It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

YHWH And The Four Worlds

page: 2
23
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 27 2016 @ 12:05 PM
link   
a reply to: glend




Yes you can logically work yourself into enlightenment but that doesn't necessarily mean that its the correct or fastest road for everyone.


My general attitude is, be "logical" and "rational" and "open".

The left brain is not an enemy of the right: but an investigator of what is important and meaningful to the right i.e. to the whole Self, which is to say, how my self FITS with other selves.

My more general point in responding to you (to which I appreciate your kind response, btw
) is that science and neuroscience/psychology has so much to offer to increase our self-knowledge, and so, potentiate our spiritual awareness.




If you have an unselfish desire to help others, you do not need to read or understand any religions, nor self diagnose your own mental pathways, enlightenment will just happen.


Really? Do others not continuously "act upon us"? Do I not possess a biology vulnerable to interpreting a non-responsive face as hurtful?

I'm not sure you can simply become spiritually "enlightened" without a discriminating and informed understanding of whats happening from one moment to the next moment. So long as you possess a physical body - and a genetic/interpretive system vulnerable to being offended by Others behavior towards your compassionate efforts to help, I think very few of us, arguably no one, can overcome such negative feeling without constant mental "work" to reorient them.

In other words, we pick up others peoples "energy", or the their feeling relations (anger, irritation, insecurity). How else do you deal with this other than a left-brain attentional, de-focusing process towards that which enlivens and relaxes you?




So education or logic is not the only path to enlightenment, in many ways, it can be detrimental.


Depending on the type of education in question. Psychodynamics and brain science - an authentic understanding of cause and effect between you and others - is absolutely essential as far as I'm concerned if you would like to know more precisely how you're affected and how you become motivated in response.

Feeling. To be conscientious of what you feel from one moment to the next is a "scanning" process carried out by the LEFT hempishere: hence the robust left-brains of seasoned meditators/buddhist monks.

"Going back to Eden" has very much to do with knowledge (right knowledge). That's how we overcome the bane of ignorance.




Which is why meditation is very important to many people. Meditation is about controlling the random thoughts of egotism and doubt that continually bombard our consciousness. By meditating we can quiet the barrage of noise that our brains generate so we can again hear the subtle voice of our soul. We are spiritual beings first. The material being are just cloths, they do not speak for us.


Oh absolutely. Meditating - or paying attention to whats happening inside of you - is an intellectually rigorous process. Being able to manually - consciously - enforce calm and relaxation is actually a neuroplastic process of expanding the neural control of the orbitofrontal cortex (the brain behind your eyes) over reflexive inner brain dynamics in the striatum and amygdala.




posted on Sep, 27 2016 @ 12:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Astrocyte

I pretty much think you're the knees knees. I love you. Just sayin.



posted on Sep, 27 2016 @ 03:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Astrocyte



Really? Do others not continuously "act upon us"? Do I not possess a biology vulnerable to interpreting a non-responsive face as hurtful? I'm not sure you can simply become spiritually "enlightened" without a discriminating and informed understanding of whats happening from one moment to the next moment


Yes mindfulness is also a key to enlightenment. So if we see a non-responsive face as a negative then we should recognise the desire to help others is motivated by a selfish desire to expect rewards for the act, be it just a thank you or a smile. It must be totally unselfish act similar to a mother helping her child. It shouldn't be limited to just single recipients, but a great desire to help all in society, like MLK desire for a better world for all. (ie buddhism bodhisattva)



Psychodynamics and brain science - an authentic understanding of cause and effect between you and others - is absolutely essential as far as I'm concerned if you would like to know more precisely how you're affected and how you become motivated in response.


Your brain loves logic and that is not a negative but wondering if you could waste a lifetime analysing this or analysing that to the umpteenth degree. I'd like to think that sometimes just laughing at our own shortcomings and focusing on more important things in life, is a quicker path to a goal.



Oh absolutely. Meditating - or paying attention to whats happening inside of you - is an intellectually rigorous process. Being able to manually - consciously - enforce calm and relaxation is actually a neuroplastic process of expanding the neural control of the orbitofrontal cortex (the brain behind your eyes) over reflexive inner brain dynamics in the striatum and amygdala.


