…or at least two of them are:
- Remove my expectations in life
- Remove my labels in life
In the first quest I seek to rid myself of any expectations. I have yet to find a good and solid business case for having expectations. They are great for generating disappointments, but not for much else. They detract from fully experiencing the here and now by putting some of my attention into the future. I would rather live here and now.
In the second quest, I seek to observe situations and people without labeling. Seeing people for what they truly are instead of seeing them through filters such as “Wog”, “Gay”, “Terrorist”, “Strange”, “Jerk”, “SP”, or some such.
I still have expectations and I still use labels. These are quests. I am a work in progress 🙂
What are your quests in life?
Geir Isene - uncut 
I have difficulty projecting myself into small units of time. Like, “today” or “this year” etc. My quest is always to do something today that a future me will thank me for. To do things today that will matter 10000 years from now. To do things that will matter forever. To create effects that transcend time, and matter. To manage efforts like these one only need to focus on a small cornerstone in the structure of this universe and shift it in some way. For instance, the writer Victor Hugo did this with his books. He focused in on certain aspects of culture that were harmful and manifested them in tales and characters that allowed people to realize this for themselves. He shifted the culture in France with Les Miserables, and probably returned in a future life to find a more pleasant civilization. Simply shifting a viewpoint in a society has meaningful effects that shape the time to come. If you take a good look around you, much of what you see was not put there today. It was something started long ago. Even the language you speak.
oraclemysticism
“to do things that will matter” – isn’t it a desire to survive?
“a more pleasant civilization” – isn’t it evaluation/devaluation? And
it goes through at a very subtle level, that is one saying “pleasant”
is equally creating its opposite, that is putting energy into its recreation…
Good post, Marianne. That is an astute spotting of inconsistency.
.
.
Glad you are here Vin! I’m just learning – with joy!
I also do not permit myself to think with unattainable goals. For me, social intercourse is a dance. I gauge my conversations the same as auditing sessions. Both people can hopefully walk away VGI’s. When the conversations come down to win/lose, it’s time to move on. If you are looking for a win/win as the other is looking for a win/lose, you are setting yourself up for an unattainable goal. People tend to get hung up on unattainable goals. Not me. Facing up to these unattainable goals and moving them off your path speeds one on to attainable goals.
oraclemysticism
” I also do not permit….. the whole post. What comes through is that
you are limiting yourself…read over what you wrote and clear the words. It can happen so that in scio one bumps into words which one
would never use/used in life and not understanding them fully (the
attention stays there, as well as energy), one starts to limit oneself by
them…..I am not saying that this is the case with you, but this coming
through to me….also, you say Geir uses goal/expectation etc. perfectly…which is true, and your indicator is that you had a cognition a
couple of comments below this….
“My current quests
…or at least two of them are:
Remove my expectations in life
Remove my labels in life…”
These are things a future YOU will thank you for! So we are on the same page!
In my reality future has a meaning only if one has a past….
in my reading “any saint has a past and any sinner has a future” is
true only if one considers oneself a saint or a sinner…in the absence
of such labels there are only direct actions, which, in the big picture of
life are “energy manifestations” of different kinds…I just quoted this because it is a well-known sentence…
“I have yet to find a good and solid business case for having expectations”.
Can you paraphrase it? I may not understand the use of business case here.
Thanks.
Geir, I get it better now…still waiting for your answer if you will!
Business case is about “what/how/why/how much/will it be worth/risks/
success etc. all are reasoning processes….ok, I wonder if life can totally be lived without the analytical mind….yet, the way I live now is rather life lived in the present and it seems that LIFE takes care of me…that is much part of my life is lived now without the “business case”…I have no quest…simply let that “much part” reveal itself more
and more….it’s trust….seems to work….and Life provides what I “need”…even “business” goes fine in this way. Also, lots of “miracles”
never-ever calculatable with the mind – thus I get a lot of unexpected things and it is what makes my life fun and crazy….in many cases I surprise “myself” – do something and then just laugh, how is it? It causes “positive” effects around me, less fear and more creativity around…
Hope this helps:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_case
Yes, thanks!
Marianne, what is the tech here? Meditation or something else?
.
No “tech”. I will write down how it is in my case. Thanks for asking!
Vin,
The true meaning of meditation is being the now, being the flow of life and act accordingly. Much like in tune, in harmony with what is. In a wider and wider sphere. Meditation is a state of Being without the need to control anything. It’s no tech – I would say the tech is Life itself. It is not yet a full aswer to your question but you can take it as part of it. More to follow…
Marianne, the true meaning of mediatation for me is “seeing things as they are.” This process is totally non-judgmental, and totally non-resistive.
