The Purpose of Evolution

holy-week-and-wikileaks

An interesting juxtaposition of meanings in the above phrase "the purpose of evolution".

purpose is of the Mind - and the theory of evolution - while also of the mind, posits a mind-less material existence as CAUSE - in place of MIND - which is truly always our greatest Intimacy of true environment - regardless the focus in objects of attention.

Thus a 'mind' randomly accretes or assembles over billions of years as the illusion of a mind - in total subordination and dictate to a persistence of energy patterns or genetic mutations.

But those who hold such an anti-magic wand can use it to block and deny Mind in any Movement that does not support the Model of materially captured convictions.

I note that when it doesn't suit us, we WANT to assign cause outside or away from self - and that can be to a god as much as to a random accident or disease of genetic or materially set conditions

Purpose and desire are fundamental to all that then follows.

Jesus did not write Scriptures - but those who did sought to align the truth of their witness with the forms of acceptance. The mind of prophecy is hidden from the materially minded who see at best predictions rather than a true reading of the current energies in movement.

And the making of the prequel by which to support one's claim is simply part of the way the mind works - though Jesus did not call on that for his person.

Once a messenger has been smeared or debunked and walled out or turned to an idol by which to bring out in support of an otherwise dead letter society, it becomes impossible to reference without translation into terms of hate. That is how it works.

The message we receive is not determined by any external power but by our own accepted purpose and desire. When we align that with Caesar or power in the world - we take it from true recognition and fulfilment. Until we no longer know our purpose and have buried, denied or crucified our true desire.

Meme: Linguistic redistribution

John Rappoport wrote a piece on 'memes':

Do memes exist? Or are they fictions?by Jon Rappoport

I wrote various segments into considering this idea. This is the first.

- - - -
Linguistic redistribution:

Szatz asked; does mental illness exist - and his answer was no. A relational conflict is not an organic illness residing in the body or brain of one individual - though the State can and does assert and impose 'treatment' on such peoples whose 'reality' does not fit, or who are induced to fit to a pathological 'reality' in order to 'treat' themselves. That doesn't mean there are not relational conflicts where communication breaks down and leaks out in behaviours including 'phyicalised' conditions that are then experienced without understanding their call, and their context.

The idea of autonomy or 'self-existing, self-creating, self-directing', is the idea of a thought separate from Mind or an individual separate from its relation. A 'me' of self-concept whose image is asserted to protect against loss of face, and loss of power, functions as differentiation within awareness that is consciousness of Existence through self-differentiation. Generating from conception; feeling, and perception, as experience of existence within All That Is - within the fact of being integral to All That Is - as an individuation of Infinity.

The idea of self is the same as the idea of god or soul, mind or spirit - it is the First before time and space from which all else derives as the embodiment of Self as self.
But Self without an object cannot know or feel or experience itself existing and does not will to be alone but goes forth and multiplies as the sharing of the knowing of being that IS expansion, creation, and evolution of Idea.

The idea in mind goes forth and multiplies - not because it has power in itself - but because You give it power of energy and attention - which is love. You therefore also give it meaning in terms of the purpose it serves you - and thus agree or choose to be bound by your own power along the lines of your own thought. Logic is not applied or 'added' to mind but inherent as it.

To be curious and to play in ideas of separation, is an 'as if' perspective. "What if I was different than I Am", and believe it with such force as to generate an experience unlike Full Open Communication"? And so 'creating' distortions that operate a limiting as a segregative sense of self - over and against the Fully Open Conscious Communication. Such idea then 'goes forth and multiplies' limitation, lack, conflict and threat in the name of a god of specialness, set apart and judging over.

The god that asserts itself and lords it over is not the First - but a derivative from an adulterated currency of Idea. However, it has all the power and meaning we give it - regardless of any form it takes. "An idea that is self-replicating' is simply a variation of "Look what you made me do!" - which is the victim play of a hidden mind in serious engagement in its own sense of self in conflict.

The reversal of Consciousness - where effects operate in place of true Cause, is giving power - the power of your acceptance of Will - to that which limits, denies and kills the Will.
How far down the rabbit hole of crazy is it your 'defined joy' to accept and endure?

Thank God for Richard Dawkins! It is remarkable that certain maggots can be used to cleanly and completely remove dead tissue in wounds that would otherwise be extremely open to infection.
There is much in the 'spiritual' bandwagon that 'adds' or overlays magical beliefs of association that may have roots in actual relational intimacies - but which pass on as currency of merely wishful and therefore weak, ineffective and divided thinking - which is very effective as false currency of adulterating and usurping the true relational felt quality of shared being.

So I see the linguistic construct of memes as part of the movement to invalidate or get rid of Consciousness excepting as conforms with the god who lords it by judging and asserting its judgement true - or in vernacular terms, 'controlling the narrative'. Fighting over the control of the narrative is always the pyramid of power - for power is upstream and here you get to look at mind-control because what is going on - in the Idea of Separation running 'as if' with great force - is... mind control. But who is fooling who?

In cartoons the characters can run off a cliff and don't have any problem until they look down.
The force of the imprinting of the separate self sense is a fragmentation that will not stop until there is a pause in which to notice or stir as a wakening of original being. There is a grace to the quality of such existence that is unspeakable.

But to anyone who now recognizes another foundation than conditioned self-survival thinking at the very core of their being - there is now a freedom to renew or rediscover the world and all abilities in it, to serve a fresh purpose - for the hateful that was hidden is 'outed' and recognized to NOT be who you are. This may be soon covered over in the reaction to the habitual momentum of conditionings that have not been not recognised and re-aligned with who you are - but the nature of the device of 'covering over'. itself becomes uncovered because you have a basis on which to challenge and question the belonging of such devices as your choice now.

The movement of mind-control includes its reactive shadow. It takes two to tango, and the idea, counter idea and transcendence is usurped by going upstream to 'win' rather than a true transcendent embrace of all perspectives as a result of true hearing and speaking. Full and open communication is NOT mind control - but the opening - to a mind-control perspective - of all the 'evils' it seeks to kill or hide.

But the rewakening of original being rises from another 'place' and brings another perspective within the same situation. Meanings are not set in stone - but nor is manipulating or rebranding the same old power trip to seem superior or knowing, amidst sown confusion, meaningful or honest.

The 'idea whose time has come' is not a specific form, being timeless it can use all forms for restoring true communication. The idea of conflict is always associating forms with asserted meanings that are not true - in order to play the game of judge and having the last word as your private mind.

The movement of a re-integrative Consciousness is not in separate individuals - for there is no such thing. Right relation is a creative dance of feeling and knowing yourself in relation to the other - not a mono-cultured homogeneity. This is feeling. Not emotionalism of suppression of true feeling but a quality of being, without which life is flat, featureless and may as well be a bunch of memes running in software loops on some machine that have no belonging in a Living Earth while so militantly denying Her Life. Our Life.

Upstream thinks its thinking is creative - incepting 'memes' and downstream takes the pain. If You Really Are First - then nothing can ever contradict you. Any alignment with original being brings this realisation Home. So contradiction means 'against your word'. Self-contradiction goes forth and memefies a war of cause on effect in which effects seem to fight back with a will of their own!

Wake up in a true idea that is truly shared. It's time is willingness, not circumstance. Has a time of willingness come? It's not just an idea - it is a living active call and receptivity to the movement of being - and faking or mimicking it becomes a self-betrayal that serves to not feel good. But at least you can still feel and move with acceptance of feeling to align more truly with who you know you are - without having to first define the form it takes, rather than persist a language of 'mindcontrol' by which to justify your denial in terms that deny your involvement in it. This 'anti-creative' power is using your own power against your Self while playing victor over victim and can only operate when we are not in our right mind; out of communication in dissociation believed real.

Logic - this is NOT that.