If its an intellectually rigorous process, you are doing it wrong, because it should be as easy as going to sleep. The process I use is to just observe my senses as an observer entity. When thoughts enter my consciousness I accept them for what they are but don't become involved within them or entertain them, so they die out on their own accord. Soon after my body goes into sleep mode, breathing slows, skin feels like its turning into concrete etc. When that process is complete I end up in a black void of nothingness. After a few months of practising you will start noticing that you can perceive the thoughts of others which are so subtle they are easily overcome by the constant barrage of thoughts that a noisy brain generates. So I see meditation as training to become master of our brain instead of its servant.



posted on Sep, 27 2016 @ 05:12 PM
link   
a reply to: glend




So if we see a non-responsive face as a negative then we should recognise the desire to help others is motivated by a selfish desire to expect rewards for the act, be it just a thank you or a smile


That strikes me as a dissociative relation to the subject matter i.e. the human being, at hand.

When you can frame your thinking of Humans in terms of originof life studies - as a biodynamical systems that "processes" feeling relations with others, you can't actually "withdraw" without creating effects in others.

This duality - of meaning "for me" - and the meaning my actions have "for others", refers to the sort of dynamic that actually generates us and every other organized system of matter: a "dynamical diffusion".

Look at whirlpools, or the milky way, or any other organized process. There is a fundamental "symmetry" about the way the system is organized i.e. it is either "circular" (such as a slime mold, or a whirlpool, or a tornado) or expresses a front-back, left-right and top (dorsal) bottom (ventral) symmetry.

This isn't coincidence, but an expression of how matter moves through our systems. Its "coherent" to organize this way given the microscopic and macroscopic constraints acting on energy flow.

Humans are the saem way, but instead of perceivable matter, it is spiritual "feeling" and "perception".

With this background in mind, it is probably impossible to have a full sense of "absolute selflessness". That is, your very biodynamical organism searches for positive affectivity and reacts to negative responsivity.

It is a spiritual arrogance to me to not realize that spirituality entails a great deal of self-control. Becuase everything you do contextualizes the interpretation of others.

This fact emerges out of a basic "unity" between the individual actors. So if this so - and if we are always responsible for the signals we express - why do some people grant themselves the liberty to just "act anyway" when their every action generates effects for the life-world of others?

It therefore strikes me as objectively "self-involved" to prefer an explanation that allows you to experience fun (which is understandable) but which comes at a "feeling" i.e. energy cost, to the self-experience of others.

My philosophy is, 'adapt yourself to the needs of others'. That is, my needs should be negotiated with other peoples needs, with a sense of compassion, understanding and patience - and not the arrogant absorption in self-needs (which are dissociated from as needs that come at a cost to others) that this repulsive culture we live in propogates through its media, and now as can be horrifically seen, is about to take control of the worlds largest government.




I'd like to think that sometimes just laughing at our own shortcomings and focusing on more important things in life, is a quicker path to a goal.


There's always a balance between laughing at your short-comings and speaking up about a genuinely abusive-dynamic. If people are abusing one another, is the solution "just laugh it off", or, more logically, is it to somehow persuade the person, with care and understanding, that their feelings, thinking, and acting, grow out of an interpersonal history of trauma and a sense of felt need that mutually enforce one another into the creation of a "self".

Believing we have certain needs is the biggest illusion. Committing yourself to a dualism that afford you freedom from the consequences of your actions from others - perhaps the worse illusion of all.

Evolutionary sciences do not allow us to "extricate" ourselves from others without turning ourselves into dissociative hypocrites relating mostly with their ego, than with the needs and realities of the other people we live with.

We always need to exist at the "interface" of our own needs and that of others. In relational and communicative terms, patience, understanding, and compassion, arises not simply as a "moral imperative", but something that grows quite logically out of an understanding of self experience, how were affected, and why we become motivated to act in certain ways.