.
yes, Vin…for me it’s one “way” of perceiving….the “they” is still a separation….seeing through the “they” the separation is gone…there is just Being….
Being is a filter too. 🙂
.
Being is not a filter. (this is Marianne here, you have played this game with Geir and thought you had finished it!)
I don’t think in terms of absolutes.
.
Also…are you joking? ” I have yet to find…” You have the tool of it.
When you ever looked for the source of anything, what did you find?
L11, understanding basic purpose is not a firm, stable gain? Honestly asking you Geir! And you write in OT 8 that you are not creating your past, if I get
it right. But in my reading, any expectation is past based as we can project the
future only from a past-based observation labelled as valuable…knowing you
like joking and making us look at things, I still would like you to answer the above question!
I tend not to fixate on short-term expectations but I maintain strategic and long-term goals.
Since a very young age I have had a goal to understand how the universe ticked. I expect that goal is reachable but I don’t have an expectation of achieving that goal in a day, week, month, year, etc.
Geir, do you discriminate between goals and expectations similarly or do you have a different concept of expectation?
I differentiate between what I would like to achieve and what I expect to happen or expect to achieve.
Ok, Geir…let’s say I want to achieve to be happy. How do I know what
happiness is? Isn’t it because I have already created that once? Isn’t
it easier to “refresh” the “old” creation, that is create it again at will NOW than going “into the future”? Also, I expect you to answer because you answered ! the previous (looking into the past for reference)…and you won’t and I am just waiting, waiting, creating waiting, any emotion etc. Seem to be nice games I am playing with myself. If
I feel like playing…but not necessarily.
I seek to really experience the here and now. From that I get happiness. .. Not from comparing to the past or comparing to expectations.
If you mean no-motion and all-motion at the same time then I get what you mean. Do you mean that?
Perceiving and experiencing without any resistance and control.
Also, not labelling in the process of it.
Geir, what confused me was “seek” (expect and achieve). They imply the future. Future has a meaning only in the context of past and present. By “refreshing the old creation” I actually meant finding the
first postulate of happiness. Instead of seeking to be happy by doing
something to get over an unhappy state, one can simply postulate to
be happy. As I find it, it can easily been done. Nevertheless, it’s a mental-emotional creation. Mind. Game. Being and experiencing
the here and now is peaceful (my experience). Also, an availability to
experience anything without any resistance. (Gee! A postulate is a doingness?….any postulate is aberrative…seeing it right here the first
time while writing it down…..what do you say to it, Geir? )
Hadn’t really thought about it, so thanks. Been working on expectations and through experience am mostly living in the here and now and take it as it comes. Labels will take some time, but good point to ponder. They are fun and I still like to evaluate, but true, to see them for what they really are, a spiritual being, is optimum with no label.
deElizabethan
“and through experience am mostly living in the here and now and take it as it comes”…nice and warm Dee and Love is what comes through from your posts..thanks for it!
MT, Thanks for the comp. You are too kind 🙂
I remembered when I lost my expectation problem, as it was a problem, back in the early public scio days. I always expected people to mean what they say or do what they said they would do, as likely to happen or be. I would be upset or disappointed if not happen as I expected. One day, with a great disappointment, it hit me as to why was it that way. By looking at it found it was in me only, to make it change, and from that day on I never expected anything anymore. Being that one is not alone and when dealing with people shit can happen, and I can rearrange, change plans or views. Take it from where it’s at. Another thing I do is have a back-up, different avenue, or just be free. That was my win 🙂
Anyway, I love to look forward and intend, but not expect, is what I’m trying to say and do my best at the time and not worry. In fact it is more fun and free not to expect, but keep on…..
I believe there is truth to the power of intention and that this power can be described in terms of mechanics, as in the Law of Affinity or the Law of Attraction – since this is a universe of energy. So I don’t think I would go along with the idea of not having expectations, but those energy laws do make a good case for not using negative labels.
“In the universe there is an immeasurable, indescribable force which shamans call intent, and absolutely everything that exists in the entire cosmos is attached to intent by a connecting link.”
~ Carlos Castaneda
I see intentions/goals as very far from expectations.
How so?
Maybe the difference is that all the while you fully intend something you maintain a willingness to experience anything. Kind of like being “light on your feet” mentally/spiritually. That I could agree with but it may not be what you have in mind.
Expectation is on the way of already having cashed in the prize. It is a notion of “I deserve” – like the person demands the prize. Intention is pure without the lock-in that is a component in expectations.
Okay, maybe this is a semantics thing. Let’s say you have been practicing and intend now to win a game of foosball with Brendan. Or, an intention might not involve yourself but someone else, like Kristin winning an Olympic medal. Wouldn’t both those intentions also include the notion of their being deserved?
