What's in it for "me"?

"What's in it for me?" is the disruptor of honesty. Its coercive assertion re-frames all meaning within the terms of a private separate competitive interest - essentially at war with all other presumed to be 'private agendas'. Real communication is impossible in such a framework - but the form of communication is utilized as a mask both in dealings with others - and as a validating reflector of 'self-will'.

Those who seek to be honest WITHIN the phishing attack of a thought-based identity are those who are willing to break their mask in order to align with power as it seems to operate within the mask. Such are those whose behaviour reveals the corrupting influence of power - writ large. But they are manifesting the original thrust of such a script in raw terms - which as it is unmasked, becomes a reflection from which others (and themselves) may awaken.

There are two ways of looking at things and two ways of hearing. One is from the perspective of "me", apart from them, with an interest in the "me". The other is from the perspective of whole, a body of one which is a totality of Self. In this, there is no "me".

The script seems to thus have two faces. One serves guilt, fear and coercion. The other serves healing and reintegration.

It is all a matter of choice. The nature of a coercive deception is a trick in which a real choice is hidden by a counterfeit suggestion which frames issues in terms that suggest a special personal power or gain - or indeed in terms of threat and loss to such a special personal sense.

Coming back to choice. We invest our energy of attention and intent non-stop - but what are the choices we are habitually making as a sort of subconscious default? For these ARE determining the meanings and values by which we perceive.

Giving love (what else is your energy and attention but the love that you are?) to that which does not know you, see you or communicate with you, is to take on board a composite of self definitions that adulterate and undermine and deny your nature as love - replacing it with a masked mind of guilt and fear and a sense of aggrieved self-specialness - aka rage.

Material accounting is a dalek's eye view of even the manifest Universe. Discernment of 'spirits' is of PURPOSE. A true purpose is not manipulative or coercive on Life, others or self. But to the masked mentality EVERYTHING is perceived as coercive upon it - because it does not look within to see that it is merely getting back the echo of its own shouting into a cave. Instead it looks to the mask that justifies itself to itself - and if that fails, to the mask of such hatred upon self. life and other as to be intolerable. (Hence the call for the mask).

One way or another (as you will) the masks are being exposed - laid bare as devices and stratagems of defence and diversionary distraction.

How one looks upon anything is a choice - but self-judgement is a choice to deny choice because it is too fearful - hence a control mentality imposes or interjects itself into the flowing flowering being that you are - and makes shadows of the Light.

To suffer mental and emotional conflict without investment in the appearances is to let it rise up and fade. To rest the mentality of self-will in an honest willingness of communication allows Life's Presence to rise as your native awareness - free of coercion - and that is one of the signature vibrations of your truth. Within this LIVING context, self-will or the personal sense has become an instrument of a greater communication and participance - for it is not 'going it alone' on a covert operation as if to 'become' something special in its own right for others to worship, adulate or applaud.

Everyone operates the Script - but those who lack awareness of their innate and integral worth and power will seek it and thus prove they do not have it - no matter how powerful they seem to become in their zenith.

The ideas of a 'hidden hand' are symbols of the two ways of looking. I also call them the wheat and the tares.

When the harvest is called in, all that is without true foundation is in a sense 'nothing-ed'.

A book I have enjoyed summarized itself thus:

"Nothing real is threatened. Nothing unreal exists. Herein lies the Peace of God".

Identifying with the imagined and the expected and the personified opinion, seeks and applies endless answers to endless convolving and mutating problems - but the actual problem is closer than the world and is a breakdown in communication that operates through a lens darkly.

While one is tuned to 'radio self-wilful struggle' one cannot receive 'Radio wholeness'. Therefore challenge everything that upsets or provokes conflict and discern directly as to whether it is a 'phishing attack' or truly is addressed to You.

Symbols are part of the way that Consciousness communicates within the dream of an unsinkable separateness. But as we all know, symbols can be associated with meanings as things in themselves. That their is a voice for deception in our mind need no longer be pretended away so as to operate unchecked beneath our mask of rationality.

Where we turn for our source will dictate where we invest - and the fruits thereof.


