Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Personal Power is not of this world, thus it cannot be
described. The effects of Power are manifested in the physical world and
can be delineated. Every being has attention of some degree. I see the effect
of Personal Power as the ability to manifest Intent. It also manifests as
enhanced attention, but that seems to be one of several effects; the ability to
dream consciously, the ability to move the awareness, the ability to see
energy, and so on.
Power does not accumulate through adding things. Power accrues
through giving things up. This means that to become something more, one must
give up parts of the self to allow the change. Power does not come through
having more. Nothing can be added to a person that is full. Power and Freedom
comes through having less! A warrior is not enlightened because he has
collected a lot of ideas, information, workshops, or even experience. He is
enlightened because he knows how to empty himself.
To be more specific, as one evolves toward the Nahual, one is no longer aware of
the 'completed parts' of the self, because they have become Power. The only
parts of the self that one can experience as being the self are the parts that
are incomplete! Those aspects are still identified as the aspects of a separate
being. Saving Power is thus the process of becoming increasingly aware
of the parts of the self that are incomplete and different from the Nahual.
Releasing these allows Personal Power to expand.
The hypocrite will pretend that he is already complete and try to live out of
that pretended completeness. This keeps him outside the Nahual as a separate
entity!
One must be aware of his 'incompleteness' and live out of that to be
truly one's self. The parts that are complete are encountered as the Nahual.
The parts that are incomplete are encountered as one's self. As self-importance
and self-awareness are progressively released, the remaining ‘self’ shrinks.
The mission is to finally lose the ‘self’ within the great Web and be complete.
To be truly complete is to become the Nahual.
Dok
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Wonderful post Doktor Green!
I really relate to not accumulating as growth.
I don't relate so much to the words "hypocrite" and "pretending".
These have one meaning for "average men" and no meaning at all for one without personal history.
If a warrior pretends, s/he is stalking, and the pretend is as real as any real (and as pretend as any pretend).
The other thing is that there are two ways to accomplish anything - stalking and dreaming.
A dreamer would not focus on their incompleteness like a stalker would.
A dreamer, I would say, dissolves their incompleteness by diving into the nagual.
The nagual/spirit is a universal solvent.
Anyway, it's really brilliant about the complete and incomplete.
What do you think/see about the possibility of the incomplete self and the complete nagual existing
simultaneously without contradicting one another? I mean, is the nagual any less complete due to the
existence of the tonal? What about the view of them existing as different dimensions? Do lines make
a plane any less? Do we have to realise every line to know the plane?
Is it enough to return the guard to the guardian?
Do you think/see that the tonal/self is eliminated?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Archaos-
Hypocrites and pretenders are manipulators. They have studied the work but accomplished nothing. They use their intellect to fool the unwary. i agree with your assessment of a warrior's usage.
Both dreamers and stalkers become aware in stages... of the pieces of the self that are incomplete. As we discover that we are using compassion (for example) as a means to further our own agenda,... we take action.
What do you think/see about the possibility of the incomplete self and the complete nagual existing
simultaneously without contradicting one another? I mean, is the nagual any less complete due to the
existence of the tonal?
An incomplete puppet has nothing to do with the puppeteer!
What about the view of them existing as different dimensions? Do lines make
a plane any less? Do we have to realise every line to know the plane?
Not sure what you are asking here...
Is it enough to return the guard to the guardian?
Do you think/see that the tonal/self is eliminated?
Death ends the tonal self experience. In the meantime, it seems we should assume the identity of the puppeteer!
Thanks
Dok
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Hi! Nice to meet you.
Okay. But the warrior's usage supercedes the idea of a "they".
"Nobody is doing anything to anyone, much less to a warrior."
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?
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.
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.
What about intending completeness?
What's incompleteness got to do with it?
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.
Are you sure you want to tell people to be aware of their incompleteness?
That's just the stalking/1st attention way.
And the 1st attention doesn't ever truly reach/become the 2nd...
nor does incompleteness ever become completeness.
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?
What I am saying is just as dangerous as what you are saying to the wrong ears.
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!
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
Posts: 494
Threads: 17
Joined: Feb 2019
Archaos wrote: There's an infinite number of 1d lines in a 2d plane. Do we really have to recapitulate an infinite number of lines to enter the 2d plane?... 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.