If we all exist and develop in the same way, it becomes inevitable to recognize that we are exactly the same sort of creature, with the exact same sort of needs, and the only people who want the freedom from thinking are those people too affectively immature to recognize how "unity" imposes limitations and constraints on actors.

But you know what? This is the bottleneck we need to pass through before an even greater, more incredible reality becomes visible. The happiness, joy and wisdom of that higher level does not become real without real psychological work emerging from a sense of unity i.e. care for others. If you cannot have care, or for some reason also have a need to cultivate a darker side, the entropy of negative action (i.e. creation of demons) prevents the emergence of the higher reality.

The brain was once larger than it is today. Around 150 cc's larger. Also, since growing up in a relaxed and caring world produces relaxed and caring individuals, the only reason we all feel such confusuon in our cells - i.e. disagreement and diversity of perception - is because we live in a densely disturbed world, where people "want" all sorts of feelings, without wanting to know the ecological i.e. systematic - relation between the different things we do.

Logic - or my "brain" - is fundamental. As fundamental in me as it for you and any other living physical being.




If its an intellectually rigorous process, you are doing it wrong, because it should be as easy as going to sleep. The process I use is to just observe my senses as an observer entity. When thoughts enter my consciousness I accept them for what they are but don't become involved within them or entertain them, so they die out on their own accord. Soon after my body goes into sleep mode, breathing slows, skin feels like its turning into concrete etc. When that process is complete I end up in a black void of nothingness. After a few months of practising you will start noticing that you can perceive the thoughts of others which are so subtle they are easily overcome by the constant barrage of thoughts that a noisy brain generates. So I see meditation as training to become master of our brain instead of its servant.


Of course, I mean to say it is a neurologically active process i.e. entails the production of gamma waves.

You and I seem to have a similar understanding of the value of mindfulness. What we recognize and "sense" in the Other is also probably very similar. Like you, I sense how the "body" speaks so much - so much that it can only be sensed - or inferred - by a mind attuned to the Others presence.

That said, I want external knowledge as well. When you understand that we evolved, and that evolution strucutred the nature of our being, you can actually get a more precise - and therefore sophisticated/complex - understanding of any situation, even as the "simplicity" of care allows you to navigate your relations with others.

People think spirituality is "simple". It is, but its only simple because care is simple. That said, care enables the expansion and increase in cognitive complexity. Thus, a paradox: a spiritual mind is a mind able and relaxed enough to absorb and hold a lot of information!



posted on Sep, 27 2016 @ 05:34 PM
link   
More generally, I'm a social libertarian.

If people "agree" to a certain context of relating i.e. like a "roast" or an orgy, its s not my concern to comment.

Agreement establishes a context in which the activities in question will emerge. But outside of an agreed-upon context, there is no framework for the following activity. For instance, when people comment and remark upon others for their own enjoyment, are they recognizing the damage being done to the other persons reputation? Are they properly owning - or recognizing the psychodynamic logic for their own feeling? If they're feeling bitter or unrecognized - producing a feeling of shame and low worth - speaking negatively about an other can - and usually does - affectively persuade the Other you share this information with to naively adopt your perspective.

So, this is my interest. I love cognition and thinking and analyzing because it allows us to "enliven ourselves" without damaging or hurting Others. We could, therefore, live in the ways which make life worth living, without others who "do not agree" to my way of seeing things, suffering the undeserved consequences i.e. for instance, when trash talking someone, and then that someone having to deal with repetitive negative interactions with others who have been negatively biased by your negative speech.

This to me is just as "ecologically minded" as throwing your garbage in the proper bin. Unless the information you possess is true and will help an Other avoid a negative end, we should learn to recognize the way our speech "cognitive orients" the feelings of others, and take responsible ownership of that.



posted on Sep, 27 2016 @ 05:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wifibrains



Yod, Y, corresponds to the world of atziluth, the archetypal world. According to one of the ways of seeing this fourfold relationship, it is 'the father.' It is supra-rational creativity.

H, corresponds to the world of briah, the creative world. The word used for 'creative,' briah, implies creation from nothing.