Yes, and in that lies the clue to the problem.
Aw, come on, Geir. It’s not like you to be so cryptic. And not answer the question. 🙂 Can you please do so?
I did answer the question. You nailed it, you got the whole point of the OP. You may not have realized it at the time you wrote it, but you really got the point. Reflect on it. You don’t need to be spoon fed this epiphany 😉
I feel like the Zen student who asks the master a question and gets the answer, “I thought you were a Zen Buddhist”. 🙂
Exactly 😉
You are correct. If you look at the admin scale, there is no place for “expectations”. Goals, intentions, expectations are not the same. You have mastered the English language and it’s word definitions better than many native English speaking people I can see.
Marildi,
The Law of Affinity, the Law of Attraction…listen to this..the whole is
interesting, I am putting here the end part.
Thanks, Marianne, Very interesting video. Adyashanti describes having “a want” without there being any “emotional string” attached. It sounds like he is talking about a very light postulate. i.e. one with a high, fine wavelength, much higher than wavelengths in the range of emotions.
I get the idea that at his high level of enlightenment – a very high tone level – even a light thought such as the one he had that roses “would be nice”, would have only a light intention and yet be powerful enough to become manifested in the physical universe, since the finer the wavelength the more powerful it is (according to LRH in Scn 8-80).
Thanks for posting this video – it gave me more understanding. It seems to me now that postulates made at lower tone levels have a heavier intention, more force involved. Btw, I really like this Adyashanti. 🙂
Glad you liked it! “the finer the wavelength the more powerful it is” LRH, Adyashanti, Geir, You, me……truth is truth!
Thanks you very much again MT for sharing this new vid of Adyashanti, still so very pertinent in the discussion; from “my own” viewpoints 🙂
Looks to me I’m very agree with all the previous statements and especially your last one : “LRH, Adyashanti, …”
So Hi! All Of “Us” “There”! and He our reality “here”:
We would have said here rather: “BECAUSE a light thought such as the one he had that roses “would be nice”, IT has only a light intention and SO IS powerful enough to become manifested in the physical universe” 😉
I would like to communicate something else too Adyashanti only talked about and very slightly, looks to us here: he talk about a questioning about “would it be something deeper?”, something like that, about what we would like to experience.
This reasoning in us here like when we ask to ourselves: “is that something we want to create, as experience, for “us”, is good or not? Is that the “best” experience we can create for us?”
I know many of us say that there is no such things as “good” or “bad” but it’s not my present reality.
For us here, when we already face that we are “by nature” free and completely differentiated from the universe, from the “things”, from the energy especially, of course nothing can harm us, cause “nothing can harm a nothingness”, we could say here.
But for the one of us who still identify “himself” to the energy, hu believes hu is the suffering and pain when the things hu identify humself are “harmed”, “bad” is really experienced (even if not “truly”…), cause “bad”, as we define it here, is just creation of unhappiness for one of us, I mean from any of our viewpoint.
I recall the two LRH’s rules for happiness which care about what “the other can experience easily”…
So, the point we come is about Ethics, about: “is, our creation, is ethics?” and having the certainty it is, could give the certainty it will/can occur because we are fundamentally “god” oriented, so “happiness creating oriented”, and that our infinite power flows without limit when we are certain that our creations are aligned with our common goal, while it is our very fundamental first postulate for any game.
A last point: Didn’t we experience there that just pure arbitrary light postulates, but still not out-ethics, I mean: not necessarily “ethic”, but not especially too, are very closed of what both LRH and Adyashanti talks about?
Hi idealgoal,
Glad you found it useful. Watch the whole of it if you are interested,
it is on You Tube. A question: what does ethics mean to you? Like that you write and we can share realities….
Hi MT, thanks for your reply.
I reply to your own question “2013-01-26 at 11:35” about Ethics here cause I have no more link to reply at the right place of your post:
Ethics means for me like the same than for LRH:
– To make “own” choices about to create: “The greatest good for the greatest number of Dynamics”,
excepts that I define precisely “god” as stated in my “Universal Theology” and that concerns not only “the greatest” number but the whole Dynamics.
ML.
Geir,
You are joking again, playing! Me here getting “angry” and laughing at the same time….you say that one is looking at what one is delivering, creating in
the NOW (if I get you right)…or as Ramana Maharshi would say or Echart Tolle,
or me, there is only the NOW and levels of experiences…one is CREATING in the NOW…there is no past or future….levels of experiences can be from eating a chocolate, writing this to creating a very elevated merging or even no-creation…all in the now. Thought seems to have two forms: instant, where there is an instant action and no more of that thought…or “reactive” that is “active again”, moving again which implies that it can be there in a non-active or active form, all in the now, same is true for emotions, seems Life has access to it all, like exhaling and inhaling with a stop in the middle of it….my reality of it.