This writing stands alone but was offered to a comment on this page:

http://www.thedailybell.com/news-analysis/35456/Is-the-Level-of-Economic-Illiteracy-Among-the-Wests-Top-Thinkers-Deliberate/

The virtue of self interest?

A few article/comments into this article/page at the Daily Bell: The Virtue of self interest:

*1

If the ONLY motivation in all circumstances without exception is towards pleasure and away from pain - as we define the situation in relation to us, then we set up our own curriculum by what we accept and therefore share, teach or demonstrate.
When we seem to choose against our will or happiness it is because we have belief in greater loss by choosing other than as we do.
The sense of disconnection that comes with a negatively defined self leads to the urge to dominate and possess. The fear of the negative leads to the attempt to coerce and moralize.
Whatever Reality is - we only experience it through the filters and distortions of our beliefs and definitions, but the reality of our joy is of a recognition that transcends experience to the sense of knowing or being that cannot be in any way divided. This is the Singularity of the Indivisible and the true root of individuation.
Consciousness responsibility is inescapable because one can believe and experience accordingly - but never actually become something other than Consciousness. While any structure of self-construct holds meaning or value, it persists. What is without value or meaning is inherently disregarded.
Part of the implication of the above is that humans tend to use 100% of their Consciousness to experience themselves limited to perhaps to a few % or their capacity.
By far the most of Consciousness is unconscious to our 'waking mind' in a not dissimilar way to the front end of this computing medium being only an interactive experience on top of a complex multi-leveled structure of software code and hardware configuration.
The scientifically oriented mentality seeks to perceive and understand Life in material terms with material or external reality being primary and consciousness being somehow within this (presumed to be) singular Universe of energy stuff. It sees transactions in place of real relationships. This reduction of Consciousness to linear forms and processes in time is the result of disconnection from Source Consciousness - awareness of which has been effectively neutered or disregarded so as to maintain a specific focus in the personality structure.
Religious approaches have tended to believe separation from Source as being inherent or absolute - and sought to maintain the segregated self sense upon the sin, guilt and fear of the 'separation' of 'fall'.
As Physics expands, it will be seen that the God Idea is not external as a separate agency from All That Is - nor a special personage or power within it acting coercively upon 'stuff'. Everything is recognisable in Consciousness, but the freedom to experience it in terms of tangible light, energy, physicality extends the structure in which to experience itself through a personality complex - with all the facets of experience that that opens.
The fundamental Spiritual Recognition is of our oneness with Life, with others who share and are of the same Life, and with the world that reflects our unique multifaceted interplay in perception, action and experience.
The two commandments quoted by Jesus speak of an Already Truth that our consciousness covers over. As we do unto others, we DO unto our Self. What we give DOES set the measure of our receiving. Our experience does reflect this as faithful feedback but we are not receptive while engaging victimiser and victim-hood roles.
Without a guiltless - (read truly scientific desire for truth) - appreciation of consciousness, the game of guilt and fear and dissociation persists - no matter what kind of package or scheme it is presented in.
So yes to self-interest but YES to a true understanding and realisation of Self - for to take anything out of its living context is in a sense to kill it and engage in fantasy associations with the dead.
The Golden Rule presupposes loving yourself. If you actually believe you are worthless you will treat others in like manner - again regardless of the masks or presentations used. A self that hates or fears itself is not a true self and not a basis for the ideas of social, economic or political and personal harmony.
Be true to thyself and it follows as sure as night follows day, thou canst be false to no man. But if one invokes ingenuity, one can act in order to get or take by deceit, and use all one gets to bolster and develop one's 'power'. It's a choice.

