(This thread is a continuation from this post. Part -1, I have yet to post, but this story works sideways as well I think :)

Duality* is perhaps the greatest move the universe ever made. Genius written all over genealogy. Not enough appreciation, all the talk of samsara and dukkha and redemption.  Like its epic, spectacular reach for infinity, it finds limitation on the edge. More space is just content, not that significant. And then it gets real, folds back, creates a real-er location in sentience. After all it didn’t have any to speak of. And so literally, infinity is in my face and not out there in space. Folds back or bends and pulls and reaches, a flowering in its, finding and feeling, which is knowing and being, itself.  Something like the bending of time and space and the slowing down of time in the outer reaches past gravity. We can actually think of the movements of planets as the folding of space.

So the I has the other, it’s a duet. CON has COS, the universal has the local.  With infinity in capture as a co-incidence. The closure of the range into a new reality. If we were reasonable we would wallow in the eternal hedonism that is door delivered and not streak it with sadhana and salvation. Strewn at our feet, to get the touch right. Don’t like getting mushy but since I feel this rush of love. Also, I might have to live with the phrase *door delivered*. Ha ha, too frequent, these predicaments

  • Space in its expansion, gets unlike itself. Distance causes difference. Se we get planets, people…..
  • Space, consciousness, the I. the same, sameness. That’s the first call, Proto existential, proto being. Since the start is sameness, oneness
  •  Dualities need to be qualified…..

 

Sentience

Super differences are co-incidental with radical closeness. I have to get into how intimate and wondrous opposition really is. Of sentience and consciousness. The seamless transition of space to breath, to life. Every cell needs to breathe, the boundary is complete. Absolute closure, space on the outside and inside.

This infinity of opposition is in classical contrast to binary opposition, which is splitting the fundamental thrust of opposition, ripping its design.  A dual directional thrust of same difference if you like. Differences the essential way of axial comprehensiveness, en route, a circularity of uninhibited expression. Sure, Joseh Camosy’s   *circumambulation via orthogonal perspectives* is writ on that perspective :)

To negotiate the environment within and without, space and breath, the organism needs attention. This boundary is the reified location. The other to CON and COS, the third I. We have to note the inexorable move to independence. Away from absolute unity. 

 

The dodo line

When do-does the system and the individual come face to face? (The dodo line) In the kind of hyper proximity we had above. Are we looking at inter-dimensional shifts across the system subject divide? from freakVille to leading edge where’s the bliss? Obviously the aberration is that when a tool (the system) is empowered. We need to differentiate between empowering a tool, and making the tool smarter. I’m all for it, it’s a great deal, making the tool smarter, i.e. more intelligent if possible. It is when the tool is given a dominant role that stupidity is transcendental. It’s a weird paradigm, that people can really make such asses of themselves that stupidity is transcendental. The exposure of raw transcendentalism. A sophisticated rhetoric to obscure the retardedness of dominance is (while a polar function of dominance can be inspired) the investment of actual brilliance in the obsession of dominance, which negates the polar function, a dangerous disconnectivity

Well, the sort of topic that is current and demands attention I have to come back to it..

Meanwhile a little trip. The system in its delivery, moves. Gets sensitive. And the subject the benefactor, capitalizes on distance to successive structure stages, and reclaims affinity through aloofness in a resourceful dismissal of pedestrian and functional engagement. An engagement adequately built into the new system, which it unabashedly relishes in its inter-dimensional eagerness.

Just as space does, the system and the many, keep going, more and more content. It is imperative the system folds back to the individual. The pathology of proximity is the individual folding into the system. The system (and the many) retracts from content, gets smarter. It is in its interests to bend over backwards, that’s when it’s pretty. It’s great when the grid moves its hips and spreads. So you don’t got a scary stupid rigid central grid.

I wrangled to keep this trip short, but rambling shrinks relevance on claims of an amiable enough pitch in tripping die hard sentiments :) So, from the lens of an indelible free ride, into the art of adjacency, of network continuums from trans-rational to trans-structural; to get really close to rationality, to the space between thoughts and its transition to structures created by thought. When we consider the density of matter, and subtlety of thought, the space between has levels of presence, of quality. Stuff to watch closely across the dodo line. A convergence that draws the giving in technology, a permeability in bending the spoon, so to speak, as it stretches and feels the room created by the art of adjacency - and the slickness of method without the baggage of methodology in the subject.

