The Psychedelic Revolution

I did actually. I got 2 possible words. Yama, or Maya. Maya being a word used in Buddhism for illusion, I assume you allude to this. But I might be missing something. But if not, it is rather clever. If so, tell me what I missed?

Sorry for misunderstanding you. It's hard to hear 'emasculated' and 'whiny little bitches' without hearing a cultural undertone of disdain for the not-male. Of disdain for any who do not live up to that which has been defined as 'masculine'. Particularly in actual males, for which it is contempt. But also in females for which it is condescension.

Likely though, in your case, it's just my ego talking. Those words do have those connotations, and are generally used to present disdain. The internet is bad at 'tone'.

Interestingly enough, my mind plays the same games with insults based on the names of food animals. Chicken, pig, 'fat cow'. That we would show disdain for the animals that we are dependent on for life, that die so that we may eat, feels unwholesome to me.

 

Ok, in response to your PM I will reply to this.
I'm not sure if the distance between synapses is what gives rise to the linear cause and effect we call time, but it very well and most likely does play a role. As you know if you have read anything I have posted previously, I very strongly hold that we cannot discount the simple bio-chemical process's that take place in our nervous systems when talking about such things as have been discussed in his thread.
Because our biology and senses are really governing what we experience then the nature of that biological system is going to play a very important part. As you stated, we can only ever experience things that were and are removed by the distance imposed by the limitations of our nervous systems.

Concerning the main idea as I read it in your post, "Nothing occurs in the past, nothing occurs in the future. If it is not happening now, it is not happening." it's just a given for me. It wasn't always, but it is now at this point in my story.
Now on to the next moment...............

 

I like what AutumnBreeze is saying about surrendering to your feminine nature. I absolutely love the feminine parts of myself and now i'm reading a book that my counselor gave me entitled "King, Warrior, Magician, Lover" which pretty much captures the archetypal essense of the masculine energy.

Fact is, both are kind of in a sorry state right now. But that lameness is dying more and more every day and something more potent is arising.

 

I think we all search and strive towards something in our lives. That's the price of life as much as the pain that we face when we don't meet expectations. The best laid plans of mice and men often go awry. But the price of what? The essence of life, which you can attribute to god in any way that you want, but is just the pure occurrence of life that we can not explain further than our own being.

Separating from unity to find love is just another metaphor for finding your own motivation for life from your own disappointment in results.

 

You got it.

 

I actually would assume that the present moment being the point of all activity would be a given for you at this point. The main idea in this piece and desos should be interested in this, is the inability to consciously "do" any thing to effect "outcomes" as we are hypnotized by the illusion of time. In a space time continuum, there are no outcomes. Regardless that there are no outcomes, there is, however our real emergence. At rest we register into the environment a vibrational signature, we might call our essential voice. This essential voice responds to intent and around this intent form the tonal consonants to that intent. The fidelity of intent, focus, determines the direction and duration of emergence. The world may appear dismembered by virtue of simple mental distraction.

 

you could say that. unity divided for a chance a love. how magnificent, and how terrible.

i would say that god essentially would be incomplete in himself, thus the need for us. it's like all that existed was infinite energy, thus to know itself the creation created form. but with the complexities of form the perfection of infinity was breeched. thus the need to return back to perfection, but yet the need to create form in order to experience.

the sufferings of humankind i would say are only what we create for ourselves. it's like we were thrown out of paradise and given a roadmap of how to get back and then the creator says 'good luck!' although, truly everything, every experience, is leading us back, the creator works in everything, through all things, to lead us back to him. but the concepts of free will are essential to the concept of form, thus it could not be breeched, and we could not just live in perfection until we created it -- because of form.

then if you think about the biblical depiction of the fall of man(which all civilizations have depicted to some extent) man walking in the garden of eden, in perfection. god has given them everything and created man in perfection. then tempted by evil man attempts to expand his influence without realising that he is perfect in himself -- thinking that something is being witheld. but god has faith in his creation that they will not succumb to evil and only hear his voice. man eats the forbidden fruit and is cast out of the garden until he can overcome evil and learn to listen to the voice of the creator.

it kind of relates to the young-old thing we were talking about. god can only show us the door. we have to step through it.