Your posts are very inspiring…you see what I’m doing here? Thanks! Tolerate!!!
Vin,
I like this guy. Have just listened to this song first time, thought I am sharing it here, seems to fit.
Well, I listened to it all the way through. 🙂
.
Great, Vin! Listening is endless, lucky we are!
I could consider these current quests as the next OT level, or may be two of them. ( no smile here )
I’ll generously add one;
🙂
Aw, come on, Geir. It’s not like you to be so cryptic. And not answer the question. 🙂
Oops, this should be under your reply to me.
Good point Rafael! I would add that “levels of experience” and also my “principle”, roughly. If it is true that “me as Life” can know and experience anything, then I am not going anywhere for this knowledge and experience. All I “do” is that I let the Flow of Life flow and guide me to reveal the full nature of that Can in any instance of the Now. The Flow, Life itself is the tech.
Dear Marianne Toth, I am very interested in knowing more on your ” principle ” if you wish.
Geir, it depends on the attitude in relation with other people. Labeling people is not necessary an insult or a sign of alarm regarded to your personality. There are situations in life in which you cannot deny facts. For instance, an Al-Qaeda fighter IS a terrorist, a colleague or a friend CAN BE a jerk and Elton John IS gay. These are facts, not labels. All you have to do is to avoid beeing influenced in a bad way, that’s all. It’s nothing wrong with you, you’re just an observer.
About your first quest, I agree. Don’t make too much ilussions, if you don’t want disillusions 🙂
The problem here is not in derogatorily labeling other people – it is that any labeling is a sort of mental laziness that clouds one’s own observation of reality. In labeling a group as “terrorists”, one loses a lot of nuances in seeing what is really there.
From the 12 points on Mindfullness that I posted sometime back:
10. Do not get hung up on name and form.
Simply be aware that name and form may act as built-in judgment of what is there. Your task is to see things as they are. There should be no effort to judge by deliberately supplying name and form to what is there.
.
Like.
Isene, like the way you explain. Helps view things from different angles. Thanks!
I agree with you about terrorists. I rememeber World War 2 and the French Resistance. For the Germans they were “terrorists”, for the locals they were “patriots”. 2 different groups, 2 different nuances, 2 different realities.
Geir, in the OP you gave only gave examples of derogatory labels. What are some examples of labels that are not derogatory that you would not use in your observations?
Labeling a person a Scientologist would be an example.
.
Okay, I’m trying to understand Geir’s viewpoint too but that’s a good example.
I can see how having the label of Scientologist in mind might result in assuming things about the person that are based on one’s OWN considerations of what it means to be a Scientologist – and if those considerations did not match the actual meaning, one would not be observing the true character or reality of the person being “observed”. (Happens to me all the time. ;))
However, assuming the person using that label has a CORRECT understanding of this category/label called Scientologist, then I would say it would be helpful in understanding where that person is coming from, i.e. it indicates an aspect of his/her reality.
This boils down to the fact that words are symbols of whole packages of thought, and in that sense can speed up the flow of communication and understanding,
Maybe to some degree but at the cost of precision. The more fixed something is the less it can adjust to what is truly there.
The ideal scene is seeing things as they are, and that means being cognizant of the possibility of infinite variations.
.
I agree that people and situations can have infinite variations. But we are talking about the use of words and I don’t see words themselves as having infinite variations. Each one is a symbol for a specific concept and can be used to communicate that concept/thought/idea – which itself is a relatively finite thing.
So, getting back to the example, if an agreement can be made as to the meaning of “Scientologist” then the use of the word is simply an aid to communication, like any other word, label or otherwise. In fact, words are the very thing that enable communication (other than telepathy, which most of us aren’t up to yet). The trouble comes in when there is an inability or unwillingness to come to an agreement on what meaning we have in mind when we use it.
With that in mind, I guess “Scientologist” isn’t actually a good example of a non-derogatory label since many use it in a derogatory way. So I still don’t know of a good example of a non-derogatory label that does anything different from any other word, which is to communicate an idea.
Marildi, I am not looking for agreement. I am looking for what is really there (as-is-ness). The problem with words is that they cannot measure up to capturing the infinite variations that exist in nature, because of their relative inflexibility.
.
Vin, I see words as relatively flexible in the sense that they can be used in an “infinite” number of combinations with other words. It’s kind of like the pixel points on a TV screen, to use an extreme analogy. Viewed alone each is inflexible and has no real meaning, but when combined in an intended way can present a whole discernible picture. Similarly, combinations of words allow us to both give and receive communication about all kinds of realities, and we can get a pretty close approximation of those real things – the vast majority of which it would not be logistically possible to view directly.