W corresponds to the world of yetzirah, the world of formation. Formation, yetzirah, implies giving specific shape to something which already exists

H This physical realm corresponds to the final H, which is the world of assiah, the world of action.


All together now!.....



One is a son of god, the other a son of man.


Hi guys.
I haven't much to contribute and it's probably been pointed out before, but I noticed the hyphenated phrase 'womb-man' and thought it interesting. Womb-man. Sounds just like 'woman'.



posted on Sep, 27 2016 @ 06:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Astrocyte



That strikes me as a dissociative relation to the subject matter i.e. the human being, at hand.


Yes it would appear dissociative if one doesn't believe that our soul (the son or atma) is not part and parcel of the greater soul (the Father or Brahman). Which is why I previously mentioned that when one practices meditation they soon discover that they can hear the thoughts of others as our own. When we start realising we are all just fingers on the same hand the barriers you mention no longer exist.



With this background in mind, it is probably impossible to have a full sense of "absolute selflessness".


Enlightenment would kill the internet yes but its as strong today, as ever. So I am talking ideals which I can never attain during my lifetime but strive towards, as much as I am able.




But you know what? This is the bottleneck we need to pass through before an even greater, more incredible reality becomes visible. The happiness, joy and wisdom of that higher level does not become real without real psychological work emerging from a sense of unity i.e. care for others. If you cannot have care, or for some reason also have a need to cultivate a darker side, the entropy of negative action (i.e. creation of demons) prevents the emergence of the higher reality


It seems I am trying teach the growing of fruit to a farmer but disagree somewhat, negative action must facilitate the emergence of higher realities else life would be pointless. For example no one could learn true forgiveness if evil didn't exist, no one could learn true charity without being poor, no one can understand light without darkness. Like people stumbling for a chair in the darkness the hard knocks eventually teach us the true path.



That said, I want external knowledge as well.


Think your head is already brimming with knowledge. Your mindset seems well-suited to Zen and one of the quotes of Zen is "To learn something new, we must unlearn everything else"



posted on Sep, 27 2016 @ 07:14 PM
link   
BEE'S KNEES not knee's knees, wtf. I thought I had that right.



posted on Sep, 27 2016 @ 07:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Astrocyte
For instance, when people comment and remark upon others for their own enjoyment, are they recognizing the damage being done to the other persons reputation?


I just want to say... what now? Did I do something wrong?
edit on 27-9-2016 by geezlouise because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 28 2016 @ 12:45 PM
link   
a reply to: glendwith




When we start realising we are all just fingers on the same hand the barriers you mention no longer exist.


So then you become properly motivated? So whats with all the guru-manipulation that psychotherapists like Daniel Shaw note in their books - such as the "traumatizing narcissist?" Watch the Dalai Lama and try to recognize what immense wisdom - self-awareness - and compassion this man always shows. It begins, he says, with logic - reaosn, and openness.

My question is, why are you so resistant to science?

The first principle of evolution, which certainly does not find its way into any religious tradition besides the Hebraic one, is that as social organisms, we are inherently competitive if we experience information coming from the Other as questioning or exposing our own capacities . It's important you not dissociate from this, as apes like chimpanzees - to which our current society seems modeled - show just how reflexively antagonistic (actors) are to another's expression of value or good. Your brain is all about "comparison". Right now, in speaking with me, you are basically trashing the value of the science I can offer, believing ancient traditions "know everything". And yet, an obscene amount of abuse - both from western and eastern mystics, emerges because the "guru" imagines perfection within itself, even as they interact with others who do not see and perceive and experience the world as he does. So why, if he interfaces with an oppositional or idealistic (read, vulnerable and liable to becoming mindlessly devoted) person, does he still believe that his perception can be clear in the presence of the interaction? To be clear, you need to make a left-brained effort to understand the motivational needs of the Other. And in making that clear, adapt your own behavior to that.

Hearing voices (or others thoughts) is not perfect evidence for your spiritual "enlightenment". In fact, you still may be very sensitive to opposition - and even become narcissistically "reified" to the Others influence upon you.