what claims do i have to truth? intuition? rational thought, life experience, and spiritual experiences. although i'm not going to say that this is the absolute truth 100%, but this is what i have come to understand -- and believe to an extent. so you could say that these are just my experiences. but i guess what i would challenge you to do is ask yourself in your heart whether this truth resonates with you.

for free will.

i think that covers most of your questions. let me know if i msised anything.

what if we could manipulate the direction and duration to encompass infinity and perfection? and not the kind of perfection that is perfect in not being complete.

now we're getting somewhere... surrender. is there any other option? but then of course this raises the problem of finding someone that is worthy of your trust. which you really can't find in today's society apart from your inner circles of close friends and relatives. so then this would raise the issue of the need for a societal structure in which real trust can actually exist.

i agree with you on the sickly state of feminism. it's like the masculine state was given over to insecure young women and sexual desire. which then in turn has an effect on the feminine body which remains because the masculine state which feminism is so dependant on no longer exists. so the women try to make up where the lacks are. i always laugh when i see a woman working 9 to 5 and then having to come home and cook dinner then take care of her children. ummm... hello? role confusion?

which all really comes back to men not being real men and trying to cover it up by acting macho. if men would just do the things they were supposed to none of these gender problems would even exist.

 

Hey Desos
It's raining where I am today, how about you?

 

scattered clouds again, with pretty warm weather. but not too hot.

 

I don't understand your what if question. You are a whole complete legitimate expression at any given moment. What is missing?

 

we are a whole at any given point, but our actions are still by definition pinnacles of experience and influence. thus everything we do ripples downward to create emotion and more experience. the current moment is all that exists, but the future moment is a result of the previous moments -- and the current moment.

although i'm not sure i totally understand what your saying, but i think i got the jist of it.

"The understanding which alone gives value to knowledge is the understanding that, when we employ the formula "I am, therefore I can, therefore I will," the "I AM" with which the series starts is a being who, so to speak, has his head in heaven and his feet upon the earth, a perfect unity, and with a range of ideas far transcending the little ideas which are limited by the requirements of a day or an hour. On the other hand, the requirements of the day and the hour are real while they last, and since the manifested life can be lived only in the moment that now is, whether it be to-day or ten thousand years hence, our need is to harmonise the life of expression with the life of purpose, and by realising in ourselves the source of the highest purposes to realise also the life of the fullest expression."
- The Hidden Power, by Thomas Troward

 

Let's look at time again. Both the past and the future are artifacts, echos, of present emergence. You are projecting time in a linear fashion. Emergence is from the center outwards in every direction. We create or grow, both space and time simultaneously, everything happens at once. There are no dusty forgotten corners in the universe.

 

I think any explanation that isn't both wonderful and terrible fails to describe reality.

If it was perfection, why leave in the first place? We were lonely perhaps, so we divided. But in that case there's nothing to return to aside from one another. There's no perfection waiting for us somewhere, we have to make it. Together.

What a cruel God you serve then. God waits in perfection, idle, ushering us 'home'? Truly cruel. If God was perfect, S/he could have simply made us perfect as well. Obviously, if there was/is some Creator, there were limits to God's power, to Her ability. That which makes imperfection is also imperfect.

Again, Whence comes Evil?

Had we been perfect, we would not have been tempted by evil. Temptation comes from want, from lack. From fear and frustration. Had 'Paradise' been perfect, there would have been nothing to tempt us, all desires would be fulfilled without any harm. So we cannot have been created perfect.

Why the need, why create the door to begin with? Why create us in need, in want, in frustration and lack? Unless we were created as equals to God, and it feared us, feared our inexperience, our folly, feared that if we didn't understand our power, we would hurt it. And so cast us away, to learn to use our power responsibly in a place where we couldn't harm it. Or unless we are indeed all that remains of God, all that remains of Paradise. And we now seek to create...something, from all this.

