Comment arising from:
From facts to meaning, through beauty
by Deepak Chopra
- - -
The
Idea of Science operates a mind that gathers data to construct a model
of reality that holds and reinforces the same inherent 'meaning' as the
mind that thus seeks.
For such a 'mind' is inherently regarded as
separated from its experienced 'world' of objects and thus free to act
upon it, manipulate and exploit, map and define and control it.
Originally
this arose from confusing a sense of dominion over nature that is
inherent to the Creator level of Consciousness, with the 'mind' or
personality construct of the central character in its script of
unfolding experience.
While the Creator-Spirit identifies in character, that one is as one asleep - who knows not what he does.
Yet the Fact of Awareness of Existence is immutable - regardless the unfolding or expansion of idea as experience.
The
illusion of power always costs the awareness of the power of illusion -
that is the power of Idea accepted, believed, experienced and
identified as reality by the mind that thus thinks.
Awareness of
Existence operates through differentiation and desire to create unique
and infinite reflections of Meaning. The core qualities of such Meaning
include Beauty, Truth, Love, Joy, Peace, Reason, Justice. Such are the
fruits of the Spirit of Wholeness.
A divisive, possessive, and
coercive identifiction with the image, symbol or form of any of the
Qualities of Existence redefines such qualities in its own image - as
through a falsely limiting framing by which things seem to be
self-existing entities.
Such modification of a symbolic
representation of Awareness of Existence Itself, is an overlay by which
Original knowing is filtered out, obscured and distorted.
When an
moment of Transcendence of such identifiction is shared or gifted, there
is a shift from the limited and limiting 'mind' to a direct experience.
Awareness
is exactly coincident with its experience. There is no separation. This
may seem the loss of one's power to 'become' a someone in one's own
right - and all the hopes and desires that go with it, but is the
restoration of an Embracing Perspective to that which struggled in idea
of the imposture of rejection and exclusion.
Science operates on a
material or external world that inherently rises from the rejection of
the Spirit or Wholeness of an undefended Open Consciousness.
The
nature of such rejection is a deceit by which to seem to be defending
against un-chosen and unwarranted threat. Thus the split into conscious
and un-conscious compartments - not in matter - but in meanings
accepted, believed and asserted in reaction.
Science can serve as a
technologism of weapon, shield and strategem for the segregating sense
of self, or it can serve a love of truth in honest and undefended
opening to the ALREADY true.
In war truth is whatever one can assert and pass off in order to support a private agenda.
In truth there is no war.
How can there be no war in the face of such experience as we take for the human condition?
By recognizing the deceit of self-attack, upon which is raised the seeming self of a split-minded struggle.
Within
the perspective of struggle - all is war, but of seemingly varying
degree. To the perspective of Wholeness or Peace - we but do this unto
our selves.
The reality of the 'other' cannot be discovered but
through your own. In another you meet your split-minded reflection in an
alloy of alliance and rejection OR you meet the freedom to be That
which you are - without first defining what you are in terms OF
exclusivity and rejection.
Science, re-aligned to serve an
integrating wholeness, supports and reflects the Qualities of Awareness
of Existence. We are not personae in fragmentation, but channels of
Creative Expression. There is no way to communicate the latter to the
former what so ever. Let beauty and joy restore a unified Experience -
and use that perspective to act from - instead of attempting to stuff
the New Wine into old paradigms.
Showing posts with label beauty. Show all posts
Showing posts with label beauty. Show all posts
Monday, 13 July 2015
Tuesday, 23 April 2013
Beauty - what is beauty?
TED Radio asked what is beauty?
The feeling of beauty – if not limited to an associated form, is one of recognition.
Science – or the mind of definitions – cannot deal with beauty – but only with the forms associated with it. However scientists are humanly beholding in living relationship and so can appreciate the beauty and wonder of That anything is – or indeed of a beautiful idea or solution.
Definitions of beauty substitute for recognition. Mutual agreement makes a ‘reality of consensus’. Narcissus became infatuated with his own image – but this seduction cost him his awareness of his true relation. So it is with man and his own thinking.
Consider the act or moment of true appreciation and then notice the mechanism of mind that quickly denies it – perhaps in the attempt to define or explain or possess it.
Yet the true beauty is a moment of thoughtlessness and directness of being that is itself associated with a sense of communion or connection with the Living Universe – even if one doesn’t apparently believe any such thing.
extra comment: to an appreciation of the last paragraph:
There is a saying ‘talk is cheap’, well I guess beliefs are talk – unless they are the fruit or realisation that cannot be defined. And maybe such believing isn’t woven into a mask or identity to present to the world – but is silently moving unspoken in us in our lives as a core sense of presence that breaks through our often busy and distracted lives with a moment of genuine helpfulness or shared purpose – for these too are beautiful, and are not the result of coercive intent or attempts to become loved, respected or valid – and yet embody these qualities unselfconsciously.
Though we cant define beauty, our current definitions limit how much we are able to let in.
The feeling of beauty – if not limited to an associated form, is one of recognition.
Science – or the mind of definitions – cannot deal with beauty – but only with the forms associated with it. However scientists are humanly beholding in living relationship and so can appreciate the beauty and wonder of That anything is – or indeed of a beautiful idea or solution.
Definitions of beauty substitute for recognition. Mutual agreement makes a ‘reality of consensus’. Narcissus became infatuated with his own image – but this seduction cost him his awareness of his true relation. So it is with man and his own thinking.
Consider the act or moment of true appreciation and then notice the mechanism of mind that quickly denies it – perhaps in the attempt to define or explain or possess it.