PS: Sympathy can mean one of the most destructive devices in our capacity, or (the term) can be used for a true resonant recognition of the 'other' as one's self - for which 'compassion' is better suited. To confirm another in their weakness or error, undermines their own innate capacities and masquerades a 'loving kindness' when it is a mask for those qualities or facets in the other that we cannot tolerate in our self. To be powerless or helpless is considered invalidating, yet it is an apparent humiliation that through willingness, honesty and trust, becomes a truly humbling receptivity - and capacity for compassion.
No one feels another's pain or pleasure. These usage shortcuts came to usurp an intimacy each unto our Self. (Used to be called 'our God' and for some still is and might still carry that core meaning). The joining is a core aspect of what power is - but to join in hate or weakness is to strengthen that which undermines our true Spirit - and of course seduces us into giving away our true power for 'external' validations and protections'.
Trying to marry our experience with the truth of our being, intellectually, is impossible, but we can come to a clearer knowing of our being, which then fruits in a less coercively filtered and distorted experience of ourselves in our relations in our world. Its always a choice as to whether to fit Life into our mentality, or cooperate and fit in our relation with Life - with that which is aware through you, sustaining and giving existence. Life is what we make of it. But we do not make Life, because it is infinitely more Intimate than any self-construct in its particular focus - though not absent - or you would not be.

*2

Because we separate from Spirit - from intimate living presence - in order to think alone, we then separate all things from it and make it seem as if a goal at the top of the Pyramid. The filter of our thinking is not much appreciated because we generally are engaging it and suffering its reflections as our reflection. Every belief generates a corresponding reinforcement. The belief and the believer are of course two facets of one thing - neither being you, nor separate for each other. These tools for experience can get the better of us if we use them unwisely.
Our true social expressions arise from our connect-ness within ourselves - hence the divide and rule maxim, for once you can divide someone from their own consciousness, you can substitute or interject coercive will. This deceit is endemic because it is the foundation of a false sense of self that has as much real wealth as the financial shenanigans that are traded in today. It is a lure or illusion whose only power is in its acceptance as valid currency.
So as has been observed - though without much transformation as a result perhaps, is that social transaction is generally a substitute for real relationship; a receptivity of consciousness in some direct communication or interaction. The masculine without the receptive merely projects a show of force or farce, and yet has a protective sense of surviving as if it alone is holding the fort.
The observation of consciousness in action is itself an act or movement of focus and awareness within Consciousness itself - and the primary basis for truth in such observation is trust and self honesty.
It is well known that living with such integrity can cost one's job, and perhaps one's social relations - simply because one's current society is embodying a different sense of value. But sometimes existing relations open to the new level - and in time, new connections and relations occur that are in resonance with the uncovered 'you' in a true self-value.
When we can be ourselves - truly ourselves, with another, we feel loved and naturally loving. It doesn't oblige the other to 'supply' nor obligate us to them - excepting gratitude for sharing the gift of simply being alive - in whatever movements of interest, need and desire move us.
What does it profit to gain the world and lose our Soul? In this sense, economics reveals the truth - but who in their attempt to grasp the ephemeral pauses long enough to notice the hollow emptiness or restless dissonance that drives us to persistent distraction - for when is now to be the true expression that we are?
It only seems a spark to the mentality that redefined darkness as the conditions in which to see. The all pervading light of Consciousness is too close to see - except in reflection. But the veil of disconnected thinking runs a different economical model: divide and rule.
Coercive intent is the unmistakeable sign of a fearful non-acceptance of current reality. Reacting in like kind confirms its shadow perceptions to it. There is a 'social' dimension in refusing to pass the buck of one's discontent onto others, and instead being willing to work to the integration of the situation - as willingness allows.
If we try to force the good it no longer is good and we are operating the disconnected coercive will. But we can hold and demonstrate a true willingness for honesty in our relations - so as not to join in hate or false witness, nor to seek to use others for our own private agendas.
God is in a sense quite indifferent to what you choose to magnify. If you hate, abundant hate is given you. But of course we are both teacher and learner to ourselves - although the guidance that is implicit in our connectedness is absent and unbelievable to the disconnected sense, and so is often an idea in a special Other that saves us - simply because our self-definitions are ruling our experience.
If anything in what I write has any significance to anyone, it is because they recognize something of themselves. This is your Intimacy that I would serve simply because the nature of joy is to shine. There is not a special 'knower' in my person - quite the reverse!
But consider... if we have it upside down and back to front, the reintegration of our consciousness is going to have to accept some radical shifts. As willingness allows. But the persistence in what does not work and is no longer supported generates increasing intolerable conditions, and so the unthinkable has to become thinkable and bargaining for self has to make way for a deep and urgent need for self honesty and the sanity and peace that only comes with it.