I am a huge reader, intimate with scientific and esoteric thinking, and there is no doubt in my mind that science (neuroscience, cognitive science, interpersonal neurobiology, ethology, psychoanalyis) IMPROVES spiritual understanding.

This is my experience. Calm, self-aware people are open to scientific investigation, whereas people overly involved in either spirituality or science basically denounce and belittle the value of the Other viewpoint. I see this as fundamentally being motivated by an insecurity i.e. a sense of "not knowing something", and so competing with the other who claims to offer value (itself emerging out of their own hard won educational efforts)




It seems I am trying teach the growing of fruit to a farmer but disagree somewhat, negative action must facilitate the emergence of higher realities else life would be pointless. For example no one could learn true forgiveness if evil didn't exist, no one could learn true charity without being poor, no one can understand light without darkness. Like people stumbling for a chair in the darkness the hard knocks eventually teach us the true path.


Ah, so you want enlightenment, but also want negative action? At whose expense is this action to come? You know what I love about buddhism? Its exposition of the shameless self-serving classism of Hindu society. It's this sort of obnoxious self-serving "this is your karma" thinking which clear and sane thinking cannot countenance.

Who truly benefits? The aristocrats - the elite. The people who dabble in the dark arts.

As someone who studies the brain and understands better than you do (as someone who doesn't study the brain) how organisms self-organize, what kind of world do you think would exist if Humans were nice to one another? A supremely relaxed, at ease, and not easily offended world.

We do not need suffering to know kindness. It is enough to be educated and knowledgeable - to have it in your cognition and evidenced in your history books than to need to engage in it to show the value of "good".

I get the philosophy you're trying to peddle, but it is old, and really only suits the elites who like a little bit of evil to keep their control on the system intact.

In short, trauma breeds trauma. Very few are the people who become "enlightened" - and even then, they require a scaffolding of affordances i.e. relationships with others.

Imagine a world where knowledge is freely available, and human beings, relaxed and calm enough within their beings, not to narcissistically believe suffering must exist to make the world worth living. That would be a beautiful world - and yes, the forces of entropy would not have much access to delude the minds of naive mystics with tales about being beyond good and evil



posted on Sep, 28 2016 @ 12:45 PM
link   
a reply to: geezlouise

Totally wasn't referring to you. I appreciate the bee's knees comment!



posted on Sep, 28 2016 @ 04:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Astrocyte
We do not need suffering to know kindness.

In short, trauma breeds trauma. Very few are the people who become "enlightened" - and even then, they require a scaffolding of affordances i.e. relationships with others.


I agree with everything you're saying and furthermore there is tons of "evidence" backing it.

People do NOT need to experience "evil" to know what's evil, or good for that matter. People that face trauma and abuse more often suffer negative consequences from it than anything else- the negative outweighs the positive, every time. I've been to the group therapy sessions- and anyone else that's been knows that the negative always outweighs the positive. Via drug addictions, financial strain, thoughts of worthlessness and suicide, poor health conditions via the onset of auto-immune disorders (all different kinds), and etc.

Furthermore, there is evidence showing that it's physically damaging to the human body to be in a constant state of heightened anxiety and stress.

Stress hormones pull energy away from the immune system and away from vital organs in order to put that energy into the forefront in your muscles, essentially preparing you for a fight or flight situation (you need energy in your muscles to fight, or flight). This is useful in situations where we might have to fight or flight... however, for those of us trapped in a constant state of trauma? It's very un-useful (you can't physically beat up a trigger, a tragic past history, a mortgage bill, a comment someone said, and etc), and I think it's gotta be linked to those negative epigenetic changes and expressions that sometimes result in auto-immune disorders? I'm not very well read in the stuff, but I've learned some things along the way.

