
I know these are loaded statements assuming a great deal, and I’m all over the place here, but it’s fun to throw ideas out
“My friend who was with me was uncomfortable with the ending and I see this as the uneasiness of temporarily losing the anchor point of solidification and so she tried to reestablish it by asking questions such as "ok, what happened, did he get back to his real life?" So she was going to anchor it eventually with whatever conclusion she came up with because her intent was not so much to understand, but rather to re-anchor herself to the idea of a solid reality.”
SHM: This ‘anchoring’ is interesting. It reminds me again of the AP; Dreaming is used to move it, Stalking is used to anchor it. I think where the issue comes in, with everyone at some point, is that of taking one ‘anchored point’ as MORE REAL than another.
It once again reminds me of Castaneda’s work, when he was ingesting hallucinogens. His AP (reality?) was moved and remained unstable. Juan needed him to anchor, using his shields, which of course is daily life after the hallucinogens. Daily patterns become entrenched anchors, even though we should be able to move about freely.
“To give an example, back to my friend after the movie. She was uncomfortable, not talking as we left the theater because she was still thinking about the movie, that feeling held her and she wanted to find conclusion (rest). Granted her discomfort was not extreme, keeping in perspective it was a movie, but the idea of being held by a thought that was like a current spinning and destabilizing and within all this was the implication to regain solid footing. So that alerts that her anchoring to begin with (before entering the theater) was not her own anchoring (integrity), but that of the inception of another, lets say. Obviously if it can be manipulated, then its not in her own and was put there by someone else.”
SHM: This reminds me belief and disbelief, per the movie reference.
An anchored bound AP is the same as a muscle-bound body; ineffective in a situation that requires flexibility of action. For an AP to be free, it must not be too tied to logic, or anchored.
Logic is to the mind what muscle is to the body. It is the muscle of the mind that gives power to discriminate between what works and what doesn’t. But all of knowledge is sourced through logic, and is but a tip of the iceberg of the wisdom available to mankind, or freely moving AP’s to sorcerers.
Logic, like muscle, is very useful in daily life, but taken as an end in itself, and using it to support a personal agenda, severely limits available opportunity.
Disbelief actually works in the same way as belief. We arrive at both through logical deduction. Disbelieving is believing in the impossibility of a thing because there is no logical possibility of it being so (within the sphere of our particular experience or with the movie, Inception).
However, availability to all possibility says that we must be free to act without belief, or disbelief - neither believing nor disbelieving, because these are essentially the same.
In Dreams, we can fly like a bird, breathe under water like a fish, and even pass through walls. These are examples of suspending disbelief. Loving our enemy, in spite of his obvious perfidy, persevering at a task when failure seems immanent, these are examples of suspending disbelief.
Walking on hot coals and not burning the feet, or staring at the sun and not harming your eyes are exercises in this regard. Ultimately, of course there is no need for us to test ourselves, self-consciously, because the Universe is already doing it at every moment.
However, we use self-conscious testing at times because it can awaken us to what is going on around us, when otherwise we might remain ignorant of the great opportunities available to us through suspension of disbelief.
We must learn to let go of disbelief.
This gives us the ability to act without motive – from a state of emptiness or freedom. This then is true action, unpremeditated.
Living in the relative world or an anchored AP is like going to the movies; suspending disbelief.
“And I realize I'm bringing up the notion of self here, but for the sake of the unfolding of the story, this is something clearly seen and I think relevant here. That, why would an anchorpoint that is supposed to offer self-stability actually do the opposite? That is, actually serve as a means, very direct means, for another to be able to destabilize someone”?
SHM: My first thought on this is personal history. Our socialized nature. It’s not our true nature. It becomes destabilized because we’re defending a false point; our personal history. It goes back to what you mentioned, being real. We ‘think’ that reality is this AP position we’re most familiar with. For the majority of us, this ‘here and now’ is reality. Yet, what of the sorcerer? Or, the mental patient? If one’s ever been to a mental ward, I can assure you that these folks do not see ‘real’ and ‘reality’ the way the majority of us do. Is their ‘world’ any less ‘real’?
Another answer may be that life is full of contradictions, or, just our limited perception and understanding of an ‘anchor point.’
“And to present this in another way...the fact that we have essences should comfort us, yet how many people walk around in comfort? Most don't. For example, many attend church because they fear their essence will not have an afterlife. Yet if they have an essence, why the fear? Is not the assuption then that such essence isn't truly theirs and they must fight for it? So essence has been tampered with in a way to make it what its not. And this gioes beyond religious people, everyone has a fear that can be manipulated and so any idea of essence does not help them in any way”.
SHM: I’ve read this a couple of times and am still a bit foggy on what you refer to as ‘essence.’ Could you define it for me? Is essence our soul? The totality of the self? The habitual AP position?
As to fear….huge topic.
I think fear in the manner you are using the word, is of not understanding the two words, “I-Am.” It’s the thinking mind that brings about the fear of not understanding who or what we are. Similar to the purpose of life. Why are we here? This of course brings me to duality, which is another topic for another time
Thanks Wei for your time and your thoughtful replies. Hopefully this post makes sense, as I realize I’m all over the place with it
SHM