*3

In the work of Adam Curtis's documentary "All watched over by machines of love and grace', are some ironic references to Ayn Rand's 'rational decision' to take one of her already married inner circle as a lover, and of that one's rational decision to dilute or adulterate his marriage, and that one's wife to rationally justify altruism.
So I don't use rational as a basis for living - but simply integral - integrity - which is a congruency of being that includes rational or logic. Words and concepts can become gods - and then one rationalizes or logically extends such assertions.
The attempt to rationalize human experience is trying to put Humpty Dumpty together again. What I mean is that there is always already a pre existing harmony or law at work that seems to work against us in our split off mentality. And so we attempt to make it work for us from a split off compartment that is not really split off at all - but we each have extremely compelling experience of being isolated, threatened and in need of protection and control - that we are then biased to seek alone due to the withdrawal and defensive separation from each other - and from the greater dimensions of our conscious existence.
The capacity of humans to assert concept over relationship, is that if growing and creating a model of the self and its world that substitutes for living participance. It seduces as if a frontier of discovery, possession and control for the explorer and it runs on top of Life like a mass hallucination.
The harmony reveals itself in that the very things that 'go wrong' or are dissonant to us - offer custom feedback to the resonance and relevance of our own conscious unfoldment of our being - which is integrally joyful when not invalidating itself. But we don't want to listen - for the most part, but would rather assert our power - perhaps through victim-hood, or in some reaction to something we are sure is 'wrong' so that we feel more alright.
I'm not suggesting humans are wrong in a blameworthy sense but that we have the map the wrong way round - as if to confirm and validate a manual control over life - when it can be used to open the conscious embrace and relationship in which alignment occurs without coercive force. There is every call to use force as an expression of truly caring. retraint and limitation are appropriate results for self harming or violence against others.
But note the personal element of revenge, hatred and self-righteousness are not called on when standing in and expressing from one's integrity. Forms of idea, form of action, can be ascribed meanings by othersto suit their own agenda, but each of us is the living context of our idea and act, and so the way we do it - is embodied energetically in what we do. Not because we 'say so' like the manipulator who tells you how to feel, but because we are essentially unselfconscious about what others - or ourself - thinks about us - because we are wholly embracing and extending our integrity such as unfolds. One can only work with the material in hand.
Of course we evolve complex cooperative strategies of 'getting what we want' and avoiding what we hate, but I feel that these tend to extend the idea of separateness rather than integral-ness.
As you can tell (and no doubt already knew) I can run on and on about this. I trust you can feel, (in what we call between the lines), that I am entering this in a willingness for communication and not to use the energy and sharing of your article to make cheap points - though that very dynamic - of using the creativity of others - or Life Itself - to raise a facade of a self and then assert it as if to then become real, valid, respected and loved as a specialness of some achievement or ascendency over others, is also a theme within the human consciousness that is played over and over in as many ways as can be imagined. But is it simply a simple but 'prodigal' error?

*4
Moral coercion is one aspect of 'self-interest' when self interest embodies or expresses self-concept. Who does not find themselves trying to 'guilt' another into either doing or not doing something that seems to be one's interest. The term 'self' can mean any of a range of identifications - so we can see that we 'make a self' by accepting and rejecting aspects of our thought and experience. But the consciousness in which (and as which) this occurs, pre-exists any rational or irrational act. So we are not identical to our self image or concept and yet tend to act from the distorted and biased perception, that such image filters - somewhat like a lens.

I am with you that self interest is the only game in town, but feel to add that we are entirely and demonstrably capable of doing what we don't want as if we do - or indeed doing what we want and then suffering our own assertion that it is forced upon us - because made me do it!

