The 3 R's and the Third Eye Blues in "time"

S

seekingObjectivity

Guest
Kenlee said:
I think what we are witnessing in some of your long posts is one part of you is talking to another part and each part is basically talking to itself with no desire to 'seek objectivity' apart from it's own self affirmation.
But isn't that the problem of the many I's? Each wants to feel self-important, and as I stated before, I seem to be able to perceive the many I's coming and going so it makes sense that it appears to be exactly that. If it were any other way then I would not be able to progress in the Work (if not perceived) or be progressing in the Work, correct or no?

Also, aren't we really a network of I's talking to one another and that really at a higher level we are part of one and the same 6D STO? And that maybe by the expression of my internal dialogue is similar or the same as the dialogue that takes place between the various I's of this network?

[Edit: about the one part talking to another part: I agree that one part of me is talking to another part of me, but I see Anart = Me, therefore, I must ascertain his meaning without assumption because otherwise I would be contradicting the Totality of Me of You (YOU = ME = Anart = Kenlee = jOda = [Insert seeker's name here], We are ALL. There is no outside. There is only within. This within is the Totality of ALL, the separation is an illusion)

So I talk/ask the other YOU's as Me's because YOU = ME. I consider all points of myself = yourself such that there is not contradiction. If I contradict myself = yourself, then I introduce division and, thus, there is no union. So in order to not have contradiction I need to know your (my) many selves internal thought processes. I need to ascertain YOUR internal dialogue that you have with yourselves so that I may (you may) or you may (I may) progress to an awareness without contradiction, that is, without assumption. If possible, there will not be division among us and we will become closer to the ONE.]

Also, I'd like to add that I perceive that one purpose of the work is to match the inside to the outside or the outside to the inside. I know exactly what I mean so I make posts to see if I can convey it exactly outside. However, the outside has many I's that do not agree with each other nor do they agree with me. This only increases my difficulty to express what it is I mean. In the span of approx. 2 months in trying to do so the many other I's have yet to understand what I am meaning to express to them. In fact, one of my many other I's now desires that I leave this forum. It seems somewhere within this I has developed a distrust of me and might possibly believe that I have an agenda of which I cannot perceive as of now (and that may possibly be the case because I don't know what I don't know). Having such a perspective to my many other I's must really appear, and I do not disagree, that I must feel self-important. However, this is not the case. I feel equal to everyone. I do not really perceive YOU ALL as MY many I's. I only said so to suggest an analogy as to what might be going on beyond your own perception as I can perceive my own "internal conversation" and I'm not sure if YOU ALL perceive your own internal conversation going on "behind the closed doors" of your perception. If you do then it is strange that not one of as of yet has made a comment that may convey it. It really does seem that I might represent a/the "mirror image" that is not perceived.

Maybe there lays a deeper reason as to why there is such a small percentage of Left-handed people in the world. Or why they have shorter life-spans, tend to be homosexual, or that left-handed females also have a much shorter life-span. It is also curious to note that Hitler, Albert Einstein, George Bush, Bill Clinton, Bob Dole, Steve Forbes, Gerald Ford, Benjamin Franklin, J. Edgar Hoover, Herbert Hoover, Thomas Jefferson, John F. Kennedy, Anthony Kennedy, Robert McNamara, Ross Perot, William Perry, Colin Powell, Ronald Reagan, Pat Robertson, Nelson Rockefeller, Harry S. Truman, Henry Wallace, James Callaghan, Winston Churchill, Fidel Castro, Mahatma Ghandi, Joan of Arc, Napoleon Bonaparte, Alexander the Great, Julius Ceasar, Charlemagne, Aristotle, Friedrich Nietzsche, Linus Pauling, Hermann von Helmholtz, Marie Curie, Henry Ford, Bill Gates, John D. Rockefeller, David Rockefeller, John F. Kennedy Jr., Buzz Aldrin, among many others were all Left-handed.

Curiously, Left-handed people represent approx. 27% of the population, but there seems to a much larger proportion of Lefty's in positions of power, or leadership. Does it have to with how they think? That they can see the whole and, therefore, know they can achieve it? I think it might be worth investigating......
 

kenlee

SuperModerator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
seekingObjectivity said:
But isn't that the problem of the many I's? Each wants to feel self-important, and as I stated before, I seem to be able to perceive the many I's coming and going so it makes sense that it appears to be exactly that. If it were any other way then I would not be able to progress in the Work (if not perceived) or be progressing in the Work, correct or no?
Well, when you read In Search Of the Miraculous, resarch what is said about 'identification.' I'm not saying that all your posts are the way that I described earlier but it seems to be evident with your longer posts. I think you 'identify' with your internal dialogue (we all do this to greater and lesser degrees), especially when you talk about yourself and this identification kinda gives these 'I's an emotional charge and you can become lost or trapped in them. When you become trapped in them you lose youself in them and corrispondingly, you lose touch or get cut off from your "higher" or more essential selfhood which is the part of you that is capable of, more or less, higher (objective) reason. In short, you lose yourself in what is not yourself which are the 'many I's coming and going' that you mentioned above. So observe this process. That, I think, is the first step to objectivity.

Also, aren't we really a network of I's talking to one another and that really at a higher level we are part of one and the same 6D STO? And that maybe by the expression of my internal dialogue is similar or the same as the dialogue that takes place between the various I's of this network?
I really don't know anything about 6D but if people don't understand us in 3D then there is no chance of anyone understanding us in 6D.
 