Does the concept of a hypercube fit this thematic definition? I ask because what you describe...infinite "lines" contained within...a cube was casually stuck on a shelf in a recent nocturnal dream. Thats not all that interesting, on its own, however. What is interesting, is that the underlying concept conveyed on entry to said "cube" was very similar to the model you proposed in this post...in particular, the idea of "skimming" a representative sample to understand the whole and not be caught in the individual strands or infinite variations of the same sample. I had not, to my embaresment, linked it to the concept of "proportional recap" or the sorceric concept of skimming, until seeing where you were going with the metaphoric construct. Fractal encoding and the concept of "holographic structure" were other gems of technobable (enough to make Geordi LaForge blush) associated with the concept. As was a sad reflection that this was almost useless, as a practical matter, outside the attention of dreaming. But, practical is over rated ehh? hehe.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Hi Senear! (where'd you come up with that name, if you don't mind?)
Yeah, hypercube... it's funny how easy it is to visualise the dimensions before that one.
What's up with that? Does it suggest a practical limit to dimensions? Are there more than 3 attentions?
It's tricky to talk about... for DJ, the abstract is synonymous with spirit.
But for a nondualist, the abstract is psycho-babble.
I don't know if you know what i mean...
A nondualist is present... mind is not actual but is apparent, an abstraction.
Abstractions are of the same psychological (form without substance) self-reflection as the first attention.
We can have abstract maths and 2 tangent the cosine of -1 (I'm not a mathematician) but we never
encounter a -1 in actual present reality.
The idea of the individual separate ego identity/self is also a purely psychological abstraction/invention.
I don't know if you've ever looked for the ego, but it is nowhere to be found.
When we look, all we find are memories of many different events and times which we ascribe some linear
continuity to in order to effect the appearance/phantasm called "I", identity, personal history, etc...
the ultimate inorganic being which feeds on the energy of the actual, present, 2nd attention until it is
nearly imperceptible behind the shadow-image of self-reflection.
Where am i going with this? I don't know!
Just kidding.
My point is, abstractions like the fourth dimension are abstractions for a reason (maybe. sounds good though, huh?).
Perhaps it's nature's way of saying "keep it simple".
When we start abstracting we invent borders and bearded gods and all kinds of sillyness.
The actual dimensions I can experience as a present being, a nondualist, are the attentions.
Except there is a dimension beneath the 1st attention... any thoughtform or belief or word is a dimension within the 1st attention.
These are the ego/tonal's children. Now, if those thoughts start self-reflecting and making babies, you're really screwed.
Examples of the tonal's children might be patriotism, or facebook...
You could say there is a concerted effort these days to entice our attention further and further in that direction...
more dreams within dreams to distract people and keep them fractured. Just an observation - not a judgement.
I don't know really. I mean I intend to see homogeneous consciousness oneness and Presence.
If there are 12 dimensions or whatever, I haven't seen them or needed them yet.
Time is not the fourth dimension as some have postulated. That is, 3d moving in a line of time.
Everything is moving in spirals, not lines. We're on the earth which is spinning and the earth is going around the sun,
which is going around something too... Everything spins in the bigger picture.
Even 3d is created by the brain and isn't actual. Really weird. Scary weird.
We know so little about reality and assume so much.
It's amazing how we perceive these assumptions as reality.
I'm all about the holographic fractaliciousness.
That supports the homogenous oneness view - things are the same, just smaller or larger, shorter or longer,
faster or slower, contracted or expanded, enfolded or unfolded...
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
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
Posts: 494
Threads: 17
Joined: Feb 2019
Name is semi random. Well, that’s not of course the whole boring truth. that story would be: Long ago a guy was working his first job out of college. He picked up Everquest and learned, to his horror, that the fairly mundane fantasy sounding name to hang on himself was taken. So he retreated into silent contemplation, on the create character screen, and felt the names energy out. And re wrote it as something completely different, to everyone but himself. Over the years, for some reason, he so no reason to change it. Sometimes he would try variations, Sen, Senear, shortened from the first name, but never anything else...that was the name he decided on...because it felt correct. As time wen ton, he became of more and more dimensions to the name, Meanings, and all of them fit that initial understanding in silence, so it was a good name, and it fit. The name born from the silence of waking dream, took on and had life preexisting and independent of the momentary situation. And thus, a really annoying poster was born, and born, and born. This is the tell. The Telling as some Toltec enthusiasts might deem it. lol.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Thanks for the reply Dok.