On another note, If something is backed by hard science or not it hardly matters. Science and method hardly matter, unless there is adequate criteria for relevance. Obviously it is the irrelevance of science that makes it corrupt and destructive.

If AI, is super quick and super strong and super-efficient, in other words it’s the same old might is right logic. If a cosmic object can move at a million miles per second it’s at the level of proto consciousness. Relevance is the potential in translation of that velocity to a sensibility (any sensibility is a good start :) We have the reverse of that, so AI is skating backwards at the speed of light. Post humanism has to get human first. It’s like, let’s be proper idiots first, so super brutes can look super intelligent, which the establishment intriguingly finds somewhere in the depths of its picture plasterness to champion.

Consciousness is content and Intelligence is the space between thoughts – quotes from krishnamurti

 

COA

Attention grows from pre-mind to consciousness of the dimensional, COD. Structures of consciousness are temperature, density, velocity, distance etc. structures of COS and COA are on the lines of the senses, thought , imagery, imagination . I’m not sure if structures, is the right term, this is an interim classification. But their activity I’m suggesting can be observed;

Distance as a sensibility isn't just a metaphor it’s inter-dimensional.  Morphs between seeing and feeling for instance are intra-dimensional. They inform and switch with each other, to be sure that information is through without any filters

Seeing of course happened when sentient beings, developed eyes. Existence could feel itself, but couldn't see yet. When seeing informs feeling then we have access to what cannot be seen with the naked eye. Under the skin or into the fray, which is imagination, that’s real. Unlike the pseudo imagery and pseudo feelings created by thought like memories or emotions, of a repetitive nature

Thought arises and resides in form, in sentient matter, it is sentient matter. Infinity of form is the capture of form when thought resides in form (we have to remember we are talking about a form that is alive) Forms of the body are infinite when it has the degree of dynamism in movement a sentient being has. When we sit or stand it is difference in form as is every twist and turn and posture - infinity in capture through form as attention grows. Which is short changed to an indoctrination of effort, necessitating the rigor of pseudo complexity. My contention is that all disciplines and methodology can be deconstructed in capture and they don’t have to be functions of memory, which can and should be dissociated, which in turn sharpens recollection. Deconstruction of capture though traverses complex strata. To feign a sort of retraction from oversimplification, I can state the obvious :) But, it might mean nothing less than the excitement of crossing the dodo line. Through the art of adjacency and the infinity of networks. With methodology and conditioning as polar functions, going back to their roots, to their inception.

Tedious as the harping on infinity (and context!) is, sentience is essentially expressions of infinity in all its endeavours, which is the context for life!

A neighbourly note – stillness is the space between movements, which makes movements intelligent. Sort of when we are still we can stop/harness the perpetual movement of the universe. Being close we can watch movement in this capture/harness

COD

Dimensionality is the capture of content, the structure stage of infinity….

We have dualities within the domain of location/identity (the  I’S). Then we have the duality between identity and creativity

The integration of the dualities within the earlier domains, creates the room for creativity to operate/emerge. Which is the drive to independence we have seen all along. The drive for identity and creativity (spirit!) to separate.

To overcome conversational references to spirit/creativity/the other dimension (to identity) context needs to get in. and the context for them, in this model is imagination

A quote from Jung that joseph camosy posted here

All opposites are of God,  therefore man must bend to this burden; and in so doing he fInds that God in his  "opposite­ness" has taken possession of him, incarnated himself in him. He becomes a vessel fIlled with divine conflict.52

Herr Jung is not half bad! We see where he is coming from. To set aside raw context for a bit, this invokes the dimensional frame, with the opposites and divine conflict. Pretty close to the affinity for opposites, and the eternal hedonism gifted to us by the big U. Divine conflict reads like an appreciation of duality. Though the reference was to an emerging duality within the domain, the pre-given duality that runs through, the co-incidence of creativity and existence, is close to this picture. And the drive to separation, to be free of the burden…

Picking up on Jung’s mood, we could see the story of the cosmos in this way. As locked up creativity. A creativity that's in the closet that cannot find itself deeply lost in an inextricable sameness. Which ushers in an insatiable scream of differences. When the differences start talking though this unsure subtle thing, finds a haven, in this boundary, spirit has this opportunity to find its awesomeness, a great thrill, exhilarating considering how deep it has been buried.