I have. It's been the quest of my lifetime. And your truth does not resonate with me. The bible, the teachings of the desert tribes, is where I started my quest for understanding. Eventually, I was led farther and farther from those teachings, as they seemed less and less to do with reality, less and less to do with my life. There are great ideas in those stories, powerful lessons. But in my heart I feel they miss some essential points, and the God they describe is too petty, too cruel. If there is a creator out there, separate from us, S/he is far less omnipotent then those stories tell. S/he is fallible, flawed and lonely, but full of love. Waiting for us, merely hoping we turn out well.

But I don't even quite believe that. It is one idea. Another is that I am in the presence at all times with an Other. A Holy Other. And it is everything that is not me, has complete power over all my experiences. All of it's thoughts and actions actively create my world. And I am all that is not it, and all that it experiences is me. To it, I am God. Till death do us part we dance together, learning slowly together how to love one another.

And another idea is that of Unity divided for the sake of love. That we were all one, and divided so we would not be alone. And in this split, we looked on one another. First with curiosity, we played. And then...someone got hurt. Pure intention juxtaposed, the sin that set our souls in motion. And we fled one another in fear, dividing as we went. And now we are here, surrounded by ourself, learning how to be together. Learning about pain, about pleasure. Learning about fear and trust. Learning to build the paradise that never was.

Who can you trust, a good question. Certainly not your fellow human, they're like you! I certainly wouldn't trust me. Humans are selfish, or at least inconsiderate. They make mistakes, they act blindly and foolishly. How can one really trust any of them?

Trust when you know that it is safe isn't trust at all. It requires no courage. Trust when you are unsure, trust when they really can hurt you, that is what requires courage. Trust in the universe, that although you may be hurt, it will turn out alright. That is surrender. Just letting go and trusting the world will catch you.

Woah there. That's not what I said at all. I said the sickly state of what is considered 'feminine'. A concept that has been defined almost solely by men for the past several thousand years. Masculine has been defined as everything strong and powerful, commanding and potent, independent and active, intelligent and wise, and feminine simply as the negative of that, or in some ways some half step between men and children. Feminism is a reclaiming of the word feminine, to mean something other then simply 'not-masculine'. It is women defining what it means to be women. And that is something wonderful, though their are many trials and tribulations in it.

What's sickly is the feminine in men today. As men step cautiously outside the limited, broken and frankly sociopathic roles assigned to masculinity, they haven't really got a clue what's expected of them now. It's a difficult time we're in, but we do seem to be working it out.

And role confusion? It seems the one in the equation you speak of with role confusion is the man. If there is a couple where the woman is working, taking care of the kids and the house, the man in the couple really needs to start taking on more of his role as a human being, a member of a couple, and a parent. He's obviously got some sort of confusion about what it means to be male, assuming that maleness limits his responsibilities to his fellow human in some fashion. It doesn't.

That's true. Men should learn to do what they are supposed to. Be good and loving human beings equal in role to all other human beings. But we live in a world where for too long that hasn't been true. Men in their fear and lack of trust, with the extra physical power given to them took all roles of power and privilege for themselves, relegating subservience to women. Righting this imbalance is one step toward the paradise you seek. Men need not seek to be 'real men'. Better to seek to be 'real humans'. Caring, kind, responsible, trusting, gentle, and above all loving.

I am not, in all this, saying women are perfect angels. Women have fear, lack of trust, greed, selfishness and folly all our own. As we gain greater roles and powers in society we are proving ourselves to be just about as bad at using them responsibly as men have been. Be I believe we do have the right to that folly. We have the right to an equal opportunity to fuck up.

And of course we're insecure. We're human, it seems to come with the package. Not to mention we have limited role models, and are walking uncharted territory here. All the models of behavior, in doing the tasks set aside for men, and taking those roles, are defined by a broken hyper-masculinity. And that simply doesn't suit women. Taking on some masculinity is going to be healthy for women, but trying to emulate male role models is foolishness, not to mention likely to fail. We are raised to act in a manner that is 'feminine' and regardless of our fighting those restriction we can't compete against those trained in the hyper-competitive and vaguely ruthless fashion that men are trained to act in. Nor should we, for that kind of behavior is unhealthy for all involved. Middle ground needs to be found, for both genders.