Besides communicating thoughts to and from others, I also see words as an indispensable aid to thinking/considering/pondering.. Every word designates a whole concept, sometimes a huge one, that we can arrange with other concepts in our mind to get a “picture”, a view of a whole area of thought and reality.
The nature of words causes misunderstoods. There is a subject called “word clearing.” There is liability in using words.
There are as many interpretations of the Bible as there are denominations.
There are people who are stuck with certain interpretation of Hubbard’s materials.
.
Marildi: This boils down to the fact that words are symbols of whole packages of thought, and in that sense can speed up the flow of communication and understanding,…
Chris: Check out “symbols” on the know-to-mystery scale and possibly rethink how speedy this makes the communication.
Chris,the via for communication at our level is words, which are indeed symbols. But the fact that they communicate and transfer a thought takes us up the Know to Mystery Scale to Know (another word for understanding). So until we can communicate thoughts directly, without any via whatsoever, this is at least faster than dragging the person by the hand all the way over to whatever it is we want to communicate and pointing to it. 🙂
What did you think about that?
What did I think about what?
As I said, it carries a certain amount of laziness to it. And I seek to avoid that.
Is Gay a derogatory label? And do you think Wog is derogatory?
How about a Geek, a Cutie, Pumpkin, Honey…
Okay. Thinking more about the word “Scientologist”, I realize it’s not so much a problem of not using it according to an agreed-upon definition as it is a problem of there being more than one definition and the agreement that is quite often missing is on the point of which definition is being used.
Your examples are more a matter of connotation and the intention behind their use. I can understand how women in the business world, for example, could resent being called “honey” or “sweetie” when these are used in a patronizing way. But honestly, I love being called such things! They express affinity,
And when people call you a geek, I’m sure at least most of them mean that in a complimentary way. (You even call yourself a geek!) I don’t think you should be deprived of such affectionate communications – or that you should deprive others of your use of such to them – just because in some contexts the same words can be derogatory. Okay, my dear? :).
I see a word as a filter. A concept is also a filter. Putting deragatory there is another filter, in fact a package of filters as it contains emotion(s). They “cloud” perceiving, as Geir says. I see it the same way.
There is direct perceiving which is “instantenous”, or rather there is no time in it. The verb (action) for a concept is conceive, which means to form or hold an idea. “Form” is a filter, “hold” is grasping,
not allowing moving – that is being stuck.
Marildi,
Can you share any win, spiritual experience, only if it is not too
personal. You may find it so, so it is really up to you.
Funny that you should ask, Marianne (“funny” in the sense of coincidental…but maybe not :)). I just recently had a wonderful spiritual experience. I had been noticing that whenever I put my attention on a particular friend it created a lovely “feeling”. I would even have a smile come over my face that seemed to occur of its own volition! After this happened a number of times, it occurred to me that I may have actually been in contact with him as a being, as in telepathy (if that does indeed describe telepathy).
There is a lot of affinity between that friend and me (btw, he calls me things like “sweetie” and “lovely” ;)), so after a while I got the idea to do the same thing with a couple of other people I have a lot of affinity for. Something very similar happened (though not exactly the same) and I started wondering if the “contact” I was making was with what you and others call Consciousness (especially you, with all your posts on the subject :)). What also indicates as truth to me is that at these times I am actually in contact with my own “center of consciousness”, awareness of awareness, the core “me”.
Nice!
Marianne, I agree that words are filters, with added connotations being piled-on filters. And I have no disagreement that direct perceiving is the only non-filtered, completely un-altered, way to communicate and to know. However, until that ability is achieved, most of us are stuck with words as the next best thing.
The challenge, then, is to use words as well as we can so as to achieve the best communication we can. But more than that: it seems to me that words can potentially have the effect of directing or pointing the recipient to “the actuality” at which point he may get a direct perception of it. When that occurs, the particular knowingness that the person communicating is trying to put into words does get across. And it looks to me that this is what you yourself are trying to do. 🙂
Even direct perceiving may be filtered through one’s considerations. Prejudice, speculations, assumptions etc., are examples of such filters.
But filters either due to words or considerations may be minimized by discussing and dissolving inconsistencies.
.
Vin, I understand what you mean when you say that “direct perceiving may be filtered through one’s considerations”. But that is actually another way of stating that one is actually NOT perceiving directly, in the ultimate sense. Here’s a quote that I’m posting not because LRH said it (and I hope you don’t reject it because LRH said it ;)) but because it describes direct perception the way I had in mind, in the ultimate sense:
“The mission of the analytical mind when it thinks, is to observe and predict by the observation of results. Easily the best way to do this is to BE the objects one is observing: thus, one can know their condition completely. However, if one is not sufficiently up the scale to be these objects it is necessary to assume what they are. This assumption of what they are, the postulating of a symbol to represent the objects and the combination of these symbols when evaluated against past experience or ‘known law,’ bring about logic.” (Scientology 8-8008)
To BE the object = To take the viewpoint of the object?