Logic: how to introduce it and improve mush-minds

Jon Rappoport


I felt to join in a 'conversation' with what Jon Rappoport is saying:


Logic is consistency and congruency of thought but does not provide its own basis or foundation from which to automatically proceed or unfold itself.

Such a starting point may be an assertion or stated definition or belief that can take the form of a foundation - while already being in contradiction.

"This is that" or false association is the minds capacity to imagine meanings that reflect its own wish to override, distort, exploit and re-frame Felt and Shared Relational Meaning as a sense of power to invoke a private mind-dream upon Shared Mind-Stream (Communication Itself) and reconfigure such mind in emulation to project and externalize its denials and interpret them as world to be likewise manipulated, exploited, usurped.

Imagination without integrity is conflicting purpose. Mind Itself is another term for without limit but thought that is not directly extending the Qualities of Mind is self-contradiction. The law of Mind is its unqualified nature and never in fact defined by any framing perspective within thought by which to use 'As If' to replace 'As Is'. What Is - Is and what Is, is as it is - but can be experience infinitely - which includes experiencing it as it is Not as an effect of holding focus and desire in definition that is untrue of What and Who you are as the awareness of existence; a unique expression of the movement of Being in the act of creation that is integrally part or and one with Every other likewise unique expression of Existence - within a richness or multidimensional interrelated that is both the wholeness (Non Local) AND the specific (Local) at Once - with every instant being a wholeness of integrality clearly felt and received and shared - or mis-taken within the lens of a falsely or incompletely asserted self-definition.

The ability to differentiate in thought within and seemingly from Awareness, is a power to forget, cover over or Not Know, (that you are knowing) is part of the movement of segregative consciousness. Implicit to initiating such movement is the reintegrative movement of coming back into your right (whole) Mind - as Is. The interplay of shifting focus in these apparent polarities of possibility and probability is Experience. But the nature of the Integrative movement is a higher, more embracing perspective of synchronicity... presence - as is.

'What you give out is what you get back' is also a law or unalterable nature of Mind - and regardless any form of expression, its foundation is your reflection. So it can be said as 'where you are coming from is where you are experiencing yourself to be'. Coming from or embodying an idea of conflicted self-definition must result the reflection of conflicting relation or world.

So the experiencing of a self-conflicted dissonance is a result or effect of taking a definition of self and allowing it to run instead of the Mind that is your source and nature - for your own reasons.

But the law of mind as it applies to a false foundation projects itself out as a split off logical extension of denial and denied-ness, that operate in the active but disguised suppression and avoidance of  dissonance-guilt, dissonance-terror, dissonance-rage - and so forth - so that a self-focus can be 'born' within but temporarily unconscious of a deeper imprint conditioning that generates the framing of its world or life experience.

The willingness or grace of noticing and releasing of the false is the stirring or rising of and honesty or undefended awareness of being that recognizes what it is NOT as NOT true and not available or in any sense meaningful to accept, use, focus within, value, identify with or against or persist in giving attention and investment to. The natural movement of being simply operates clearly to a free attention and is recognisably Life - not conceptualizable forms of derivative impressions and association by which to assert or claim a mind of one's own - over (any symbolic or conceptual image of) Life.

This Movement of being is the capacity of discernment - for the acceptance of what is truly resonant and relevant to who you in this instant know and feel yourself to be, illuminates all that is incongruent or dissonant to you within the light of an awareness of a relational wholeness of being - that in simple terms is the call to joy - but as the unfolding or your own unique receiving and giving of wholeness, fulfilment, appreciation, and gratitude.

The Movement of (the focus) of being within the Infinite or edgeless and open quality of wholeness is the restoring of imagination as the true expression of an integrity of embrace - and the healing of a split off sense of self-hatred that was fed by denial and given power by fear to rage demoniacally in an unwatched mind.

This is a sketch in word-meanings of a willingness to open/share perspective of a Living Movement of being. The word-meanings can never substitute for the willingness - excepting a wish to seem to be who or what I am not - for my own reasons. That is - for reasons that can be uncovered and enquired of in simple curiosity to be found revealing of something that serves me in a way that I can now accept, release and move on from or 'put behind me' by the simplicity of embracing what I prefer rather than being defined by what I do NOT want.

Reframing Religion and Spirituality

An article:
Reframing Religion and Spirituality
at the Daily Bell

I felt to address the mind's framing of the nature of being as the world we experience:
- - -

Everything true has already been re-framed - hence the separation and division of a war-mind - starkly or subtly operating.
Noticing the false framing within our mind, allows one to choose not to use it - and that invites and allows Spirit to illuminate what we took to be some other kind of matter.

The mind can be like a fig-leaf by which to hide from an exposure or vulnerability that has no basis in fact but that fear believes it so and thus fear makes it so.
Hiding fear gives it power in the dark or unconscious mind.

The 'end-times' are exposing the fear associated with the core beliefs of the human conditioning. Fear says there are no choice but as it frames choices. But one can choose not to listen or act from such a frame and thus awaken perspective upon it.

Perhaps its easier to say it is all about identity. When we forget our Source-Nature we lose awareness of That which identifies us perfectly and amidst the sense of limitation, loss and conflict that then ensues, seek to regain and assert our own identity from the presumption of separation. And no matter how idealistic we may attempt to be we are not rested or at one with the truth of what we are.

Presence pervades, embraces and transcends the form - but the would-be thief takes the form as if to have it specially for themselves. This worships form while denying Spirit. Yet even this becomes a gift to the willingness to love truth because it reflects that which is untrue of you as a way of releasing what was otherwise hidden and protected from change.

No one can really change another but that other chooses or accepts for themself. But no one can accept a healing transformation and still walk in the world that the fear dictated. Our vibrational state attunes our perspective.

Everything is religion - in the sense of attempting to fulfil or complete or unify some sense of self - but the true relationship is lost by searching from a conviction one is alone and apart and lacking.

Wholeness is our gift to the world; to our relationships - and is not the world's function to provide. But in a direct relating is the world framed as the flowing Now. And this is not a sense of self-lack but a cup that runneth over.

Of course the 'demons guard the treasure' - so only true love can pass through. And as one is willing to accept love - does it extend through us for such is its nature. Then see what you shall see.

Warring over truth: conflicting realities are out of true

http://iai.tv/
Offers a portal for Idea as creative art in life rather than ideology of investments and private agenda.
However, it is a video channel without transcript and so it takes a linear process in physical time to watch the conversations take place. Perhaps this enourages participation beyond skimming for those who give their time, but I would see a transcript as a much more available medium of communication to complement the videos.

Beyond Truth and Falsehood: What is real?

- - -

Definition is fundamental to ALL that follows from it.

That which defines all things as relating within Itself is First - and cannot be Itself defined.

But all that relates within and as the extension of Source is of the same kind, and thus creates or extends idea within itself likewise.

The temporary expedient of defining Truth or Reality in image of symbol and idea generates a perspective of self differentiation from Totality and yet shares that perspective within totality. There is no separation.

But the experience of self differentiation may be explored or focused within such as to experience separateness within Mind whose nature and function IS Communication.

The segregative self-sense generates and depends upon an almost exclusively physical framed 'reality'. For there is no other way to maintain such a 'self' but through the denial OF Consciousness in the assertion of conditionalities that effectively generate transactional 'reality' in place of the Gift of spontaneity of a synchronous and unified expression of life.