Rich

The Living Force
It seems that you are defending yourself by attacking Anart in a manipulative way:
seekingobjectivity said:
after reading this, then, is this:

Anart wrote:

I don't think you need to take a break from the forum, for what it's worth. I was just trying to get you to consider that a part of external consideration is to work quite hard at writing in as clear and concise a way as possible - with your reader in mind.

and this:

Anart wrote:

Please understand that this forum works very hard to minimize noise. There are thousands of forums out there that appreciate noise and find it entertaining - this is not one of them - perhaps your stream of consciousness posts would be more appreciated on some other forum.

contradictory?

From my perspective, I am not sure because I seem to still not understand "external consideration" in a MAJOR way.
is this sarcasm? you do need to understand external consideration and respect the helpful advice that has been given. Ignoring insightful and valuable advice and wriggling away to find fault in others seems particularly convoluted.

seekingObjectivity said:
Of course I am sincere, I have final exams next week in medical school and I feel that the Work is much more important. So much so that I have sacrificed studying medicine in order to learn the Work.
are you afraid of failing your exams and using 'the work' as an excuse for failure? seems to me as if you might be under stress that you are denying?
 
S

seekingObjectivity

Guest
Rich, about being sarcastic I most certainly am not. About being manipulative, I most certainly am not (that is, within my current perception)

I was only trying to convey that it might be possible that Anart was being contradictory without him realizing it (though I may be incorrect). I was also trying to convey that jOda could possibly be doing the same thing to me (manipulating me) without him realizing it. But it is also possible that I am indeed being contradictory, or that I am being manipulative (though I don't perceive it as such). I am trying to maintain the awareness of vulnerability and to always "anticipate attack". As such, I am also trying to help others see that it might be possible that they too are under attack that is happening beyond their perception.

As to failing my exams, it is quite possible that I might. But it is also quite possible that I might not. I am not afraid of either, therefore, I have nothing to deny but understanding myself via this forum.
 
S

seekingObjectivity

Guest
Rich,

I suppose that in a way I am defending myself via you defending Anart via me defending Anart such that there is balance. You may have, for one reason or another, decided to defend Anart without asking him to do so. That is, you may have assumed he would not mind such a thing (and he may not but he also may). Therefore you seem to have made the judgement that he woud say yes. In doing so, you may have compromised his freewill to say either yes or no to such a request. But from possibly having not asked you have necessarily took it upon yourself that you do know what he would say when, in fact, you may not know at all. Judge not, lest ye be judged comes to my mind in such a situation.
 

vinny

The Living Force
seekingObjectivity said:
I suppose that in a way I am defending myself via you defending Anart via me defending Anart such that there is balance. You may have, for one reason or another, decided to defend Anart without asking him to do so. That is, you may have assumed he would not mind such a thing (and he may not but he also may). Therefore you seem to have made the judgement that he woud say yes. In doing so, you may have compromised his freewill to say either yes or no to such a request. But from possibly having not asked you have necessarily took it upon yourself that you do know what he would say when, in fact, you may not know at all. Judge not, lest ye be judged comes to my mind in such a situation.
can you not just take responsibility for your own actions? anart was defending the right of forum users to hold 'noise free' discussion - a thing rarely possible in 'real' life, so we have to do it here. she initally gave you the 'benefit of the doubt', as is only sensible, but you didn't stop.

on this forum everyone is expected to be responsible for their words and actions. people make honest mistakes, fine - we all need to work on ourselves. that is only ok, if one can demonstrate a sincere seeking, and a willingness to observe ones own mistakes and learn from them. a big part of that is letting go of one's ego's need to be right - which manifests in justifications and evasion. fwiw, this is what you are doing - you are justifying and evading, in order that your ego does not take a hit, so that 'it' can go on it's merry way undisturbed.

it has already been explained to you about striving for a high signal to noise ratio; keeping the noise down; and the utmost importance of external consideration. all this is especially important because of the particular subject matter that this forum covers which, out in the real world, is awash with cointelpro and noise in general.

seekingObjectivity said:
About being manipulative, I most certainly am not (that is, within my current perception)
ok, then your 'current perception' needs updating. You are manipulating by energy drain and distraction, even if you are unaware of it.
 
S

seekingObjectivity

Guest
Anart, all this time I have been referring to you as "he", having just realized that you are not in fact a "he" but a "she"! Me and my assumptions....they are so subtle sometimes that it is hard to notice. I hope that I have not offended you in any way. If I had known otherwise I would have definitely referred to you correctly as a "she" . I hope that you may find it within yourself to disregard these careless mistakes. I'm so very sorry to have possibly given you the "wrong impression".
 
S

seekingObjectivity

Guest
I would like to thank you all for helping me to realize your thought process. It has helped me a great deal since I have been trying to figure it out my whole life. You have helped me significantly in that regard. As most of you have suggested, and I agree, I will take some time off from the forum to reflect upon all that has occured thus far and finished reading all of those books that have been suggested to me. And this "time" I most certainly mean it, however, if one of you happens to make a post that requires a response of me then I will most cartainly respond. I hope the previous sentence does not represent a contradiction ! :) I definitely appreciate all of the knowledge that you have given me, it has given me a new level of awareness. THANK YOU!
 
Top Bottom