For example, to BE a bottle, would be to think as if one is a bottle that could be filled with P’nut butter or whatever. It is assuming those considerations that one associates with a bottle.
.
Vin, the way I understand what LRH means by “to BE the object” in the above reference is to actually pervade it, pervade the space in which it exists – i.e. be in its space and thus know it directly, what it is. I’m not sure but this may be what Elizabeth is doing when she describes how she is able to perceive all the way through an object at once.
Marildi, the idea of pervading becomes inconsistent when one looks at it more closely. What does ‘pervading” really mean? what is pervading? The answer “thetan is pervading” doesn’t make sense because thetan is not something according to its definition. So, how can nothing pervade something?
These words sound nice from a distance but they are based on ambiguous feelings like the word “consciousness” evokes, and they do not satisfy my curiosity.
When one looks at “thetan” as the “center of considerations” then it starts to make sense. When one is “pervading a bottle” then, to me. one is looking at the bottle for what it is without any filters. That makes sense.
What Elizabeth is doing is just playing with her considerations as far as i can see. This is what people who write stories do.
.
Vin, the definition of thetan includes “no location in space EXCEPT by consideration or postulate”. There’s also the data about a thetan putting out anchor points that demark his own “space”.
What I conceptualize about pervading/being an object is that being in its space you perceive/experience all the energies that exist there, which would probably include your (beloved :)) considerations since those are energies too.
I recall Geir commenting one time on the lecture series The Route to Infinity, where LRH talks about pervading as the direct means of knowing, so that is probably a good, if not the best, reference.
.
double nice!
Double thanks! 🙂
Beautiful !! Thank you very much Marildi for writing about your spiritul experience ! Co-incidence, that is, of course! Aren’t we here to
communicate so as to help each other to experience whatever can be
experienced? Awesome! The core YOU! Marildi, let, allow yourself to
follow your intuition, your Heart! Which is YOU ! And also, communicate your experiences – why? YOU will see the result!! Even wild ones! I wish you to experience what happens then ! Marildi – you
are the top of my day today! Thanks!
Marianne, thank you! You made my day too!
dragos72
“all you have to do is to avoid being influenced in a bad way” – right! That is not falling into the trap of what they consider themselves to be, that is the role,
character they are displaying in their actions but seeing through these veils, seeing them who they really are – as pure, simple beings as me. One can “see and act” accordingly when one has realized it. And it goes through, penetrates more than a bullet. My experience of it in “real life”. EVERYBODY wants to be
SEEN as what one truely IS! And love and change then come about, no matter
how tough one shows himself to be.
What are my quests in life?
OMG! This is a GOOD question!
It is such a good question that the answers are still rolling in and they have been since you posted it yesterday. Bing bing bing bing bing bing bing! Jackpot!
Ah yes, what do I require! Acquire? Inquire? Quest? Request?
Exquisite!, Sensitive, discriminating, refined!
More to come as I find a way to provide my answer without writing a book on your blog!
If you need to write a book, you probably have achieved it all. Now what is the next quest on your mental stack?
.
LOL! Well, see my answer below.
“if you need to write a book, you probably have achieved it all.”
Have ! achieved. Had a similar experience earlier. Vin, excellent comment!
My primary quest: Exquisite improvisation in the interverse.
I made that word “interverse” up just now.
There is no “uni”verse.
But there is an “inter”verse.
Inter – among, between, betwixt, in the midst of
Vertere – to turn, the metaphor is of plowing, of “turning” from one line to another
Real life performance art.
Improvisation: from to sing or speak extempore.
Ex Tempore: literally “out of” “time” – in accordance with (the needs of) the moment.
B e A u T i F u L
Interverse is a good word, Maria.
Maybe I should move to Norway!
But alas, a big part of my improvisation is my family and they will not move to Norway!
Ah, the webs we weave.
Excerpted from “Improvisation For The Theater A Handbook Of Teaching And Directing Techniques” by Viola Spolin:
Creative Experience
Everyone can act. Everyone can improvise. Anyone who wishes to can play in the theater and learn to become “stage-worthy.”
We learn through experience and experiencing, and no-one teaches anyone anything. This is as true for the infant moving from kicking to crawling to walking as it is for the scientist with his equations.