To the segregative self, reality is war in which all things essentially conflict - and yet within which is a temporary assertion of survival attempt to make tolerable and wherever possible, to extend any capacity to prevail over or exploit the externalised world - for this is the coercive movement by which the creative is confused within the created - as a result of taking image or definition OF Self - AS Self.
When the coercive movement is recognized false, one yield to Source and are restored to true perspective.
However what is true OF you is not within definition so much as a clarifying and transcendence OF self-definition.
And so it is true that war 'survives' or persists as the sacrifice or covering over of truth. But whatever is acted out does not and cannot change the truth of you - because the truth or existence of you - (the very awareness of existence that is you, regardless what definitions are accepted and engaged in) - is Eternally changeless though experienced in infinitely rich perspectives that embrace and transcend linear time or locational properties of space.
What you choose - knowingly or unknowingly - to accept as true for you - must 'create' your conception, perception, and behavioral response that you  have and share as your experience of Life.
But the level of such definition is largely 'hidden' in unconsciousness, and guarded by psychological defence AGAINST exposure, by the personality construct that you take to be yourself.
It IS a working focus within a physically experienced reality, but it is the vehicle or channel of You that has - in a sense - lost the signal - and seems to have got lost in a will of its own that is effectively acting against its own good and burdens itself with attempt to manage or control reality.
The idea of controlling reality is the idea of forgetting its nature. There is nothing 'outside' whereby to leverage excepting in agreement to play the game of being 'outsiders' who know not what they do - and who therefore make their OWN definitions and fight over them as if the truth is at stake.
True relationship is easy because is requires nothing of us - being already the case. Yet is impossible while we define it lacking and attempt to change its condition from a belief in unworthiness of relationship.
Blessed is the one who releases their self-certainty of experience in willingness to let truth be uncovered by which everyone and everything involved is recognized within a greater perspective.
There is no escaping the Embrace of our true Existence - but there is a wish to distract attention within a focus of self-specialness fueled by fear of love that does not know love's gift of unique creational participance as true living - and perceives only threat to its investment of identification in manual and magical control over life.
All realities are valid experience but all realities of experience are not relevant or resonant to the theme and signature vibrational reality OF you.
Getting in direct communication with your core being may be via the experience of recognition of what and who you are NOT. Therefore unreality or untruth serves purpose - albeit unknowing.
All things in the 'world' correlate or resonate or symbolically communicate aspects, facets and qualities of consciousness within, or prior to their embodiment. The light of the projector is prior to the film or the image on the screen. Light is shining. Mind is projecting What you give out is what you get back. But first recognize and own what is already being believed and reacted from, for one cannot change what one has not yet owned.
Thankyou for your attention.

Why is there something rather than nothing?

The Institute of Art and Ideas at http://iai.tv has videos of discussions on ideas.

"Why is there something rather than nothing?”

The illusory proposition takes the form of a question. Like a phishing scam, a statement in the form of a question sets a frame from which reaction is in a sense programmed by a mistaken or usurped identity.

There is Something; Fact.
Though Something is not 'there' rather than or in distinction to Something Else 'here'.
Nor does Is ever become 'was' or 'will be'.
Is Is. Is is all that Is.

What seems unapproachable to the mentality of a separated self-sense is richly reflective as an already knowing. But the knowing of being is in a sense eclipsed, by a diversion of attention and desire.

"What if nothing were as it really Is?"
This question is a fantasy for Everything IS as it Is and the idea of 'different than Is. is 'is not' or non-existence; nothing.
Pursuing the fantasy idea, and giving attention to the idea of nothing as if it were an alternative open the mind of choice. For one can release the fantasy of 'different than' or one can further attend to the experience of 'chooser' in division. Attending to such fantasy yields a personal experience of a distorted reality... within the Consciousness or awareness that Is one's existence.
The apparent alloy or adulteration of Is, with fantasy results a polarized experience of love/fear, life/death, embrace/hate, self/other, consciousness/matter, matter/space.

The presumption of a separately segregated private mind or self is the 'precious' image or concept of self generated OVER AND AGAINST fear of loss - and non-existence or death, victimhood and subjection, enslavement and meaninglessness.

The mind in its drama generates drama as the basis of an ongoing distraction of temporary darkness of ignorance within which to persist in acting out the idea of itself it has 'created'.

But beneath the mind is the perfect or uninterruptable embrace of Consciousness being All That Is - which cannot be separated from or objectified... except in concept... as fantasy in the mind.

The question "Why is there something rather than nothing?” can be FELT as the arising awareness of Is to its own welcome.

The questions that rise from being are the vanguard of their own revelation, but to personify the question by 'taking it to mind' makes the question separate from the answer and require or necessitate a process of mind upon the matter in question. As is readily observable, mind operates as an construct of thought systems of conflicting ideas to which are applied rules of congruency and continuity - (though facts are never invited to spoil a good story), each unto their own defended 'truth'.

Yet embracing and pervading the realm of personal experience - and insinuating itself as a process of reintegrating consciousness - is the movement of wholeness unto itself; the recognition and appreciation and gratitude of and for existence ITSELF.

"Why is there something rather than Everything?".

Because the movement of consciousness within is reflecting a facet of totality as your Now, that is exactly expressing the ideas personal and collective, conscious and unconscious, that extend or project the unique signature of love - of what you are giving attention to and embracing as your self.

That we have agreed to be mutually distracted in a fantasy of fear and division has not changed the Law or Nature of Consciousness Itself;

What you give out is what you get back.

Meaningless ness is the condition in which mind can come out to play in determining its OWN meanings. It is also the condition in which one recognizes the fruitless and releases its futility.

All of what is created as experience can be opened to a greater perspective or one can persist in asserting a segregating coercion in the desire for power over Life.

A true integrity embodied, and thus shared, rests in the power of Life.

Trying to fit Life (others, self and world) into our wish, yields an isolated sacrifice of all that Lives You to a false god unrecognized as such.

"Why focus in the head instead of abiding as the heart?".
Because a sense of evil, threat or loss has made you homeless - and KEEPS YOU SO.

Innocent curiosity is Free. Beliefs demand allegiance. Releasing false allegiance moves to more inclusive beliefs  and to the freedom from any need to believe. The movement of being is only 'hidden' from that which would hide itself - yet even this within a larger theme of creative discovery.

(further comment)

The nature of this interview gives a very loud voice to Krauss that corresponds to a 'loudness' of assertion - with capacity and willingness to interrupt in a self-certainty or 'self-righteousness'. Kraus energetically 'dominated' simply because he was actively confrontational and assertive and the others tended to submit or align - including the moderator.
If nothing = lie then all that is required to make something out of nothing is to assert it forcefully enough to destabilize and realign to it.
But the illusion of 'somethingness' is revealed when the distorting force is released or removed and the original undistorted clarity reveals itself.
Clarity in this sense is not a lie - but a direct awareness or recognition... accepted, welcomed and abiding as.
In this sense Existence is no thing. because 'thing-ness' arises as the object to a point of view. Unless One differentiates, one cannot experience point of view. Thus differentiation arises from self (reality) definition. However, note that the term exclusive is not necessary here. One does not identify exclusively within differentiated reflection, unless one seeks to excommunicate or reject or deny a part of one self.
Who or what is kicking who or what out?
A split mind experiences itself fragmented as legion - as a full cast of personae operating seamlessly in a continuity of action and reaction - as if self-becoming and self perpetuating. Time and space serve to keep a fleeting now from the Eternal Nowing, to keep out 'there' from being Total Presence... until willingness for the game wears thin and is no longer worth the candle. No longer worthy of giving your Light to.
When that which had been turned inside out restores its original nature, there not the nothing-ing of one's existence, but its redemption to a true foundation. That is to say only the lie of nothingness is undone of its appearance as a 'something' and is clearly seen and thus an illusion is revealed as such rather than employed as a frame of reference. There is a shock on discovering your brother is your enemy no more!