Turning a blind eye enables fantasies to be lived out as real, but brought into the light of an honesty of awareness, they dissolve to reveal a self-definition that was chosen - and can thus be re-chosen or choose differently.
Then if I own what is and always was my own part, I can redefine the situation from a clearer and more conscious appreciation of what really resonates with me - with the truth of what enlivens and moves me in life.
"Follow your bliss" said Joe Campbell - but this is a stirring within that may or may not conform to concepts of society or even one's own conceptual capacity to define.
I feel that self interest is the capacity to live from a sense of value, whereas conceptual approaches tend to put fulfilment in some future moment - which brings in the carrot and the stick - coercive mentality.

I did manage to keep this one shorter. I obviously an using concepts here - but always toward the recognition of the conceptual as a tool rather than as a box in which to be buried.
 
*5 (reply to the phrase "No one hates his own flesh"). 

It's all a matter of definition. My next door neighbour but one has just experienced her only son's suicide.
Self hatred in one form or another is a perversion of self love. That is to say a love given to that which usurps and denies the loving.

The 'flesh' has in many ways been defined negatively and hated - and a source of inadequacy, shame or ungovernable will.
So what exactly might your phrase mean? There are innumerable examples of infanticide or fratricide - not to mention irritation! I feel that all hatred begins with self and projects out - for what we hate in others we cannot abide in our self - so we are obliged to put it out there until we change our mind about our mind.

No man ever hated his own reflection - excepting he wake from the dream he makes by looking there for himself.
One might SAY they hate it and act out the hate - but yet keep looking there.
The narcissus myth serves well for the love we have of our own thoughts,
which are like a first born son to us - and which we generally are loath
to release - even if they wound us so.

We join in making illusions of hate or judgement - and so it is no surprise that the undoing of such negative self definition uncovers a cooperative will. But it is not the result of the ingenuity of the desire for exercising power over. It's more like when I abandon my attempt to be who I am not, I start to meet and discover others for who they really are - in a living way that does not seek to bind another to my will as if thereby it would make me safer amidst the uncontrollability of a world in flux.

The I experience

I use the term 'I' or else cant say much! - but if pushed to show or uncover what the 'I' is - I have to tell you I cant find it! Nor define or measure it. It is a virtual self - that is - it is not really here at all despite serving as a context for a world-life experience.

So what is being known directly - exists as shifting thoughts of I or other thought-experience rising and falling to an otherwise formless and limitless quality of awareness.

Our perception-experience is a selective reflection. That it is actually a harmony of parts is a reflection of a unified process of being.

But an exclusive identification with the self concepts - or self-image  - makes a distortion experience of apparently independent yet conflicted separate thing-ness amidst a world of things.

And the release of this idea of separate self will allows recognizing the power that actually moves all things one. Absent of all coercion.

The experiential embrace of - and abiding in - presence... without interference, invites true foundation to restore true perspective.

Our words don't have to determine the truth of anything - but that communication occurs at all is witness to shared purpose.

This is the unified and unifying foundation of All That Is: shared purpose.

In attempting private agendas the identification with an apparently independent 'I', sets up a drama and that can be addictive at the level of its engagement. But without the definitions and roles that we mutually ascribe the simple presence of all that is - is a truly unifies awareness revealed to have always been all that is.

Trying to fit perspective of One into a mind in division (a mind in a body in a world) cannot and will never be possible, for such thinking is not itself discerning or feeling/intuiting existence.

My willingness to sketch the unspeakable is of the desire to share the glimpse and open curiosity from a mesmerised attention that thinks it knows and so neglects to look.

That which gave rise to all manifest being is not absent, but in our virtual orphanhood (thinking) we absent ourselves from a direct participance. The symptoms of a our human planet are a call to wake - not to react in fear - but to see fear with new eyes. To see the false foundations from which a parasitic intent usurped the extending and sharing of true relational being.

The fear of love makes the body dense. One's individuality is tangibly and visibly identified by body-mind - but this is abused as a hideout for self concept and dumping ground for guilt and anger.

Who does not know what love is to the body... enlightening, joyous, free and opening in gratitude. Only the blocks to awareness of love cover this over.

So a curiosity to notice allows re-evaluation of such blocks and a shift occurs.

Love is natural to true presence - not as a social or personal manipulation. Love is not a personal or social manipulation. The Now is a point of timelessness when releasing the 'story of me'.