I think it was the ancient Greeks who idealized "suffering" and believed it was basically a precursor to greatness- but from what I have gathered, the Greeks valued and celebrated the human physical form- they were very interested in fitness and health above all. So the training involved in becoming a fit body ready to perform in their sport games or whatever (which was popular in order to celebrate the human form?), could very well apply. We push ourselves to become better, stronger, faster, and there's a kind of suffering in that... however it's basically self-inflicted and it produces positive outcomes. It's the same kind of suffering I experience being an artist, when I'm trying to say something but it's just not coming out right? Then I have to destroy what I've begun and start over. It's the same kind of suffering people experience when they force themselves to choose a salad over a donut, when they want to lose weight. None of that involves evil, and all of that produces positive outcomes, however it can be very painful. So I think people are just getting confused about the fact that there's different kinds of suffering.

I hope glend is paying attention.
edit on 28-9-2016 by geezlouise because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 28 2016 @ 06:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Astrocyte



My question is, why are you so resistant to science?


LOL, when I read your previous posts I wondered why you were always trying to relate the spiritual to the physical ("Elohim is the 4 forces of nature i.e. gravity, electromagnetism and the strong-weak nuclear forces" ) so unconsciously I may have set myself on a mission to try bend you more towards the spiritual, sorry. I am not against science per se, as Buddhism in itself might be considered a science of the mind. My remark that you would be good at Zen was a sincere compliment. I don't have the intellect to deal with Zen, but you obviously do.



Who truly benefits? The aristocrats - the elite. The people who dabble in the dark arts.


Egotistically they do, spiritually we do.

The Dali Lama was once asked how he felt about China invading Tibet. The Dalai Lama answer was, "very good". The surprised reporter asked how could you feel that way, Dalai Lama answered, "how can anyone learn true forgiveness if they have not been tested to the extreme". He then added, "now that we have learnt that lesson, the Chinese can leave".

This is why evil is allowed to exist. That's not saying in any way or form that people with light in their vessel should not try alleviate the darkness. If evil is fire we should warn people that putting their hands in fire will result in burns. And wen evil comes my way I take strength from a poem called invictus...

Out of the night that covers me,
Black as the pit from pole to pole,
I thank whatever gods may be
For my unconquerable soul.

...
...

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll,
I am the master of my fate:
I am the captain of my soul.



Imagine a world where knowledge is freely available, and human beings, relaxed and calm enough within their beings, not to narcissistically believe suffering must exist to make the world worth living.


A more enlightened age will come. And it will be built by all those that know suffering. Not by those that haven't experienced any, because they lack the concern, motivation and conviction to do so. But even in a more enlightened world suffering will continue. The Buddha told that the only way to escape suffering of the life-death cycle is to realise our spiritual nature.



posted on Sep, 28 2016 @ 06:19 PM
link   
a reply to: geezlouise



I hope glend is paying attention..


Trying too.

added... The suffering you have experienced in this world has softened your heart, turning you into the person you are today. I'd rather listen to your words, than any written by the Paris Hilton's of this world.
edit on 28-9-2016 by glend because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 28 2016 @ 06:37 PM
link   
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
It's not unpronouncable. Of course, someone who might not like him might want people to forget about his name and who it stands for.

According to the bible God’s enemies try to make people forget his name.—Jeremiah 23:27:

27 They intend to make my people forget my name by the dreams they relate to one another, just as their fathers forgot my name because of Baʹal.

That's why there are people going around pretending it's unpronouncable, or the correct spelling is unclear/vague (as an argument for the earlier claim).



SOME PEOPLE SAY that he has no name, others say that it is God or Lord, and still others say that he has dozens of names. What do you think?

WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS

“You, whose name is Jehovah, you alone are the Most High over all the earth.”—Psalm 83:18.

WHAT ELSE CAN WE LEARN FROM THE BIBLE?

Although God has many titles, he has given himself only one name.—Exodus 3:15.

God is not a mystery; he wants us to get to know him.—Acts 17:27.

Knowing God’s name can be the first step to having a friendship with him.—James 4:8.

...

WHAT ELSE CAN WE LEARN FROM THE BIBLE?

Jesus knew and used God’s name.—John 17:25, 26.

God invites us to address him by name.—Psalm 105:1.

God’s enemies try to make people forget his name.—Jeremiah 23:27.