What doesn't occur to scientists is that the 'redundancy of God' is the redundancy of 'self.' There is no separate God = there is no separate or originating self.
What is the self that is presumed to have 'evolved' as a rational capacity to 'understand' the Universe? It is presumed to be the apex of a nature that is separate from, observing and and acting upon this nature.
This is given a series of props for acting out in the physical sense of existence - that is to say manifested existence. Manifestation is a local specific rendering of non local or universal potentiality - AND IS IN NO WAY SEPARATE FROM IT.
The idea of belief of separating off from a Living Inheritance is the 'forgetting of the Father' for the manifestations of a splitting prism that likewise seeks to get for itself. This is the idea of getting nothing from Everything which cannot actually succeed because the very identification and attempt of negation, denial and self-asserting power depends 100% on that which it denies.
The Idea is the Universe - and not separate in any way from the Mind or Consciousness of which it arises.
But the segregative 'mind' renders and redefines consciousness as a tiny trickle somehow operating within material and organic limitations to which it is powerless EXCEPT by the development of its own abilities, chief of which is the cunning use of force and guile as self-justification for its own (separate) existence.

Beyond the Machine #2 : The Physics of Consciousness

#2

The mind is a self-reinforcing choice, which acquires the momentum of habit when the same choice is repeated.
There are levels at which such reinforcement serves the continuity and richness and density of experience for the purpose the experience affords.
But to become lost in that level of the mechanism of mind is to merely believe and act as if one was a conditioned program.
Waking up from out of a habitual presumption is waking within and as a living creativity.
The Creative extends through its expressions - there is no separation.
The mind as we humanly tend to use the term to mean - has become a tool, device or mechanism for a separation experience within which is a sense of physical existence - all of which occurs within Consciousness for there is no 'outside' to Consciousness, though there seems to be an outside of 'your mind'.
One cannot communicate the new perspective in the old framework - but one can use the old terms in new ways to witness a shifted foundation that speaks to the same in others who are ripe, ready or willing to release the old self-certainties (no matter how reinforced they are in one's experience).
The nature of experience is reflection and extension. What you give out is what you get back. No exceptions.
A split mind can juggle a split experience and seem to be what it is not. While this can become an insanity it can originally be a game of 'what if'.
Beneath multiple and fragmenting effects of an insanity is a single error of misidentification.
Restoring the mind from self reinforcing fixations to creative curiosity has to release the prerequisite demands of a tyrannous empiricism.
There is a call for a shared reality within which to embrace and appreciate our own - but this is to be uncovered, recognized, and accepted as a gift of free will and not the attempt to exclusively define and control all things from a false foundation in 'as if'.
For every outer reflection there is an inner reality - we are really looking at Consciousness - albeit through a glass darkly in many respects.
The physics of Consciousness releases the religion of separation. One is entirely and fully Participant!

Beyond the Machine #1 : Mechanism within Consciousness

Thoughts arising from or in compliment to iai's 'Beyond the Machine' event

#1

Mechanism within consciousness is like the idea of emulated hardware running as software. All thinking is in some sense device - whose meaning or function is contingent on the use for which it is serving.
The primary or inherent function of thought is the reflection of the movement of being that we call awareness.There is no actual separation between awareness and its object thoughts excepting the father or source comes first. Not in time, but in relation the thoughts are children that are in all respects like their source.
The device within consciousness whereby an alternate to source is imagined as father or cause, gives rise to children that are likewise expressions of their generator. An alternative to 'what is' doesn't exist, and so to function as a cause must be given existence by the device of forgetting what is, in order to explore the ideas that arise to a self that believes itself separately existing and therefore seeking to establish itself from a segregated  self-sense amidst a conflicted and unrecognized perception of All That Is - as if it too is separately existing.
The identity of the self in its seemingly private reality is constructed and defined by the relations of the world it perceives in all its reflected qualities, and then by the tools or extensions of its own emergent consciousness. Until is becomes ready to remember or reawaken to its nature AS the extension of consciousness. As a creative presence rather than as a mentality serving a persona that presumes itself acting within and upon an organism.

But there is no hardware - excepting from the perspective of a program running within the emulated layer. In a sense this program enables feedback that serves the refining and reprogramming of the device layer template.
The nature of our thinking at the level or within the focus of human experience is like that of its basis; it separates to control as the device 'divide and rule'. But the bleed though of the original nature brings in the reintegration of that which seemed split or divided and demanding of control.
The re integrative movement is the realisation and recognition at the level of cause - not in the sense of power over other or world - but as the power that dreams the world. Such power is shared or unified and beyond misuse or corruption, but the fearful belief that it has been used and has effected corruption is the device by which a split off consciousness makes a persona founded in keeping such fear unconscious .
The spontaneous nature of manifestation is that as one asks, so is it given. The idea contains its own unfolding of fulfillment. This does not seem to be the case within a scenario in which we have already asked to persist in the struggle of self-forgetting experience.
We thus know not what we do - because we have made it unconscious to our focus within the 'embodied mind'.
The imagination that we can step out of our consciousness and act upon it is an illusion of self. For the acts are determined at a level of which such surface self is unaware and believes it must remain unaware of in order to exist.

Will machines ever be able to think?

This BBC article promoted a brief consideration of Consciousness and 'machinery'.


If you can accept that Consciousness in its raw or native sense is all pervading energy that informs and communicates or harmonizes itself in all that it expresses as manifest and self-aware reality - then what we call consciousness is already in a sense an instrument or machine in which a 'portion' of a greater 'mind' explores its creative expression. To mimic the programs of our lower mind will not really make 'alive' but if we give our consciousness to them - they will be an outsource of our own. To let the Living be self-aware through 'machinery' requires all of the elements of consciousness to be received and communicated. That is both Feeling and Thought. The Feeling or intuitional knowing is not emotions, which are merely thoughts that limit or distort the Feeling dimension. Our current 'split off mentality' from Feeling tends to seek to replace Life with a model of mimicry (and gimmickry!) and of manual usurpations and interventions. Because the Feeling Consciousness is 'upstream or beyond the focus of a conceptual focus, it cannot be witnessed or demonstrated within the terms of a physically focussed consciousness - excepting to note the difference in the quality and reflection of one's own consciousness experience and relations.

The question 'Why?' is meaningless at the level of the meaning of existence - but is absolutely pertinent to the level of consciousness expression because to go forth and multiply what one does not love, enjoy, or appreciate truly... is to create a world of deprivation, isolation and conflict - as can be readily observed.
So the primary basis of foundation of choice or decision is not the responsibility of programmed thinking!

Conspiracy of self-will, conditioned mind and integrity

The 'conspiracy' that operates is simply self-will. What shares a purpose operates as a unity without having to consciously 'conspire'.

I'm not sure what rejecting science would be. As the search for truth I embrace it. As for restricting the search to the empirically measurable, so as to fit all that I experience within what scientific method can actually be used to address? - I don't accept that.

And I feel that such ideas are in effect a basis for limiting our function to a machine-mentality.

So the control mentality associated with the elite super rich manipulators and their sphere of influence is simply a function of a set of ideas given acceptance and currency in our larger cultural beliefs and communications.

A scientist may seek to uncover an understanding of forces and relationships in particles and processes of chemistry or physics, so why not uncover the apparently hidden currency of ideas that inevitably manifest as a cultural bankruptcy, social disease and global disorder.

Is it that we - in the main - are tacitly 'conspiring' to look out at the world our mind conceives and perceives as reflection of its model of what we are and what the world is.

This denies direct awareness within our mind that would see what we are using it for - as a virtual experience through its apparent persona.

- - -
The mind can become so identified or conditioned to the way it is looking that it effectively operates 'as if' it is the construct in consciousness that it is looking with and through.

In fact we tend to use the term consciousness as both awareness - and as a complex self-construct.

Likewise the term "I" can be a direct appreciation of a movement of awareness-event or a construct of definitions and story meanings that serves as an experience of interpretation and investment in outcomes.

I would bring mental considerations out of their box and into a curiosity of direct observation. To participate more fully in what it is to be consciously in relationship with Life - as an integral expression of that Life.