If the environment permits it, anyone can learn whatever he chooses to learn; and if the individual permits it, the environment will teach him everything it has to teach. “Talent” or “lack of talent” have little to do with it.
We must reconsider what is meant by “talent.” It is highly possible that what is called talented behavior is simply a greater individual capacity for experiencing. From this point of view, it is in the increasing of the individual capacity for experiencing that the untold potentiality of a personality can be evoked.
Experiencing is penetration into the environment, total organic involvement with it. This means involvement on all levels: intellectual, physical, and intuitive. Of the three, the intuitive, most vital to the learning situation, is neglected.
Intuition is often thought to be an endowment or a mystical force enjoyed by the gifted alone. Yet all of us have known moments when the right answer “just came” or we did “exactly the right thing without thinking.” Sometimes at such moments, usually precipitated by crises, danger, or shock, the “average” person has been known to transcend the limitation of the familiar, courageously enter the area of the unknown, and release momentary genius within himself. When response to experience takes place at this intuitive level, when a person functions beyond a constructed intellectual plane, he is truly open for learning.
The intuitive can only respond in immediacy right now. It comes bearing its gifts in the moment of spontaneity, the moment when we are freed to relate and act, involving ourselves in the moving, changing world around us.
Through spontaneity we are re-formed into ourselves. It creates an explosion that for the moment frees us from handed-down frames of reference, memory choked with old facts and information and undigested theories and techniques of other people’s findings. Spontaneity is the moment of personal freedom when we are faced with a reality and see it, explore it and act accordingly. In this reality the bits and pieces of ourselves function as an organic whole. It is the time of discovery, of experiencing, of creative expression.
Maria, you get the second B e A u T i F u L and +A
“no-one teaches anyone anything” – I happen to have a job as a “teacher” without ever having that label/consideration. Very successful throughout my professional life due to the lack of that consideration of “being a teacher” (among others). “Products” all over the Planet. I am writing it down not because I want to speak about myself but because this is a key element in how education is becoming “art” both at intellectual level (mind) and emotional-body(heart). I find many points in this article true in any profession. I find it when one dares to act inspite of any thought (in the form of any opinion, belief…) then one has one key of true alive life. And it spreads on, inspiring others…..being there, guiding and allowing to be guided through experiencing is real fun for me….
I had an excellent English teacher for 5 consecutive years in high school. Still makes me warm to think of him. A good and decent man who taught passionately and treated us with respect. His influence flows through my fingers even as I type this message to you.
After reading a number of your posts, I get the idea that you might be of a similar high quality of teacher. I would like to have you for a course of study. What subject do you teach?
Thank you Chris. The “subject” is English, through/by which I am “teaching” Life. Language exams, jobs are “by products” of communication…life changing examples are which I find more valuable….that
is from the most extreme of getting pregnant, stop using medicine and
going back to study, to working in top companies of the world, or, my
recent favourites are artists…”wins” happen daily. Chris, what do you do? What do you find most valuable and enjoyable in life? What is the
final question you would like to find an answer to?
Excellent!
.
I think you guys will really dig the video and story behind this young man.
http://thejolynproject.com/2012/04/07/learn-love-mental-alchemy/
katageek, this was a wonderful link. I enjoyed it very much.
Thank you.
.
Thank you Kata….my “quest” is to see all “my” hidden beliefs, see them for what they are and not believing any of them to be true….not following them….and most of all ! not replacing the old ones for new ones….I let those play the Law of Attraction who want to play it…beautiful game, part of me is still in it….I’d much rather follow the Flow and Being Me in the meantime….
I really love this wisdom from The Bhagavad Gita, Chapter 2:
“Krishna then explains how one gets established in such wisdom in a stable manner. One sits in meditation and focuses on what is relevant, such as, breathing. There is no effort to control anything else, not even how one breathes. Then let those things that are irrelevant swirl around and settle down on their own accord.
It is putting attention on what is irrelevant, which leads one into ruin. A person established in wisdom realizes this. He is focused in the essentials, which are beyond any desire, sense of ego, or thirst for life. Thus, he overcomes delusion. He is completely at peace even at the hour of his death.”
http://vinaire.wordpress.com/2012/08/18/the-bhagavad-gita-chapter-2/
.
Beautiful…as a child, one of my favourite readings was the love of
Krishna and Radha…just mentioned it. Did not know then why. I now
got closer to it. Thanks Vin!
A wise friend of mine years ago told me the following scale:
Expectation not met= disappointment, unhappiness.
Expectation met= satisfaction.
Expectation exceeded= happiness, elation.
This is a useful scale.
I can experience more happiness without expectations. That is my epiphany in this area.
Like your epiphany.
If you decided to not have any expectations about some interaction, or if you will, an expectation of nothing, then whatever happens would it not exceed the zero expectation?