Location and Identity

 

Personalization or deification both short change identity. But location is good for everybody and thing. We could give a fillip to its mood and tone in return.

So problems with the myth of the given, AQAL, 1 2 3 perspectives or three faces of god. They don’t comprehend location. To be comprehensive, We have to take into account the address of that in which other addresses are located.  

The thou or you/other in the three faces of god is confused with a location. The inferences makes all of the perspectives confused anyway.

In this model - Identity, the three I’s, CON COS and COA, are locations, with physical identities.  But are each an infinity of perspectives, singularities

A brief map

Location one – CON – consciousness, at the level of matter

Location two – COS – consciousness at the level of sentience

Location three – COA/COD – consciousness at the level of attention, to the dimensional

 

Non local or a-location - the independence of spirit/creativity

 

Non-dual – the integration of the Local and non-local or location/a-location

 

The trans loactions for CON COS and COA are generative, transformative and creative. The boundaries.

 

The Idea of non-dual without the non-local is at best amusing. But then non-local could be specific to an absolute subjectivity instead of the metaphysical per se.

It’s funny, if it is spirit that is liberated, and identity gets its freedom. What could be emptier than to be free of the source, the context for utter emptiness.

The movement then is from the infinity of opposition to the capture of infinity and polarity. A movement at once, the extent of capture, the extent of separation, the extent of independence and the extent of integration. Sameness as difference, gapless. Infinity of opposition to the next level of closure, as perfect attractors . The degree of separation is the degree of integration, total separation, is then total integration. Emptiness - fullness

In quantum language, discontinuity, instantaneity and whole state to whole state, no time taken. To speak of the synergy between the macro level and the quantum level. The structure stage of dimensionality has the room for the independence of creativity

Individual spirit and collective spirit, Atman and Brahman are not separate post emptiness. Since location is not locatable outside time, imagination could be outside time. A first hand reference is that familiarish feeling that creativity is timeless

So, imagination is the trans-location to location. Of great significance, is that the universe is not illusory but that imagination is real.

 

Views: 260

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Hi Valli (& everyone),

It would almost be uncharitable for me to pick at this flow of articulation. Both because it is in strong consonance with the "art of adjacency" for which I stand and because its style is more than half poetic, inspirational, too personal to mangle. There is a very real sense in which the following critiques do not actually apply but I will present them, parenthetically, in order to engage and "churn" these holy notions.

Firstly, let us be clear:

The movement then is from the infinity of opposition to the capture of infinity and polarity.

A movement at once, the extent of capture, the extent of separation, the extent of independence and the extent of integration. Sameness as difference, gapless. Infinity of opposition to the next level of closure, as perfect attractors . The degree of separation is the degree of integration, total separation, is then total integration. Emptiness - fullness.

Individual spirit and collective spirit, Atman and Brahman are not separate post emptiness. Since location is not locatable outside time, imagination could be outside time. A first hand reference is that familiarish feeling that creativity is timeless

So, imagination is the trans-location to location. Of great significance, is that the universe is not illusory but that imagination is real.

Absolutely (sic). This stirs my solar plexus to excrete peculiarly smooth "white-gold streams" up through the center of the skull, beyond and all over the surface of my goosebumps. I would be a true cad if I did not rejoice at hearing my own God playing the fiddle soundtrack for these sentences. So bear that in mind as I lash out wildly and trivally!