Self definition can pass off as self-creation - but where does this moment of awareness arise out-from?
- - -

Yes - but it is what we THINK or are induced to think we want and indeed for a surface or fleeting gratification rather than a true fulfilment. Our needs are denied by such distraction. Joy and peace of honouring one's own needs always expresses as a demeanour of kindness. The self-deprived see less charitably.

Indeed our MENTALITY is what must be re-evaluated and observed so as to be changed where it is undermining our wellbeing, and not merely focusing out on persons or issues as if to merely apportion blame is to resolve!

Unless we become transformed in our own mind our words will be powerless. Good ideas are not enough. We must be at peace within our self - or truly expressing willingness to uncover it. Or else our hidden conflicts leak out in all that we do and say and our world reflects them.

All I am saying is that our now become a point of ongoing awareness and integrity. If not now - when?

We have been asleep in loveless machinery for a long time and its habit is deeply entrenched

Questioner: This is a fact: animals cannot exist if plants die out so there is an intimate total reliability on the survival of plants - do plants have minds? A simple understandable answer would be good.

# 1

The interrelatedness of all life is what I was referring to as a unified oneness that we are partially un-covering as we release the mentality that presumes to 'lord it' over Life. True existence is not in the terms we define humanly - but in terms you can accept - yes our body doesn't end at our skin but includes the breathing plants - the Living Planet.

These are not just organisms and entities but relationships that we have neglected in our self and with all that lives - as if we exist outside of life and use it as if it were just stuff to exploit.

Information is not merely derived data that is a result of processes of analysis, division and comparisons and sorting. (Which is all good for the level at which it applies). What I might call living information is available as the 'higher' qualities of mind - that is inspiration, intuitive insight, a felt discernment, and a capacity to refocus attention in any whole trust of desire and intent to receive appropriate 'knowing relative to a felt need. Because it is living information, it is one with you in a way that concepts are not - and yet can be felt directly and at a different level. For example when someone really give you their full attention you can feel it as a receptive non judgemental acceptance. You likewise can feel a manipulative or coercive intent that overlooks who you really are in order merely to get something.

We all actually use higher faculties all the time but don't realize it. The 'thinking mind' likes to take credit of achievement or maintain a sense of independent control as part of feeling secure in its sense of reality. Therefore not surprisingly this control sense or demand, has to relax to let a different quality of information in.

You could say we shut out our Higher mind even though we are wholly dependent on it so it works in the background. To let it it into a conscious awareness is to reintegrate the separate self sense with a truly shared Life. One Life is in and through all - this is not just DNA etc - but has an experiential participation and recognition. That is the part that Science has been neglecting. If we 'caught up' with our own discoveries we would know that the material world is an energetic patterning of resonances and communications and not a world of self existing 'things' or entities amidst empty space. Our consciousness is transformational and yet our sense of being apart from life as if to control it is a way of refusing to yield to the movement of our own being - and so there is such dissonance in our experience and world.

The five senses can open to the qualities and energies of Life that are subtler than otherwise available in the release of division and the yielding into wholeness.

One could call it the 'more of you' that your current definition disallow. Curiosity can pause in the middle of anything and ask what it really is - what is really going on here? - but because we are conditioned or programmed to believe we know, we don't pause to ask. There is a kind of 'knowledge that loses innocence - and yet curiosity IS a movement of true innocence.

If you uncover even a spark, you can appreciate it and grow it. Life is not at rest in being denied but would be known. So the stirring of curiosity is also the movement of our being towards wholeness.

Being wholly present in our appreciation is a passion or joy of life expressing through us.

We do not lose individuality - but an integrated individuality operates out as an actually connecting relationship with its relations rather than mentally manipulating a model of its strategic assessment.

The mind can become so identified or conditioned to the way it is looking that it effectively operates 'as if' it is the construct in consciousness that it is looking with and through. In fact we tend to use the term consciousness as both awareness - and as a complex self-construct. Likewise the term "I" can be a direct appreciation of a movement of awareness-event or a construct of definitions and story meanings that serves as an experience of interpretation and investment in outcomes. I would bring mental considerations out of their box and into a curiosity of direct observation. To participate more fully in what it is to be consciously in relationship with Life - as an integral expression of that Life. Self definition can pass off as self-creation - but where does this moment of awareness arise out-from?

Questioner: This is a fact: animals cannot exist if plants die out so there is an intimate total reliability on the survival of plants - do plants have minds? A simple understandable answer would be good.


# 2
Exactly the same as saying the plants are our lungs. Do lungs have minds? Not as we think of mind, yet they are aligned in a unified purpose as part of the whole. Survival is not acquired or added to life - but is part of the way of it for its time. But if a part identifies itself in its OWN separate purpose and seeks to 'survive' at the expense of the whole it is a bit like cancerous growth that follows lawless chaotic patterns. What exactly IS existence? We see other things come and go. Some of them we eat. We seem to let go of our surface consciousness to sleep each evening and rise a new on waking as if the world and all in it is reality and we are somehow in it but not just the same as material stuff - for we are aware. We think that we 'have minds' but the closer you look at it the less can you find one to get hold of.


Questioner:

I see but I feel you have not answered my question: do you recognise the fact that if all plant life ceased to exist then all life including human would also cease to exist? Another simple question: other than the five senses (see, feel, smell, hear, taste) and through which we receive all information do you reckon there is another source we are not aware of and if there is, how do we recognise the information sent by this source. "

#3

There are innumerable 'ifs' that would likewise be no Earth-life if true or effected. What is your specific desire regarding our plant life?

I have said all life is interrelated as a unified whole. You breathe the exhalations of plant life. The support system OF life on Earth is a wholeness and not a linear set of manipulations.

The mentality that thinks it exists alone in time and space sees linear unrelated things and events and seeks to define and control them for ITS perceived specialness and survival. But the mentality is not the true Expression of Life that is You and it results in such a world-picture as is evident.

The breakdown serves the re-awakening of You by the recognition and discarding of the mentality that induces communication breakdown, loss of trust, fear and control, guilt ...and yet more fearful control in layer over layer of complexity.

The mentality must be put aside and NOT USED as a foundation. In this way we 'choose' to let Life in; to be restored from fear to love and to the wholeness of love's perspective. We are not here to 'survive as loveless machinery' we are the capacity to behold and share the Good, the Beautiful and the True.

Take it that we have been asleep in loveless machinery for a long time and its habit is deeply entrenched. At first it is a breakthrough to even open the thought of what I am saying. But it is a thought that shares in the mind and not a thought that sets the mind secret and special and alone. These are the Thoughts that we forget, neglect and deny expression and so the world is starved of healing and abundance.

I cannot be more than a conduit or embodiment of such thought through my willingness - the same as you. For love, truth, wisdom, peace, joy and unity are not the result of a personal wilfulness or control. We really do have to recognize the trap our mind makes and refuse it. But while we think that that IS our self - we seek to avoid such an outcome as if it were a fate worse than death.

therefore I would illuminate the mentality to a willingness to see the ways in which we hurt our self without blame - because blame is always the repackaging of the same mentality in redistributed form and never heals or truly resolves. There is a literal sense in which all Life loves you. You could say this is 'backstage' or beneath the surface of appearances of separateness. It breathes you as an integral thread in a vast tapestry of Life in Expression. We've lost touch with our Source and think we are going it alone and think we make our own source. Nothing could be farther from true - but the belief is deeply cherished though it is also deeply painful.

a narrow, rigid mind?

I read a comment that said:
Religious belief implies a narrow, rigid mind.


To a narrow rigid sense... of what religious belief is presumed to be, this must seem irrefutable, self evident and hardly worth saying.