There is always so much more to existence-being than thought or belief could imagine - hence recognizing the blocks or limits and letting more in, such as we are freely willing. There is no coercion in the unified existence.

Always by invitation to willingness. Never coercive upon us -but without persistence and consistency of focus, our vacillations cancel each other out and we prevaricate in a confusion of no real fulfilment at all.

The virtual 'I' is a sort of placeholder concept for the I Am of existence - and yet there IS no substitution for the I Am of existence. This IS our true life and our true world, and the surrogate experiences of a virtual reality in which we seek the 'more' but find the less - and the loss - is as if we had put reality on hold whilst playing very seriously in an imagination.

A wish has all the power that is given it, but the power of shared willingness allows what is already moving to rise to a true awareness in which all is appreciated as it is - free of a personal bias or wish it be different. Here is sanity. Here is peace - and all that can only be fully or truly known, appreciated, loved and shared.

Me, myself, us (comment of the Human Biome-Economist)

Science reveals the mechanism beneath the illusion of a 'self' - and therefore of the 'world' which is an internal-mapping of the self image or concept, externalised as experience. The world being that aspect of the Unified Field which is defined as not self - being seen as outside direct control.
This is not so different from a virtual 'reality' running on top of an awareness that is in some sense substituted for or usurped from Self-Awareness. The virtual mappings or mutually agreed definitions of self and not self, are a filter imposed on a Unified Field - not unlike a Higgs field. It is observable by its effects - and its effects ARE our experience.
Self-Realisation reveals and is open as the Perspective of Unified awareness. This is not a control mechanism or coercive intent upon Itself - or of any virtual aspect running within its Capacity to extend Itself through Idea. From such perspective the causative foundation of a polarised or dualistic experience is not hidden and nor is the mechanism of delivery of the experience of the thought.
But it is felt within a Wholeness of Being that is prior to the consciousness of self in time and space - and yet pervades it.
The initiating 'program' of the virtual self is to have experience of its own thought and to wish it be real. This conflicts with the Unified Field and the interference pattern itself is used as a foundation for a sense of reality or self "over and against". Such a 'self' is predicated on conflict and the overcoming of conflict in an impossible attempt to become autonomous and righteous of validated. Its 'survival' is a maximal emotional effort that is accorded the status of truth and isn't called into question. Its seemingly unified organisation is yet always undermined and eventually succumbs to a multitude of forces to which it seems victim, while its essential underpinning of giving priority to its own thoughts and meanings is kept hidden - except for the more superficial aspects of the mind. In general the power and nature of the mind as foundation is diminished and denied by means of distraction and disassociation.
The body becomes the focus as the home of the private thoughts which seem to be the core identity and the exploitation of the body and the world of bodies becomes the essential arena upon which attention is fixated. Insofar as a 'self' can add to itself the experiences and identifications of success as it defines and believes - so will it persist unquestioned, but in its persistence, are the conditions generated in which it conflicts, depletes, disintegrates and dies.
However, Self-Awareness is not Itself inherently nor ultimately defined by its objects and the attention given to a virtual existence is a partiality not unlike holding an imaginary scenario in mind whilst also aware of concrete and current experience.
Thus far, I have attempted to talk of me, myself, us in concept - but experientially, the Unified Self individuating through the Movement of the focus of attention and intention, is a communioned sense of being, a connected and guided intelligence that operates out of a sense of wholeness and presence rather than the 'divide and rule' of conceptual identity.
Writing this here is a desire to sketch something of a different perspective than that which presumes to observe reality as if separate from it - and in order to manipulate it or control it for its own self -justifying ends.
Testing ideas in my world is being quiet of my own thought enough to discern of feel the nature of the thought. Coercive and loveless thought has a definite feeling tone - as do the thoughts of wholeness, generosity, sharing.
The scientific explorations tend to deny and undermine what makes us human when we use a tool as a foundation. But to merely indulge the personal sense in its own mythologies - scientific or religious - is to remain trapped in surface identifications - which is disconnected and isolated from all but one's own thoughts. While the conditions seem to be supportive, this seems to actually BE connection and relationship - but we are not self creating and are not autonomous - but are wholly dependent on processes beyond the mechanism of control but not of trust and cooperative alignment.
Human vanity and arrogance is seemingly inexhaustible, but it is our own that we wake up to, sooner, or later, as a fundamental error!
Thank you for your attention.