(After I wrote the above sentence just now, I can see that it is not true)
I will have to work on this No Expectations thing…
Thanks to share our reality there 🙂
What about the assumption We all deserve the very best?
I would very much like a Class 12 auditor to come here and say something
like ” Hello, guys!” Would be enough…could also be like “Lovely day..” Well..
Marianne Toth, the class 12 auditor should think that we are just doing chit chat.
Just stay here and watch what’s going to happen in the not distant “future”. The world is watching this place with theta and mest perceptions. Geir can speed it up indeed if he decides that. And all of us here are really on “purpose”. The magic and “OT phenomena” can be continuous as indeed that’s the natural course of events.
Marianne Toth, I like your vision.
This song just popped up…as usual….no thinkingness involved…seems to fit the thread…
🙂
Hi Geir!
I like your blog and that you are giving food for thoughts and are giving your view points.
And thank you, just for being YOU – here and now! … and for communicating and for sharing your viewpoints – very much appreciated!
I am not up to conversation and discussion here, so I only sometimes look in and take it as a gift to get other viewpoints.
I’m just dropping in to share some thoughts about “labels”. It think it has certainly to do with evaluation. How far could one go without evaluations, and is that even possible? I think the closest I have gotten regarding it, is with pan-determinism. I have had the best experiences when I could be pan-determined without any considerations and reservations. Then the evaluations, in the sense of labeling, was disappearing into non-importance. You share the universe with the other person and take responsibility for it. It is another, somehow higher level and “labeling” loses its significance. So I felt it.
You say: “I would rather live here and now.” Yep, me too. Just BE …! But what flings me away from it, is somehow: “oh, what a tangled web we weave…” – or in my life more like the notion. “oh, what a tangled web I was weaving …myself. Well, … I am also still a work in progress. But aren’t we all? 🙂
One of my quests, the guiding one in life, was and is: “Having fun, and having fun with others, in the here and now”. Whenever I reached it, I was happy.
Just some thoughts.
And excellent thoughts at that. Thank you very much for sharing. Hope you sick around for more sharing like this 🙂
Just me
Spot-on! Joy to read YOU! Like your “tangled web weave” metaphor. Come more frequently to share the substance of the web! Here!
Nice from our viewpoints here to read the word “pandetermism” there! We read it too few, in our opinion! 😉
But question: why saying “I” if we recognize that the truth is more something like “us”? Why still making this differentiation in our communication?
ML.
idealgoal
my “deepest reality” now is that when I haven’t yet read what you write, just the first look at it, I sense that there is no separation between You and Me….same “substance” (no name, just THAT). The second thing is that some essence, some key point is coming through, in your present com. it is “viewpoint”. The next “level” is reading the words….actually, if you now answer your two questions, you, for yourself – you will land in something….do that and write it down what you get…waiting for the answer…..
“Marianne”.
For Our Set Of Viewpoints “I” represent, “I” have already answered to these questions for “me” before to ask ‘you”, and “I” was asking “your” Set Of Viewpoints what was “your” answer 😉
Of course, if “I” was so “Us” in practice, “I” would not have even any need to ask “yours”, while “mine” and “yours”, should be just “Our”; aren’t “Us” agree with that? Dear “Us” there? 🙂
Damn it, get the US! Funny! Don’t agree, just funny! Did you do the
Bridge too? Well, looking at it again, I can agree…
Scientology is all about individuality per Scientology Axiom #1. “Us” is usually out of the picture except by bank agreement, or through agreement with “command intention”. Here is my understanding.
Scientology Axiom # 1
.
Very interesting point of view and welcome in our community 🙂 Hope also you will participate in other debates too. Not necessary to be a specialist, just to express your opinion:) See you! 🙂
You are free to remove or create expectations.
Labels are words. There is a definition and a concept behind.
A soldier and a terrorist shoot or kill people. The soldier usually
shoots soldiers, the terrorist does not, he kills everybody who is around.
For me labels are PR. It is to “sell” something on a reality level
to a certain target group.
For the public you do not label a bottle of grog with the chemical formula
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol
does not sound tasty.
Today the term muslim means terrorist. MEdia hammered
it into the publics mind since more than 20 years.
Good to get rid of it.
In Islam countries these terrorists are labled “freedom fighters”.
But its your choice to accept the view or not,
always.
Indeed!
From our own viewpoints here: “labels” can be used to avoid the direct look of “others”, but are useful too to communicate with those of Us who still need mest communication, to differentiate realities.
All this looks to bring to the viewpoint that there is always a responsibility on our reception point of communication, to check if the labels We get, really correspond to the reality owned by Us at our sending point.
What is our reality over there?