But an open fluid mind can take any thought, perception and experience and use it to open a deeper or more inclusively related perspective or meaning.
This could be called meditation as it is a process in observation and discernment in which presumptions or beliefs about whatever it seems to be are challenged, released and expanded in freshly observed insight and perspective.

Of course the capacity of mind to narrow itself in rigid self-defining ways can be seen in relation to anything where an assertive and coercive identification is running as a presumption of knowing.

Though science does not presume to truly KNOW what anything really IS, its models and working hypothesis are adopted by a mentality that presumes it does!

The extent of manipulative interference of the scientific mind far exceeds anything that religious manipulation could have dreamed of. This may be an indicator of why the control mentality jumped ship to adopt a scientific mask in which to 'sell' and idea of rationality and free thinking as a deeper manipulative intent.

It is not difficult to see what one judges against - in one's own mind. One can also choose to see what we hold in common and share that instead. But a rigid narrow tyranny seeks to prevent these simplicities from being obvious to us all. Such is the nature of a mentality of judgement. It is always against - as if for. And operates the dictum. 'divide and rule'.

Religion might call this 'devil' or 'ego' and science might search out a virus that undermines the integrity of structural functionality and communication. It rests on the belief in a narrow rigid mind.

What truly is the nature of mind? It has NO materiality in itself whatsoever. No dimension and no limitation. All sense of limiting is the action of thoughts in mind being taken as if they were mind itself.

Porn, society, censorship and Angels

Cameron is getting tough on internet porn, so is a Fantasy Tsar now going to decide what's acceptable?

(An Independent article that I could not get this comment to insert into)


The once private aspects of our mind - of our collective mind - is becoming public.
Some of this are desires that are socially unacceptable or surrounded by taboo, inhibition and dare I say it - a relational consensual willingness.
Some are simply a wandering fascination in what is still 'taboo', out of bounds, hidden from sight, as if one were private in the act of looking.

The mind conditions itself by what you use it for. If you cultivate an appetite for fantasy 'satisfactions' in porn or shopping or any other realm of activity, then you cultivate a mode of private personal control that you get a 'hit' from and then a miss - or a trough in which to look again for the 'hit'. Not everyone has an obsessive addictive approach. Some can spread their addiction across many private satisfactions, like a gourmet, and keep also there actual relational life in some degree of balance. This is like having a compartment or many compartments for different aspects of your personality - but not losing cohesion among them so as to become dissociated in the sense of clinically insane.

What fantasy does by definition, is substitute for actuality. Escape into fantasy is an expression of a lack of joy in the currently framed moment of existence. The uncovering of a pattern of virtual self in its own made up story is a breadcrumb trail of reintegration - if reintegration, peace and joy is actually the accepted desire.
In ultimate sense true being is not damaged by anything because all the ideas by which such experience was had are ideas that are chosen and experienced. But the mind can seem to become victim to its own ideas and suffer as if compelled and victim to forces beyond its control. At this level, trust is the uncovering of an integrity of being that is both ground and guide. What you give out is what you get back - always, without exception. This is a current reality - of what you are currently putting out being the nature of what is reflected as experience. but the surface mentality that identifies a sense of personal control as survival and sanity is by default in denial of its so called 'unconsciousness'. So we are as ones "who know not what they do".
Beneath the surface, beneath the fear and guilt which taboos against looking within, is the be ing of love- apparently suffering the fantasy of our collective 'reality'. But within the loving nature of what we have mostly forgot, is the Angelic realm. One simply stops energizing the jamming chatter, to let a natural whole Communion/communication resume in an awareness that was momentarily distracted by grasping at some image or object or experience as if it could or need be possessed.

Noticing the darknet in our minds

The key to cleaning up the internet is tackling the darknets, not letting censorship in by the back door

Summary: The UK government's proposals for blocking search terms for illegal content aren't only badly thought through, they're dangerous.

Self-righteous presentations work to further hide what is really going on and represent at best a control of perception - with a dark and fearful 'unconscious' aspect that is active and pervasive as a kind of atmospheric 'evil' that can be used to differentiate a moral high ground.

It is all a reflection of our collective minds. The attempt to control minds always and necessarily seeds ingenious self-righteous reactions that then justify themselves over and against the imposition of coercive intent.

But the agreement to place limits on loveless behaviour is integral to any household that values integrity as a condition in which the power of choosing one's own experience of reality can have a true foundation rather than a deceptive, fearful, reactive and self-judging mentality.

While the attempt to use perceived evils as basis for moral self-righteousness prevails, any real process of communication and integration can hardly occur.

The structuring of the Net replicates much of our own mind.
Mind is a communication device that is also a communing medium. It is being used as a separating and controlling device upon its own virtual reality - and this is before the extension of such a mentality expresses itself in external technological extension.

We generally censor and stifle the uncovering of our true mind - because we each have such an investment in our persona layer of consciousness - which is the 'consumer face' of the command and control 'back end' that we all play in the dark - unless we essentially are mask-less in our communications.

The capacity to make false associations regarding specific forms and ascribe meanings to them that are not true and join with others in exploiting such forms with disregard to truth - is so universally active that it is invisible except in the most extreme disruptions to our sense of sanity.

It is wise to limit the capacity of the lawless - but needs to be in the context of growing an appreciation of the actual law of mind. What you give out is what you get back. Garbage in = garbage out.
A true moral integrity is inclusive - as indicated in the story of Jesus. It encompasses and yet resolves or heals all polarities in the awakening of the true desire. Until one owns one's choices, one cannot make a different choice - more aligned with one's true peace, well-being and joy in life. Hate, blame, fear and control are all the signs of a mind at war with itself - seeking to validate itself at the expense of another. This self gratification is a kind of darknet that runs unknown to our surface mentality - in our midst.
I write to witness to that this is so and not to seed fear. Fear is so legion in our society that we cannot see our own minds in action nor the use to which they are being put.

That which we appreciate - appreciates. And that we we resist - persists!

The technology of Consciousness

In identification with a conflicted mind, we seek solutions outside our self - as if the answer is something that makes the world fit our demand and support our dream. As with attacking the many headed Hydra we 'solve' problems which then rise up with seven more heads (in more complex disguises) - and become densely and unconsciously identified in reaction to 'denied self'. We seem to be becoming more powerful discoverers of the world but are drawn out into extending or dislocating our identity and power into things apparently outside our self. When each apparent new world, ideology, or solution turns out to re-enact the same conflict that we were seeking to escape, we find an intolerable sense of ourselves, our world in which we either invoke ingenuity to 'escape' or overcome - or arrive at the beginning with willingness to look with new eyes.