Source: Does God Have a Name?
edit on 28-9-2016 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 28 2016 @ 09:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: glend
I'd rather listen to your words, than any written by the Paris Hilton's of this world.


Astrocyte could be Paris Hilton for all we know, LOL.

Or me.

But seriously? Paris Hilton is a human being too and I highly doubt her life has been much easier than mine or anyone else's. In fact I'd say that her life has been far tougher than most peoples, in many ways. So I'd listen to her and the other Paris Hilton types just as much as I'd listen to anyone who dared to make sense. I love it when people say things that make sense.

& I agree that we are made and formed by our environment... also our genes. So yes, I have been made into the person that I am today because of everything that happened before, but I'm not that great of a person tbh. I struggle daily. And those closest to me see it. I am not exactly a happy camper... and because of that, I think I cling to positive views more and more because I just can't handle any more negativity than I already have. And I don't wish to add onto anyone else's, either, because of empathy (I don't like seeing others suffer).

And I think the negativity that I do have, I struggle with keeping to myself.

I want to hurt other people sometimes, too, despite all empathy.

I want to pay it forward (recycle the abuse) just as much as anybody else and sometimes... I do (via light internet trolling and just being mean to people with a tone/attitude for no real reason other than my own insecurities and jealousies of their seemingly perfect or just easier lives and etc). But then my empathy reprimands me, along with the reality that everyone has been dealt a crap hand. And once again, I do not wish to add onto anyone's suffering, making the situation worse.

Sometimes I get angry that I have to know the things that I know, too. So I'm not appreciative of that, either. And I hope that most people never have to know what I now know. I would never wish this suffering on another human being. I don't believe it builds character. I believe that the evidence points towards the opposite- trauma breeds trauma. And in a way I'm not excluded from that equation either, because I fully plan on traumatizing (punishing) the world with my art and the sharing of my feelings. Which really does happen to get people's panties all up in a bunch somehow. But still, the method in which I choose to "recycle the abuse" is just more acceptable to the world, lol. Also, even after sharing... I know that others will never truly know. However, if we can learn anything via story telling, we might be more motivated to make the corrective changes now, in order to prevent future cases from happening, and etc.

But if I thought that something beautiful was born out of that evil (you might say my art)? Then I might not think it was so evil, and I would be less motivated to make any changes and in fact I'd think other people should experience it, too. But again, I'm not on that side. I would rather live in a world that doesn't need my art, or hero's, any day of the week. I would rather this sort of thing be prevented at all costs. I would rather people never have to know what I now know. And btw, I'm pretty sure that I would have been producing art no matter what, to express everything I experienced, happy and sad- since I was just born with these genes. So you can't thank the trauma because of the art, or the talent, or the genius. That's all wrong, so so wrong.

But thank you for being kind towards me.

& anyway I think the Dali Lama is a pervert. And I would rather listen to the Paris Hiltons of the world, than the Dali Lama, any day of the week.
edit on 28-9-2016 by geezlouise because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-9-2016 by geezlouise because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 29 2016 @ 12:31 AM
link   
a reply to: geezlouise

Your comment just reinforced my previous conclusion.

Our brains like to replay past scenario's to try discover better methods for future outcomes. But if it fails to find an acceptable outcome, it can remain trapped in a loop, forcing us to live in the past, instead of the now, So I suggest your negativity isn't the real you, but a state of your brain, that needs correcting. Sometimes it can be as easy as learning how to forgive that can totally free us or it it might be in your art.



But if I thought that something beautiful was born out of that evil (you might say my art)? Then I might not think it was so evil.


I would strongly suggest YOU.



I would rather live in a world that doesn't need my art, or hero's, any day of the week.


So say we all.



posted on Sep, 29 2016 @ 11:06 PM
link   
a reply to: micpsi

Could you link where you are getting those numbers from?

Y - 400
H - 8
W - 900 V -700
H - 8

Equals 1316(W)or 1116(V)
In both Hebrew and Jewish gematria

YHVH in Simple Gematria Equals 63 or YHWH 64

edit on 29-9-2016 by fatkid because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 1   >>

log in

join