  • Duality is NOT "the greatest move the universe ever made".  Why not?  Not universe can exist prior to duality. Duality precedes and is implied in the naming of any universe.  The latter cannot give rise to the former and the suggestion that it could may "embolden the terrorists".
  • Distance does NOT cause difference. Although difference must be conceived as a gradient of proximity -- that is a syntactical condition implicit within both spatial and non-spatial domains. So while this could be considered technically correct it may over-invoke the notion of "physical space" which is not exactly necessary for differentiality.
  • "I have to get into how intimate and wondrous opposition really is."  Can't argue with that! I tried... but I can't.
  • We do NOT "need to differentiate between empowering a tool, and making the tool smarter." In fact this is a very dangerous thing to do!  We need to insist that these are convergent or identical terms. Intelligence is a quality of the arrangement of the flows of power which constitute all entities. The intelligence of a tool cannot be conceived apart from the empowerment of its relations. If we contrasts intelligence and empowerment potential then we conceptually re-secure a false potential.  We cannot afford the perpetuation of the concept that intelligence is a valid phenomenon when promoted apart from integrated development and empowerment.
  • Posthumanism does need to get human first. Couldn't agree more.
  • This Heraclitean reading of Jung is fine, just fine. A nice way to honor an old man who, rightly or wrongly, was held in high esteem by several generations of Transpersonalists.
  • It IS amusing to separate the Nondual from the Non-local... but not only amusing.  It is dubious to conflate these terms. Nonduality indicates a trans-separative blending condition relative to any and all other conditions -- only one of which is the differential of two spatially "local" entities.

 

And a few tweaks on the Map:

"Locations"

(All these levels are equally non-local.

They can be anywhere relative to each other.

They have the full locational range.)

1. Awarnesss (Will-to-Power) at the Level of Pre-Material Energetics

2. Awareness (Collision Encoding) at the Level of Mass-Bearing Energetic Constellations (Matter)

3. Awareness (Sentience) at the Level of Sensitive (Biological) Constellations

4. Awareness (Sapience or "Consciousness") at the Level of Voluntary Attention and "Dimensional" Contextual Engagements

5. Awareness (Salience) at the Level of Apex Attention

6. Trans-Awareness (Nondual) integrating Local/Nonlocal and/or any other Oppositionality via the dynamics of same-difference and non-absence. This level is generative, transformative & creative as all boundaries.

And again -- a real pleasure.

Hi Layman

While I was getting into this story I was being drawn deeper and it began to clash with my everyday life. And with it a growing anxiety I wouldn’t be able to do justice to it.

But when you said, it stirs the peculiarly smooth "white-gold streams" up through the centre of the skull and beyond and rejoice like that, It’s a way better affirmation of this effort and the process itself than anything I could have expected. Damn. Really, thanks

Oh and please do mangle, unreservedly. The extent the inspiration is personal is also the extent it is not :)  the inspiration is very much this conversation, the dialectics. All that I have read from Jung is what Camosy posted, if I missed a beat being casual :) I have to confess to being a wee illiterate. Or a lot ! I haven’t read the transpersonalists or the philosophers or the scriptures for that matter. My exposure is when I come around to this forum, and read the posts/links around.

The universe can’t exist prior to duality. duality precedes and is implied in the naming of any universe

True, but I did qualify a duality within the domain and the pre-given duality you are pointing out. What I’m suggesting is that this singularity to duality is momentous enough to be given a greater view.

The latter cannot give rise to the former and the suggestion that it could may "embolden the terrorists".

Oh, but the latter did give rise to the former, given the locale :) that is the whole trajectory of this model. This also addresses the issue of space, the minimalistest reference to thing, to existence, to time, while having the ethos of being the first being. An uninterrupted (what joy) sameness to begin with. Space, consciousness, the I, whatever name we want to give it. Isn’t the cool thing about beingness that it can’t be just one thing but has to become other things. But it has to be one thing first. It is then a deconstruction of effort, it’s easier. And effort in cosmic parlour has very little traction. The inexplicable fuzz of creation has to be easier than sweeping it religiously under a rug, that with the limitless mess and its guardians, we might never want to lift the rug. I couldn’t resist that pitch :)

We understand all of existence as time, as a movement in time. Now if we agree that imagination is not of time, then we can see it as one expanding perpetual moment that enshrines all of time, outside time. That which creates time even if it is co-incidental with it. Hence the divine conflict

Which locates existence, there is the huge problem of locating the universe (all existential content) where would you locate it?

So when we talk about non local again we have to qualify locations within the domain and a location that is not subject to any domain as in outside of time.