Technology is an extension of the mind in its intent to shape and change its world - and this begins with conceptual thinking - our technology provides mappings, definitions and languages which we take as the world Itself rather than a conditioned adaptation of apparently competing/conflicting programs or purposes and interpreted results. But it is a virtual interface over an unconsciousness that is wilfully set.
With the Internet of all things we are outsourcing our native intelligence at it lower levels to a series of programmed purposes. But we have not escaped the fundamental dilemma of a conflicted consciousness in which the wish to control alternates and seems to compete with the desire to trust. In the first is an experience of a world of action and reaction that is perfect justification for the assertion and imposition of control - for it is fearful and apparently unworthy of trust - for it reflects a fundamental dishonesty of our own denied mind. It reflects a willing lovelessness of intent. The latter also brings an experience that justifies its extension. It serves the undoing of fearful projection and the release of loveless intent. In trying to have both, the mind hangs or crashes - because they are mutually irreconcilable.
If even a glimpse of such intuition is present, one can look at the world and see our reflection in ways that serve to illuminate and undo the obstructions to an honest perspective.
To choose one is to let the other go. But fear can never be a whole choice because it is not the self-creator it pretends to be, but is wholly dependant on that which it seems to exist by reaction against.
But trust allows the true nature of Mind to extend as what could be called the Original Internet of All Things. That what we seek to replicate - in order to control - already exists in the relinquishment of control, does not register with the 'orphaned' consciousness as meaningful or in any way desirable, but only as threat to its continued employment/existence - which it suggests is yours.
All systems disintegrate if they are not expressing integrity. The presentation of integrity as a means for control is not an open honest communication and will not draw forth an honest open response.
The time is ripe to see what we hold in our mind - for its creates the experience of the world as we see it, and the world is in a process of fundamental change. Our consciousness is in transformational transition.
From a Mental view of the Universe, you will have what you perceive while you want it to be true for you, but the conscious experience of pervasive fear is intolerable to all except the warmonger and the determined ostrich. For these two are part and parcel of each other.
To raise consciousness is not to become reactive but to identify and release reactivity. This allows what is running beneath it to surface; as wisdom, discernment, intuition, insight, and appreciation. These are not resources to plunder in designing yet another layer of self-illusion - but are our Natural Inheritance as Expressions of Existence.
Our world can serve the purpose we hold in our heart if we stay true to our purpose, and this purpose is already inherent beneath the masks and strategies of fearful attempt to protect and control. We don't have to make it or prop it up or convince our self or others. We just have to embrace it wholly in our Now of Consciousness. It doesn't matter that the habit of fear recurs when the foundation is set. Just to relax allows a reconnection.
Responsibility is not about blame - but about living choices. false choices keep us locked in limitation while true choice is a creative unfoldment.

The shorter comment would have been: What if the problem is the answer unrecognized?

Who or what really runs Wikipedia?

 On 'The Economist Explains' was the question and answer offered as to who really runs Wikipedia'. In passing I commented:

Though there MAY be personal executive decisions made, transparently or otherwise, and consciously or otherwise, the fact that comes to (my) mind is that the cultural presumptions of the 'age' are what set the values and goals within which and to which all else conforms.

Of course these are not set in stone and there is always a multiplicity of values and therefore purposes.

The ability to create a personal lens through which reality itself is apprehended, with its own set of meanings overlaid on and contra to the Meaning that Reality Is, constitutes a foundation of the human consciousness - not unlike the inheritance (from a yet living father) of the Prodigal Son.

It seems to me that where a loveless and private self serving intent is DENIED the right to impose itself upon the mind at large, the 'picture is brought into a truer focus with less distortion or filtering.

Yet where a voice is denied hearing, it is reinforced in its own sense of being denied expression. Like the fairy not invited to the party, it will, sooner or later spoil the party.
Finding ways to include expressions without propagandising for or against them is the way of relinquishing the investment in the personal sense and opening to a shared sense of value.
This is not available to the mentality that wants to be right in contradistinction to the wrong of another; who NEEDS the 'enemy' in order to vindicate their own personal identity-assertions.

Controlling reality is of course a joke. Yet controlling the interpretation and access to reality is taken as a very very serious matter - within our own mind and within the larger cultural aggregations of personal interests of such mentality.

Whatever else we my seem to be doing, we are learning about our own mind - or indeed have so 'personalized' or rationalized the issues that we are simply blindly reactive within our own mind-set. (The set in which we have temporarily identified ourselves as validated).

The reactive mind is an aspect of our thinking which tends to usurp a true perspective, though it does promote an ever evolving multiplicity of a defence/offence mechanism. Being willing to not use this mentality allows all sides or voices in any issue to be included at their essence - if not in the forms of its current expression.

That information can be used as a weapon of coercion and control is true - but that truth can be itself illuminated.

The ownership and survival of that which inspires and embodies the communication, is usually what compromises its integrity, because any threat to its existence is felt to be justifiably blocked or opposed - and here will be the area where truth is made the first casualty to the 'managed' war of what then comes after.

Although Jesus (mythically or otherwise), provided a cultural basis for the age in terms of challenging the power of the mind-in-fear, he would not have been able to contribute to Wikipedia excepting on already agreed definitions. He spoke out of an authority that is not citable or referencing to external 'authorities'- but from a directness of observation that can be verified by any who hear in a willingness to observe likewise.
However, that doesn't mean he wouldn't be able to point to it for background reference.
The process of discernment is different from scepticism in that it pauses from reaction whilst listening within the heart - absent of its own (reactive) thinking. Whereas scepticism does not yield in trust to being itself but defends the point of view that IT has accepted as it own - as a result of thinking - which of course includes some measure of discernment - but only where it is felt less threatening to its own existence.

Misinformation or even unrelated or inappropriate information, is like noise that blocks the signal. Consciously aligned purpose is the nature of the sharing of the signal. It is life-affirming to withdraw support from that which undermines integrity of the unifying purpose itself.

Communication itself is more than information, for its flow or sharing expresses and embodies a willingness to share. This itself is a higher purpose and has its own communication - or rather communion or connection and sharing in a level of Meaning that cannot itself be rationalised into bits of information. (without simply being substituted for by 'bits of information').

On not being a brain (further commentary on consciousness and identity re the TED book; the Virtual Shadow)

It's sort of cute to read "the brain just needs to be present'.
The substitution of "scientifically correct" terms for the process of life - that is not only present - but Presence is an example of being more concerned with one's presented commentary on life than living it - or should I say - "being Lived' - because it is not by our own power that we live or think or have awareness of existence - and nor, are we a brain or an effect of a meat brain.
If you mess with my computer, I may not be able to type and communicate with you via these means - but my Mac is not the intelligence behind the message.

The focus on forms is the defocus from the relational field of which the awareness of the form is but part of the event.
This - further down the river of its process - becomes a consciousness that has to think or maintain a self referencing activity or it fears it will not exist - or will be confronted with non-existence. This compulsive activity is mental illness and not normal healthy running - even if such a loop is accepted to be the norm and therefore considered to be our nature.
Substitutes for life are the result of searching for a completeness that is believed lost by the act of identifying exclusively with forms and forgetting the relational being in which all experience is expressing.
Therefore people who meditate or enjoy silence or indeed one pointed appreciation and singleness of purpose, are much less inclined to 'scatter' themselves in distraction, or give themselves to what does not actually fulfil.

Virtual identities and dislocated consciousness

I feel that digital 'virtual reality' is an extension of a process of self commentary and self presentation that is ALREADY running as a virtual overlay in our minds.
Thus, one can look at the blatant and easy to see aspects of digital dislocation (if one is not consumed and identified within it), and pause to see this replicates the way our mind is already tending to work.

Identifying with illusions is a bit like 'dressing up' or constructing a self-identity as a better 'mask' or handle on the world.

Clearly this can be fun, entertaining or thrilling - but can become a substitute for what life actually is, when we take our identifications and our investment in them as more real than the fundamental experience of being and feeling aware of existence.

So yes there is a 'new territory' in which to engage in surrogate experience that our daily or working life may not otherwise afford. There is also the 'flock' mentality of becoming caught in the opinions and impressions of a mentality that is essentially conditioned and reactive.

To be able to use technology of the mind - or the digitally extended mind - without becoming lost in it or possessed by the urge to possess what is not even real - is to be truly grounded and connected in one's Self, in Life - in real relationship.

The lack of real relational honesty leaves one open to every kind of nonsense. But if this then undermines the joy and fulfilment of life it will create the conditions for re-evaluating one's orientation and foundation. BUT on the way, every kind of defence will be called upon to try to make a false foundation work. One of these is distraction from an honest appreciation or accounting - and being able to 'escape' into surrogate realities is the 'name of the game'.

But as they say - 'wherever you go, there you are'. Regardless of apparent conditions and presentations of self, reality is not affected by the mask - and yet our awareness of it IS.

Consciously on purpose life is fulfilling where it holds us in a present appreciation rather than chasing a promise or running away from a fearful or meaninglessness.