Men need to learn to act more 'feminine'. And they need to learn it not from stories of what that was supposed to mean a century ago, but from women, now, today. And women need to step outside their roles, as we have been doing, and learn from men. Women have already started this task, we're waiting on men to follow suit. We understand it's frightening. The roles you've set for yourself, though unpleasant, are safe. Being in female role is scary, it means trusting, and giving up your control. It means letting someone else have the wheel and make decisions and take powerful action, even if they aren't as good at it as you. It's harder to do then standing up and demanding a say. But it's so worth it.

--------

And sexual desire? Yes. We have sexual desire. So do you, what's your point? Sexual desire is part of the human condition. And frankly it's a wonderful part. This culture has been denying the glory of sexuality for far too long, relegating it to the area of taboo and letting it fester there. Denying female desire's existence and painting male desire as monstrous. We are seeking union and yet we are terrified of coming together in the most intimate and joining of acts. Terrified of the harrowing vulnerability and openness of sexual desire. Terrified of the possibility of -not- being desired, of being refused, or even more, of being forced.

Sexuality is like a concentrated version of all that is wonderful and terrible in life. Desire, temptation, pleasure, pain, union, rejection, violence and ecstasy. And tangled up in it all is love and the desire to be loved. Human sexuality might be the clearest portrait we have of the face of God.

 

Desos I am making these distinctions not because what you describe is wrong.
I bring up these distinctions because when you project exterior causes for your being it affects the way you relate to your own thoughts.
It has the effect of depreciating the power of your own mind. You see yourself a figure in a dream, but you have forgotten that you are the dreamer.
Desos, the density of a stone is testament to the power of mind.
As PB is fond of pointing out, it is all in your mind. Given your temperament toward spiritual considerations, I would think you would be very excited at this prospect.

 

20 more pages!

 

i never said that it was perfection. i just said it was infinite energy without form. thus the purpose of form would be to create perfection and completion.

we were made perfect, but the quintessential thing that made us perfect was free will. thus we were subjected to myriad difficulties because of our lacks. our creator only wants to help us.

perhaps the perfection was created in duality. the fact that we could be in paradise, but it was possible for us to leave. we didn't believe that we were created lackless, so we reached out and got hurt.

we were not created in frustration or lack -- these were things that we subjected ourselves to. we were created as the physical manifestation of god, and thus we do need to learn responsibility behind our power. but we proved unworthy -- but we have been afforded another opportunity to redeem ourselves and truly grow through our mistakes until we learn to not make them anymore. all things lead us back to paradise.

but i can tell you that in today's society if i completely surrendered i would not be ok. if i gave all of my possesions away, and surrendered myself to the will of others, do you think that i would be ok? because nothing short of surrendering all your possesion and all your actions to another human being is total surrender. no, you would be abused. because society doesn't have what is needed to love in the first place. no amount of giving or surrender is going to help that.

the state of what is considered feminine, as well as the state of feminism, are both sickly at the present. both in the women that are shallow and insecure, and also in the women that are strong and want total bigender equality. the word feminine does mean not-masculine.

what i meant about the 9 to 5 and role confusion comment is that for some reason there is a really strong feminist front in today's society which has for the large part become socially acceptable. women want equality in being able to perform all of these male roles which society has given to men. so then they spend all their time fulfilling male roles and then when they get done they have also their feminine roles. they put too much on their plate, and then get confused as to why they are so stressed and why they hate some of the things they do so much.

it's because men and women are equal, but not the same. thus we have different strengths, and different weaknesses, and different roles. we aren't all just 'human beings.' we are 'human male' and 'human female.' you can't create total nondistinctness between the sexes without destroying the sacred family circle and the sacred relationship between men and women which is the very essence of our humanity.

who is saying that being caring, kind, responsible, and loving aren't part of true masculenity? and who is saying that just because a particular trait is masculine that it isn't also feminine? i'm not.

women don't need to take on the masculenity. men do. but that isnt to say that the state of what is considered masculine today isn't macho and misconstrued. because it is misconstrued. but the total balance of the sexes really completely and fully relies on both sexes, although there is a greater responsibility on the male roles for setting the norm. not just an oppressive and egotistical norm, but a norm in which true trust and equality can be realised. a richeous norm.

my point is that if you don't keep sexual desire in check that it can lead individuals further away from true masculenity and true feminism. like the example i gave of men given over to sexual desire for insecure young women.

sometimes it scares me when i use my mind to it's full potential. lol. i've experienced some crazy shit, psychedelicly, and with psychicly inclined individuals. i have come to the understanding that although the power of mind is great there is something greater. thus, we should not always seek the understanding of our own mind, but of the understanding of that which is greater.

edit- for example the idea that something greater would be at work within the actions of others. it's easy to control your own world. but what about when your world gets meshed in with 6 billion others?