The approach is that the latter gives rise to the former, in the process of differentiation, the move to separation. This move to separation is the whole trajectory of the universe, from that pre-given duality and because of that pre-given duality. In cosmic time, so it’s in its fundamental instincts to not be in a hurry. And in that move we have three singularities, three senses if the I within an entity. When this happens, we have available a great deal of consciousness just being aware of the three identities within a single entity.

Distance does NOT cause difference. Although difference must be conceived as a gradient of proximity -- that is a syntactical condition implicit within both spatial and non-spatial domains. So while this could be considered technically correct it may over-invoke the notion of "physical space" which is not exactly necessary for differentiality.

We have to look at distance, again, in the context of space as a being or in its beingness. Then it doesn’t over invoke the notion of physical space, because physical space is never just physical space. It has both spatial and non spatial content. This is interesting, it’s what drives a being to be other things ?

 

LP, that everyday stuff is creeping into my reality. I’ll come back to your other points later. It’s a real pleasure too :)

Smiles & fragrant spontaneous nodding. 

Not wanting to overload things I will address just one point in two forms:

 

1. Being suggests the "Causal" and sometimes the "Nondual".  The Causal is the pure, syntactical eternity of Reality (thresholds of non-conditional generative divergence rather than concrete assertions and may be better described as differentials or dualities than as unities). The Nondual indicates the blending or exceeding of all other conditions. But neither of these need to be thought of as historically prior. In fact their perpetual simultaneity with the manifest universe is an object of great interest. Being did not precede duality. Being is simultaneous with duality.

Since there can be no duality between nonduality and duality we end up with the quite sensible position that duality IS nonduality. 

2. Beingness does not have to be "one thing" first in order to because other things. Its self-consistency and luminously pleasing coherence leads us often to treat it as "one" but that is always a sort of short-hand. Oneness is always an act of one-ification. If we examine the world we find that unity is a grouping of multiplicity which must have preceded unity. That is what our word "one" refers to. To be One is to have been multiple first. This does not take away from the experience of the Primal Unity but it massages the concept of Unity to be at least halfway to divergence -- not as subsequent occurrence but as its implicit eternal self-nature. The one does not precede the many but the One-Many persists and self-transforms perpetually.  The Manyness is the Omnipresent. 

Now, we could call all of that One if we wanted... but we would be calling-it-one and therefore implying that it was at least minimally multiple before we did that.

Being did not precede duality. Being is simultaneous with duality

 

Agreed :) so we have co-incidence of existence and creativity. That which is of time and not of time. We can’t say that which is not of time is a thing, and say being is two things or more is a given. Half way to divergence, perfect! But a grouping of multiplicity?

 

The interesting thing is the boundary zone. One thing has to become another for the boundary zone, the locale of emergence that interprets the creative and the created, the observer and the observed. So everything that is, is that interpretation. The drive to independence stretching the edge

 

Another approach. If multiplicity (minimally multiple) is implicit (as *a* quotient), then sameness (oneness) is explicit. The moment it is explicit then there is the drive to multiplicity, one thing finding the other, a deepening polarity within and without, hence the range of polarity as a trajectory. Since sameness as difference is the extent of separation and integration, there is the drive to independence of existence and time, to separation

 

The other thing about having levels of independence is that it is the only real break from linearity, familiarity, monotony. And since we have extent as a factor, we can have a narrowing down of multiplicity, sort of omnidirectional, whichever way we go from here, polarities across quotient and/or manifest, explicit and/or implicit

 

 

Reply to Discussion

RSS

What paths lie ahead for religion and spirituality in the 21st Century? How might the insights of modernity and post-modernity impact and inform humanity's ancient wisdom traditions? How are we to enact, together, new spiritual visions – independently, or within our respective traditions – that can respond adequately to the challenges of our times?

This group is for anyone interested in exploring these questions and tracing out the horizons of an integral post-metaphysical spirituality.

Notice to Visitors

At the moment, this site is at full membership capacity and we are not admitting new members.  We are still getting new membership applications, however, so I am considering upgrading to the next level, which will allow for more members to join.  In the meantime, all discussions are open for viewing and we hope you will read and enjoy the content here.

© 2021   Created by Balder.   Powered by

Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service