Arising in conversation on waking from false thinking to living Idea #2

True Ideas share and faux ideas operate division. The "Both/And" operates a different frequency than the "Either/Or". (It also embraces it).

Just as the term 'I" or Me" can operate divinity (use 'humanity' if you don't divine my meaning) or it can operate a rejected and rejecting exclusive and segregative self-specianess - that works exactly as I just described but under the banner of 'justified pre-emptively necessary'.

A mere rationalism consider thought-derived meanings with as much connection to their original Contextual Meaning - if any! - as do social engineers, the corporate and financial decision makers, connect to the living reality (aka: 'relationship'), of those who are like pawns or statistical data or collateral damage.

So it is not that our (collective generalisation) thinking needs fixing or improving or evolving - it calls for abandonment in favour of reconnecting to true Thought. This is known in some sense - because the efforts to crack the problem only set out the desire and willingness. The answer comes of itself when ye thinketh not! (even if you then patent or copyright it or claim it as your own).

But the attempt to make a cash cow out of the divine, is a deeply self-harming self-deprivation - for it doesn't see a way Home to a Peace in which to live and let live but a cow to possess, defend and control - and as the pattern of power addiction in the world today illuminates - live and let die.

Much human thinking operates the attempt to steal and pass off instead of receive and share. It is a matter of a distorted foundation. But one thing that is noticeable in recovering a true sense of innate worth is that it is clearly and obviously true of everyone else - whether they know it or not. One does not 'give' a sense of worth to another so much as be in willingness to receive it. The first obstacle to peace is the desire to get rid of it - which might embody itself as a predisposition to see what is wrong with xyz.

I don't get time - correction - I do not make time - to dwell long on what I have written - but I do notice little gems with gratitude. Earlier up this page I found the phrase:

"It is very easy to react to what one has already judged, as if what one then meets is in fact outside oneself".

I see everyone participating in the unfolding of experience, insight, resonance and reflection. And part of this view is recognising and releasing the rules and demands I made up that the world might have temporarily seemed like it might be able to fulfil - but which are clearly futility recycling itself. If I actually was given power to enact some of these 'rules' I might be 'maniacal'. ;-) 

i might ponder why I am as I am and such as seem to be painted maniacal on the world stage are as they are. I see choices - some of which feel conscious - and some templated - which I accept as Soul choices or unconsciously made or forgotten/hidden choices. And I notice that some choices operate to dictate and define and falsely frame choice itself - and that is the choice I am actively releasing by NOT using it. I cannot override or make anyone else's choice - but I can learn to better discern the genuine need beneath the appearance and join with that even in the "maniac". Indeed if no one models an alternative to fear-hate elevated as status of Protection - then there is no reminder that Choice is open before such false framing is enacted. Living a whole sense of oneself in whatever we are and do is withdrawing investment from fear-framed identity - and its fruits. But not in order to change anyone.

"It is very easy to react to what one has already judged, as if what one then meets is in fact outside oneself".

The Context of this conversation can be viewed HERE

Short responses to further short points made in the same thread:

Desire and purpose align the experiences and understandings towards fulfilment. So all I can say is enjoy learning what you are truly moved to integrate. Other things you said already indicate core responsibilities. If you set the rules and outcomes there will be room for a relationship within yourself or with anyone else.

Yes the language we use frames our perception and experience. It is often frankly dis-honest. We couch things in stories to hide what is more simple and straight but we mask or avoid or hide it in code! My primary need is to be (true to) who I am - so if I sacrifice that to fit into some learned or acquired notion of what I or one is supposed to be - I will be likely to see the outer situation as the cause - when in fact it is the way I am defining and seeing the situation that is setting up the (self) conflict that then reflects as a conflicted situation on some level - even if not acted out.

This may not be understood here yet - but to forgive first and THEN understand is the undoing of judge first and then react - (and think you understand). Forgiveness is the release of oneself for having projected lovelessly onto another and then hating them for it (in one way or another). It has nothing to do with what they do or why they do it - but simply to pause enough - release personal investment and discern what exactly is going on and as you put it - what the real needs are beneath the appearances.

#1 EXTRA point offered:

When another does not follow the 'rules' we set for their behaviour, the conditionality of our love is revealed. But perhaps not - perhaps we enact our separation script and give them a role that actually is not who they are, or anything to do with their own perceptions - and indeed their own separation scripts! Seeking an honest communication begins with oneself - but extends a willingness for a healing communication or indeed a release of whatever trip we laid on them. So in some way you are doing unhappiness to yourself - and is best to not entangle or dump this on another until some ownership and clarity allows a clearer communication. Self-love is honesty, is it not - for only this allows a genuine appreciation OF self.

#2 EXTRA point offered:
There is a sense in which your being already carries this capacity of navigating and relating - and the insights and ideas (shared here) are prompts or invitations to reconnect with a flowing relational and natural movement. Articulating insight (in words) can create the impression that insight has to be understood by the surface personality in order then to be applied to life. This is not so - one need but listen in the heart - and that which needs to will crystalize in its own timing. Explanations offer a temporary accommodation, for life knows how to be when we are able to - in a sense - get out of the way and simply hold the focus and desire. 

I do not mind some conversation extra to the themes and focus of the context - but here we are (were) in a page on an FBI director's ideas of 'forcing creativity' - which seems more a desperation of no clue as to how to relate - or indeed a play of words to cover the intention to force a destruction that a particularly aggressive form of power seeking and economic theory believes to be necessary to force a new growth - that can then be guided or farmed as a new world order. This is confused with 'creative'.