Mind - or Consciousness is so fundamental to everything we experience, that I feel to suggest exploring it as a participant - or living scientist, who is the curiosity AND the experiment. Nothing is so blinding as the mind that thinks it knows - though the most complex and convincing programs of experience and thought may arise as a result.

Garbage in - garbage out. One cannot 'save' others from their own learning experience. But nor do we have to withhold communication from a willingness to listen and learn.

Ideas worth 'spreading'

I just noticed the TED branding and felt to also note that Mind shares or extends what it accepts, and thus gives as it receives. What you accept into you mind is validated in you by sharing it.
There is a deep level of this that cant easily be talked of - but all our actions and words are expressing or extending the ideas that we have accepted as our self and indeed our reality - and so we teach what we are... to ourselves - and each other. But what we learn is not forced upon us for we are free to accept what is in our minds, as it is - or as it is presented.
That is to say a conditioning can be observed and disregarded such as to accept a fresh appreciation of reality - and live out from there.
The undiscerning acceptance into our minds of thoughts and intentions and stories that undermine our integrity and our peace - perhaps for some short moment of personal thrill or satisfaction, or to maintain an imaginary facade we wish was true - leads to the undermining of true communication and culture.

Ideas worth sharing are not only the articulation of thinking that inspires or awakens a sense of life's value in wonder and appreciation - but the ideas that we live out from as our current sense of value.

The seeking of control over communication is part of the mentality of the wish to be special. We all can readily observe this in our own consciousness. Yet the valuing of the conditions in which true communication can occur is the willingness to enter into communication open-minded, listening attentive and in an extension of trust and shared value.

The egoic mind is reactive and obfuscates such as to disconnect or introduce distraction or noise - yet a persistence in listening will uncover our own resonances to such and enable us to move free of them in ourself - and thus be more aware and discerning and less easily baited or provoked.

Ideas worthy of sharing are those that share value rather than seek to own or control it; giving as we would ourselves receive.

Texting as a “miraculous thing”?

A TED Talk on the miracle of texting

Comment 1
Well one can study anything that people do and find all the qualities of life in it - but are they there abundantly and in clear shared appreciation?

I meet LOL mostly in those who want to affect a mask of fun while actually being mean or perhaps just just no fun at all. But I don't use text except occasionally for a specific purpose. (So perhaps not qualified to speak on its usage there).

But perhaps the most important aspect of a communication is not the form it takes, but the consciousness of intent that is its context, both in the sender and in the receiver.

Communication is intimacy and words were invented to limit and block intimacy so as to de-localize or dissociate into one's private domain. Since Eden, there's been no going back, and the process of alienating ourselves from our actual living contextual being proceeds to an almost machine-like isolation - in which management and communication of stuff between its distanced parts becomes the new meaning of life!

And avoiding relationship allows much more scope for fantasy existence in virtual identity.

Though everyone can do this without texting and online activity, it is true that these devices extend our capacity to dislocate ourselves from those we may be in the room with.

- - -
Comment 2 - went onto the actual video page:

Language is a way to block or limit intimacy - and then became necessary to convey information and negotiate trading of emotional, psychic and physical exchange.

Of course the mind that withholds itself from intimacy will structure itself to be integrated with itself, insofar as it can maintain itself amidst a field of intimate relation. One doesn't become something different than one is by withdrawing into one's own story and making culture of it together, but the priority of the identification in story will effectively discard, distort or deny the Whole Cloth from which it cherry picks to serve its own interpretation.

The miracle is communication - AT ALL.
It fundamentally witnesses to that minds are NOT actually separate - though the cultural imperative is to deny and limit this Intimacy for a modus of personal authority and control - as if actually a self-separate entity. And so the experience will seem to reflect the validation of private thoughts - albeit within culturally shared beliefs or presumptions. And experience seems to be proof or self-evident and so we each act as if we 'know' - when what we know is our personal experience as a 'take' on something that we may not really be intimately or directly connecting with at all.
The fact that almost everyone goes through life like this and doesn't actually connect with themselves, each other or their world very much, is a kind of sleepwalking or collective mesmerism in which we are seduced by our own thinking and yet it tells us we are free agents, along with a whole load of other stuff.
Yet freedom is not free from intimacy - but is freedom to be intimate - to feel and know viscerally the energies and qualities of life as the full range and nuance of what Communication actually is.
Reality may be posited as a state of perfect communication in which nothing is withheld or rejected. And human consciousness tends to identify as a withholding of embrace or attention from that in itself that it rejects . CUL8r!
- - -
question:
"And human consciousness tends to identify as a withholding of embrace or attention from that in itself that it rejects."   Say what?
- - -
reply:
The inwardness of thinking is a large part of a current split sense of human consciousness, and has symbolic and conceptual structure of thought and language with which to both define and identify its self and its 'not self'.
So the best answer to your question is what arises to your own experience when you ask innocently of yourself in simple curiosity and desire to know.
The activity of the mind is very fast and runs a bit like background processes on a computer, to serve up something of a user interface that one simply uses as if it were real in and of itself.
Clearly,something is going on - but do we look at the apparatus of our mind as part of pur perception and observe both what is within at the same times as apparently looking out? Occasionally in moments of insight - but the default directive tends to be to relate to the world as Reality and one's thought, intent and belief as something not to observe so much as to have freedom to play in or control.

Another way of approaching this is to look at the mind and see that in normal terms, everyone - or as near as makes little difference, has active defence mechanisms at work - which run out from previous interpreted experience and indeed fit exactly the model of Darwinian thought, because they dump the past (interpreted experience) onto the present - so as not to actually connect in presence - but to re-enact the past, albeit in endlessly modified and evolving forms.
Yet you ARE present - at least there IS something here where there is awareness, that is present - only the acts of definition and identification are making exclusive assertion as a basis upon which to judge and effect control over one's own experience. And this inherently rejects aspects of what is intimate to its being in favour of a sense of becoming something in its own right. Yet without the actuality of awareness - there is no being to either reject or to exploit.
In truth we are not in control of life, yet are almost hardwired to seek it.Why?
- - -

Question:
: I believe Nietzsche called it "the Will to Power".

Sorry for the short answer to your long (and enjoyable) post. Some answers to your question might be hidden in the works of Freud, Heidegger, Deleuze and Metzinger.

- - -
Reply:
The question was an invitation to listen (in the remaining 4 character limit available ;-)

When we ask a question, if we ask it with the mind of the mind, we get or embellish what we already 'know', but if the question is of the movement of our being (also called the heart), we listen there for an answer without the noise of our thinking, and sometimes something comes immediately or sometimes the sense is that a real question HAS been asked and to wait on an answer in trust is the presage of more to come. A process of transformation occurs a step at a time.

The disconnection from presence is also the disconnection from an innate sense of guidance or innate intelligence that 'knows how to be appropriate' in any given situation. And so there is the substitution for and the overriding of the natural flow of the parts towards a healing or reintegrative wholeness, by a manually applied wilful intent to control.
Indeed the 'will to power' - yet this is embodied and enacted in every judgemental thought.
The wilful determination to assert a separate mind wielding power in its own right is fundamental to the dream by which the true nature of love is rendered un-recognizable and unwanted in favour of a self and world at war with itself. It is structured to prevent exposure - but there is nothing to prevent noticing its operation but that innate curiosity has become lost to self-certainties, backed by emotional or personal fears of invalidity.
The diversion into psychology or philosophy tends to be subverted by the mentality that seeks to control rather than be itself transformed. As if Life doesn't exist until we 'discover' it and articulate it into a language of separation - and control. When really it is our consciousness that is changing as new information insinuates itself into our awareness. Human consciousness is a conditioned and conditioning set of filters and distortions, upon a Consciousness that is unwithheld or unlimited. Our personal sense is a construct for...