 

How many worlds do you think there are desos? Your world and my world are the same world are they not?

 

This comment convinces me you don't understand me. There are no idle thoughts. All expressions are maximal. You may be from time to time, surprised or impressed, or disappointed in your own thinking, but your own measure of "power" is degree of power, which is not power at all but varying levels of vulnerability.

 

So, we were created without lack, and yet thought we had lack? That sounds like we -felt- we were lacking. Hence we were created in such a state where we felt lacking. And that is what lacking -is-, a feeling that things are incomplete. It's just a feeling. Hence, if we indeed were created, we were created in a state of want. Had we been created perfect, part of that perfection would have been a feeling of completeness.

Your logic really seems broken on this. Try, just for a bit, to step outside of your faith and consider that the story you've been told, that you've chosen to believe, is incomplete. I'm not telling you to change your beliefs, just to open your mind to other possibilities. And to apply critical thinking.

If we were created complete, we would have felt complete. No need, no want, no desire, no temptation. If we were created, and we fell, we were created such that we would fall. It was built into the system. If we were made by some God with an intentional design, then we didn't design ourselves. Hence our original choice to step out of paradise was the fault of the creator, not us. If someone gives a tiny infant a fragile doll, and the baby breaks the doll, do you blame the baby? No. You blame the one who gave the baby the doll.

The Eden, taken at face value, is the story of a sadist, or at least a fool. To create humans with no knowledge of what is good or evil, then punish them for doing evil, is the work of a sick mind or a petulant child. I cannot believe in such a God. I look into my heart and my heart recoils at the idea.

Funny, I did exactly that, or near enough, and it worked out fine. I gave up all my possessions and traveled, following whatever path the world set me on, and basically trusted all who I came across. And yes, occasionally the world hurt me. But no more then it had before I trusted, nor more then it has since I have turned from that path.

It's not about surrendering all autonomy to another individual. It's about simply surrendering to life. Simply giving up all resistance, giving up all fear. You can still act, you can still make choices, you just do so without taking fear into account, and holding loosely to your desires. And no, I never did it completely, and it never stuck for long. I'm not a pure enlightened being, and I still have fears. But when I flow through that space, life is wonderful. Sometimes I fall, I get hurt. Sometimes my trust is unfounded, and I am let down. But such pain passes quickly, and the feeling of being at ease and in love with life remains, at least as long as I can hold onto such surrender.

You're so convinced this world is horrifically corrupt, and that people are so unworthy of trust. But I've found in my travels that the vast majority of people are basically good. Basically kind. They are also selfish and greedy, careless and inconsiderate, clumsy and foolish. But overall, most of the time in most things on most days, people mean well. Have a little faith my friend.

Well, yes and no. What I mean by the issue with feminine being defined as not-masculine is that most, in fact almost all, traits that could be considered masculine are quite feminine too. And one of the standing difficulties with our language about such things is the consistent desire to label 'this' masculine and 'that' feminine when mostly the traits labeled as such are just human. Name any human trait aside from primary sex characteristics and I'll show you a woman who has that trait in a higher degree then 80% of all men. And vice versa.

And what makes what role male versus female? Who gets to say? You? The church? Men in general? Why not let women decide for themselves what role they play? The female role, along with the male, has been set down by men for several thousand years now, with little to no say from women. Women finally get a say, and start to define for -themselves- what the female role should and should not be and suddenly men are up in arms. "It's not natural!" they cry. "It's not right!". "It's against God's will!". Well, I want to know, why do you get to decide? And who are you to speak for God?

I'm sorry hon, but we've got a say now. The genie is out of the bottle and it's not going back in, not ever. You guys are just going to have to learn to share. And how to spend some time in the fracking kitchen.