Yet the true beauty is a moment of thoughtlessness and directness of being that is itself associated with a sense of communion or connection with the Living Universe – even if one doesn’t apparently believe any such thing.
extra comment: to an appreciation of the last paragraph:
There is a saying ‘talk is cheap’, well I guess beliefs are talk – unless they are the fruit or realisation that cannot be defined. And maybe such believing isn’t woven into a mask or identity to present to the world – but is silently moving unspoken in us in our lives as a core sense of presence that breaks through our often busy and distracted lives with a moment of genuine helpfulness or shared purpose – for these too are beautiful, and are not the result of coercive intent or attempts to become loved, respected or valid – and yet embody these qualities unselfconsciously.
Though we cant define beauty, our current definitions limit how much we are able to let in.
Thursday, 14 March 2013
Beauty and the Beast?
Beautiful people are seen as good looking even if they distort their faces into grimaces of disgust, surprise, fear or anger, according to new research. (Telegraph article)
These scientists are rather daft whether they are attractive or not! (tongue in cheek).
Statistical norms - have you ever met one? (Lots of wannabe's though).
Social conditioning can set up all sorts of socially approved or socially compatible criteria of attractive and unattractive. And at the surface level (in which scientists often seem to live) - these things hold true - as does a lot of current theory. But at the Soul level, there is an entirely different criteria and one which doesn't yield to being objectified, quantified and wrapped up in theory.
Shared purpose is another name for one-mindedness. But separate purposes that share only at the surface level are split-mindedness.
This latter 'meets' in order to get - that is - it doesn't know real relationship at all - for something is always held back and something is always gotten from the other that serves to validate the self.
This latter 'meets' in order to get - that is - it doesn't know real relationship at all - for something is always held back and something is always gotten from the other that serves to validate the self.
This is not as 'out of sight' or unconscious as social mores would have us believe and could roughly equate to the selfish gene idea.
A selfishness that seeks to establish its own genesis and seed itself.
A selfishness that seeks to establish its own genesis and seed itself.
Though there is a level at which this 'works' as a balancing interplay of competing forces, it is hardly more than a conditioned program of identifying with a sense of self in a hostile environment. The world seems to provide perfect proof of this excepting that this self is a virtual construct and so is the mapping or interpreted experience we call the world.
How could anyone possibly believe THIS! Well, let that sense be a proof of the power of belief to identify and react to information as true without a direct self enquiry - and I don't mean consulting one's database.
Anyway, I digress. The qualities of Soul - I could say Life, God, Spirit - (but none of them relate to anything within the framework that expresses self-definition), are Attractive to the Soul. The notion of Soul-mate is a rather personalized sense of such an attraction - but it isn't really a personal matter but a transpersonal or transcendence of what we usually trade with as 'self'.
True beauty is of the Soul and 'glamour' might be used for what is essentially fantasy that fulfils the dream subject to our moments of power to enact it. People are generally preoccupied with fantasy and a glance at Facebook shows that this identity can extend like chinese dolls into more and more dissociated levels. Why would one assume our self/world to be the Primary or Ultimate Reality?
The virtual self is a mask with which we access fantasy experience upon something real, and one can play out whatever personalities can be made up, copied, imbibed or carried in past baggage. These are an attempt to set rules and maintain a continuity - and a highly complex but largely tacit conspiracy of self interest makes the current experience of ourselves and the world.
Yes I've rambled off the point.
Guilt is a crippling sense of self and is both a means of manipulating our perception - and the behaviour of others. When anyone is disgusted with you - and extends loathing and utter derision - and you have ANY target where that hits home and activates guilt - then they are NOT attractive.
Now Jesus - whether historical or not - embodies the capacity to see what is ALWAYS ATTRACTIVE in everyone. That is not so far from us as we like to think - and we do like to think all the time, so as not to let anything disturb, undermine or violate a private sense of self.
This indiscriminate defence, is a blindness to and fragmentation of our Soul, which yet knows itself in all its parts whole because it is the direct Expression of the Individuality of God. Not a god out there or in here or in thinking - but the 'Boson' by which all particulate boson/fields express existence.
Guilt is a crippling sense of self and is both a means of manipulating our perception - and the behaviour of others. When anyone is disgusted with you - and extends loathing and utter derision - and you have ANY target where that hits home and activates guilt - then they are NOT attractive.
Now Jesus - whether historical or not - embodies the capacity to see what is ALWAYS ATTRACTIVE in everyone. That is not so far from us as we like to think - and we do like to think all the time, so as not to let anything disturb, undermine or violate a private sense of self.
This indiscriminate defence, is a blindness to and fragmentation of our Soul, which yet knows itself in all its parts whole because it is the direct Expression of the Individuality of God. Not a god out there or in here or in thinking - but the 'Boson' by which all particulate boson/fields express existence.
There is a mental split between the impulse and the control - and yet the impulse is a distorted expression of something true, arising from a deeper level of control.
We all know that the carrot and the stick keep the donkey under control and for carrot, read 'attractive'. But there is a qualitative difference in an allure and a truly lovely presence - whether that presence be Brian Cox or Steven Hawking.
- - -
Second comment to the following:
The experience of beauty is in the eye (mind) of beholding - but the definitions of beauty are indeed in the database of past conditioning.
If you look beneath the 'face' there are these creaturely aspects of mortal combat (death wins). Face is perhaps our first 'language' in the world. (We brought touch with us as innate sense).
Most people? Look at other cultures and look at the art and even the old photos to see it is a cultural expression.
Faces are learned. Faces are masked - unless open.
Face recognition is now standard in digi cameras. One can see that with more processing power and corresponding software attractive faces could be identified and selected over unattractive faces. And with advances in biotech - we'll be able to have ours rendered attractive - according to the mutating social mores of the day.
Beauty transcends form but a poverty of Spirit grabs at the form and tries to recreate the experience - hence the database of past conditioning...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)