My reply to the following comment follows:

Are you having a hard time accepting yourself as an animal among animals? Is it human nature to put on airs, assuming that our thoughts and thought processes are of such great importance in the scheme of things? Or do you feel unworthy of recognizing yourself as the god you have created in your mind?

I embrace the animal aspect of my being as a communion - whereas the reductionist mentality really means 'mechanism' when it says animal - because perhaps excepting the astonishing capacity of man to 'understand the Universe' (Sic) - it is all revealed as mechanism.

Man's arrogance and vanity is in presuming his thought (as the extension of his sense of self apart from all that lives) are the judge and determiner of anything - and indeed all things.

It isn't so much that humans do this but that this mentality is pervasive to almost all humans. As far as I see it, Darwin teaches One Life. Now within our own minds we may construct or accept all kinds of interpretations - and these not only colour our experience - they create it. One does not directly experience anything outside one's own mind.

So what is the basis for what we think, accept or identify with, or give value to? You might say 'survival'.
This seems an unarguable fact - except for those who have lost their mind - and that sort of unassailable righteousness is very attractive to a persona that is intent on prevailing over its own thoughts.

There is something weird about the human - but before one even begins to think about defined differences - note that Being is your human experience. If you can let your own thought be disregarded or become still of the push and pull of identification and attachment, you can directly experience something that is not defined or definable by your thought. Because there is nothing of you separated from it in any way to stand aside and make definition or interpret.
This has been pointed to with the word God - but that word has also been rendered meaningless to many because that which made man in its own image, also made a 'god' in its own image.
But man's imagining is no more than that whereas the capacity to imagine anything at all, rests on a quality or capacity or nature of awareness.
The limitation of a mind to a body is a way of keeping God out.
This might seem unbelievable but belief makes the experience of a separated consciousness which doesn't know it is one with all this it experiences - and yet is the space or beingness in which all that is - is as it is.
The limited personal sense is an expression of the Living Universe that thinks it thinks alone, is protected and defined by a body and lives in a mostly hostile body universe full of other bodies, all of which seem to have separate and conflicting interests.

I feel that to accept oneself as a servant 'in our Father's House' is to relinquish the mind that thinks it thinks apart from life, and reawaken a communioned sense of Being that had been covered over, by a persistent distractive Idea - not unlike the Higgs field - so all pervading that the existence of mass and density is its proof.

The Non Local or Universal Field of Being cannot be defined, nor can it be made into any kind of personal image, concept or possession or status. My person, your person is the mask, the presentation of image. But what you are - or perhaps better; what is Being All That is, right where you are, is the Source and Nature of Being - for without it, nothing is.
We have more than DNA in common.

I don't recognize your comments as relevant to anything but your defined reactions to what you think you are reading.

Are you the animal you claim to be? Or is that a definition you assert and determine true? What is this 'you' that thinks and believes and identifies. I hold you far greater than that mentality could ever know, because it cannot know anything other than its own thought. But you can observe your own thought from beyond the wish that makes it seem real - and so are not the mask - but are the maker of the mask.
Consciousness experiencing itself via form.
The mind that would control, is the mind that blinds itself to wholeness, and stumbles in the dark. Its right in our face - but we look unseeing, because we are enamoured of our own thought reflections.
The human may think it is a central character in a script, but its function is blocked when in a loop of self referencing thought. The Universal is looking through you, but it is your self concept that is the stranger to its Self, not the Universe.

Very little of modern science has invoked direct experience of its precepts. The consciousness is lagging in Newtonian physics in experiencing concept-things as if they were really independent things.

There is a shop nearby called 'Concept, curtains and blinds', it is a funny title because it shouts a great truth - but of course the blind cannot see it.

If anything I write gave rise to any sense of wonder or fresh curiosity, then that is a very blessed (harmonious) meeting place, in any degree, with anyone.

Thank you for your attention