I actually asked some other questions that you didn't answer for some reason
that would have been very helpful for "objective discussion".
Was i just talking to myself?
Is this one of those games or is it "objective"?
Are you pretending that I didn't ask questions, or judging them unworthy of answers?
Are you assuming you have the only method of conversation that works?
Do you find the following helpful?:
"This assumes that everyone has the same definition of 'a warrior' as you do!"
This assumes that everyone has the same definition of 'objective' as you do!
We can try again or move along.
I'm sorry if I came across as someone you need to be on guard with.
I truly am.
I just realised you didn't show any interest in me or ask any questions.
You're welcome for the "conversation".
Sorry to have bothered you.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Archaos- I answered these questions.
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?
So now what?
Do we really have to recapitulate an infinite number of lines to enter the 2d plane?
What about intending completeness?
What's incompleteness got to do with it?
And not these-
You seem concerned about people pretending completeness... what about all those pretending incompleteness?
I'm not concerned. Maybe the comment hit a nerve. Sorry. I have no other response.
Is incompleteness the root of completeness?
Also no response.
I wish you well.
Dok
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Touche!
But then the way you answered them still leaves me capable of assumption, which you made
fairly clear was "inappropriate" if I may translate the intent of the comment - or why point out
that I was assuming something? You didn't point out that I was typing on a keyboard, so i guess
that's ok or "appropriate" action.
I guess we'd have to define "assumptions" now.
So "yes" and "no" answers are less objective than the ones you implied?
Is this some battle of wills for you?
Will it injure you to say "yes, I am aware of incompleteness in the second attention."?
I mean - that's about as objective as one can get. I promise not to assume you meant "no".
I can be ultra-technical if you like.
We can go this way:
"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!
No we don't. You can simply say yes or no. The question was YOUR definition.
I asked YOU the question. Not the other way around. When you ask me the question,
THEN it is a question of my definition.
Is this a cultural misunderstanding or something? I'm pretty sure I'm describing the way
conversation usually goes. Why are you playing the switcheroo game?
I love relatively objective conversation (I've never witnessed an objective conversation, as interested
in objectivity as i am). I am a scientist of objectivity, if you will. And one of the first prerequisites to
come close to being objective is to take things as they are without interpretation as best as possible.
So what actually happened for all to witness is me asking you your definition. It is not a question of
my definition yet.
That's fairly objective, no?
If not, I'll throw in the towel. Maybe. I'm tenacious sometimes.
If you don't want to talk, I'll completely respect that.
This is a place of communication.
Come on. Anyone able to type on the computer knows that.
For you to have to emphasize it as if I didn't know already is an attitude on your part.
Attitude = not objective, no?
Growth is experienced via objective discussion.
Honestly, this makes no sense to me. Objective:
(of a person or their judgment) Not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
If I google or ask a hundred people how growth is experienced, how many do you think will say:
"via objective discussion"? Certainly this is your personal definition and not the objective definition.
I mean, I could ask the whole world and how many would answer that?
Are you the example of objective discussion? Cause this conversation would be going a lot
differently if you were objective as i understand the word.
If we continue this stalking dialogue of wills and wits in this fashion, can we agree to speak of
"relatively objective" instead of objectivity as if it is absolute? Do you agree or disagree
(or somewhere in the middle?) with the observer effect of quantum physics... you can't observe something
without altering it in some way which makes objectivity impossible?
Do we have to be the kids at school that have to get in a fight before they become best friends, or can we
just jump to the inevitable bromance? lol!
You're a hard nut Doktor Green.
All this foreplay is going to give me blue balls.
(Sorry - I have to do the traditional Castaneda-style absurd sexual reference to break the tension. It's in my new seers' contract.)
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Re hypercube motif.
During wall gazing yesterday, I noticed all the right angles...the one's so important in maintaining the rigidity of the structure within which I live....well, they began to loosen and waver...ripple and sag. Specifically the juxtaposition of the right angle....pivotal point giving solid structure I was gazing within its "shape"...well, wasn't really a right angle any more. In fact, there was "no such thing" as right angle in that state of awareness. Fluid percpetion saw to that
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
|