No, we aren't the same. But we are quite a bit more alike then we are different. The sacred family circle? What is this? This structure of family you speak of is, on the scale of human existence, practically brand new. And insanely unhealthy. One woman, alone, living in a box isolated from the world taking care of a brood of children and her husband and home, while the man spends his days out in the world? No. It's unhealthy, it's insane. That kind of isolation is torture. Try it some time. I watch my sister die a little more each time I visit her, as she lives that life.

As to the nature of sacred relationships, I assure you that a loving balance of equals, where the individuals knowingly and intentionally, lovingly and creatively design their -own- pairing, for themselves, without some twisted cookie-cutter script pre-destining them for roles that only a fraction of the population is fully cut out for, is quite sacred. It's time for humanity to grow up a bit more, and work out a new way. It's time we put away the crutch of prescribed gender roles that have never really fit anyone anyway.

Maybe in the process, we can look back and notice some of the things we've lost to get here. Like a real sacred family circle, of more then a couple and their kids. Of kith and kin, of friends and companions. Perhaps we can learn to connect intimately with more then one co-dependent love, and share full lives with a full circle of family. After all, it's been often said it takes a village to raise a child.

Actually I am saying the exact opposite. But I am also saying that if we define one trait as masculine or feminine, and then define feminine as 'not-masculine' we tend to define many traits as one or the other. Femininity is gentle, masculinity is strong. Feminine is graceful, masculine is independent. Etc, etc, ad nauseum. I'm saying that -all- traits are both. All human traits are human traits, period.

I disagree. No greater responsibility lies on the men, such responsibility also entails greater power, greater freedom, greater choice. That is not equality. Men don't have a greater say. Or rather, they do, but shouldn't and we will continue to push until they don't. Women don't need to take on masculinity, no. They need to be allowed to take on full fledged humanity though. And to define femininity in a fashion that reflects -actual- women, as opposed to some illusory ideal that lives only in the minds of men.

I don't want your righteousness. I don't want you to decide what's in my best interests. Women are -not- children. We can decide for ourselves what is in our interest. And currently, we have decided what is in our interest is to take on 'male' roles, because we have decided, with our new found freedom to define our own roles, that those roles are female roles -too-. And yes, we're stuck pulling more then our share of the classic 'female' roles too, and will continue to do so until men learn to carry their own weight in a relationship. Men will come around eventually, we are patient, and quite persuasive. Water against stone.

Listen. We are your sisters, we are your lovers. We are your mothers and your daughters. And we love you. And we want you to be happy. But we also want you to listen to us. We want to have a say in what will be the shape of our own lives. We do not want you to decide what is best for us. We want to decide that ourselves. We've had a voice, a space to speak of our desires, for only such a short time now. We haven't got it all figured out yet. We're not working from a script, there's no maps, no preset design. We're kind of afloat, and uncertain. But we're working on it. Give us time, let us work this out, let us decide.

And do your part. Many men seem aghast at the very idea that someone might expect them to take on classical feminine roles. Why is it that you expect us to do it? Why is it you expect us to like it any more then you do? And yet, if you look around, you'll see some men -wanting- such roles. You'll seem some men hoping that society will give them space to explore such options. Yet they are scorned for it. Humiliated for being sissies, for being 'little bitches', for being 'pussy-whipped', for being 'girly-men'. Why? What is so humiliating about taking a feminine role? What is so pathetic about being girly?

Think on this. When a woman acts 'masculine', she is given grudging respect. When a man acts 'feminine', he is ridiculed. What does that say about society's ideas about masculine and feminine?

Again, who are you to decide what 'true' masculinity and femininity are? And I have no idea though how sexual desire being out of control can lead people away from this supposed platonic ideal of gender conformity.

Though certainly sexual desire can lead one to harmful action. Much like any other desire. But it isn't the desire that needs to be kept in check, it is the willingness to do harm in service to that desire.

 

If you want the conversation to keep going, you should get involved. I loved a lot of what you had to say early on. Sadly, you seem to have pulled out of the conversation for the most part by the time I got here.

I'd love to hear your thoughts on where the conversation has led since.