Help
Sign In
ego
October 2008 
4 dimensional reality and the ego
clyde
I always love looking at the parallels between physics and being. here's an interesting thought I had today.
In 2 dimensional reality, there is not change or shift and the characters are static or flat. Like a 2 dimensional character in a movie. Not very dynamic.
I feel the ego is an outgrowth of this 2 dimensional way of thinking. We are flat with no DEPTH and static, with no change. Just basic superficial, fixed, images. We LIVE in the world of image without much substance (the world is so incredibly substantive at the cores!). As we see this, we realize the world and the cores are where it's at, not the surface image. We also realize we are of the same stuff!! A unifying realization! So, the ego, a relative construct, begins to fade as this new 4 dimensional universe forms. Add in there that we are NOT fixed, but fluid, and the idea of labels and locking things in is ridiculous. We all should get there, in other words. so...it becomes a helping and helped universe (and for those in the world who believe in the theory of innate superiority which supports their ego, and see little hope for those of inferior 'stock', they have a very tenuous grasp, as their theories are so hole ridden as to be pretty easily penetrable).
What we are trying to move toward is the more dynamic form of reality. Of at least 4 dimensions. Would be a nice start.
to treat and see people and life as changing and with great depth and character. A very, very natural and deep respect given to all. Less need for an ego in a world like that.
Anyhow, we are drawn to 2 dimensional reality as it is the most pervasive 'language' available. Which we must go on retreats within ourselves, or for real, or visit our sanctuaries, or to just go off into our 'outer space' environs. the conventional world helps to tether ego to the spirit.
learning about innate worth and substance is what will challenge the self to surrender the ego. We may have some sort of relative understanding of our position, but it, like other things is not who we identify with. That 'position' is not me. I am not that flat 2 dimensional image.
just an idea.
Access: Public
just an idea
By 'just an idea', I mean in the realm of the theoretical and I framed it as such to suggest it was something to be played with. not harmful or anything to be afraid of unless implimented and unhealthy.
Thoughts
I would love to hear an elaboration of your thoughts
Would you not agree that the, so called, rational and logical mindset of the scientific community is, predominantly, based solely on the 3rd Person perspective, which is an essential pre-condition of repeatability and verifiability of the scientific experiment ?
and here comes the first thought …
Thought 1 -
IN order that the whole of mankind be given the opportunity to truly understand that …
” the first person singular present tense which is the LOVE that makes the world go round and leaves no-one whatever out - all travelling the way - and willing to communicate and collaborate with each-other - regardless of race, religion, politics or culture” … WE must ALL individually and collectively adopt THE 1st Person mindset, which is itself a superset of ALL the PERSPECTIVES of the multiverse of parallel universes, as well as the here and now, 4th dimension, 3rd Person perspective … and that a pre-condition of this mindset switch is fulfilled when one acknowledges the need to LET GOD BE GOD within one.
Equally rather than those, who subscribe to the pre-eminence of the first person singular present tense perspective, having to prove that objective reality does NOT exist … IT IS the role of those who believe that objective reality does exist, to prove it. As we know the closest they can come to this is reproducible phenomena and as such there can be no proof of objectivity as we humans are inherently subjective.
.
I simply, through sole rationality, can see know way the subjective is possible with an absence of some 'objectivity'. Some agreement. Though it may be a sort of 'floating' in flux, never can catch it, 'objectivity'. meaning is dependent upon this.
though I really do like what you said about the first person singler present tense inclusive perspective. Very interesting and thought provoking, for sure.
Proof, like truth, is in and of itself a troublesome word. Troublesome given its preeminence in the present paradigmatic mind set. What is it, that we shall call 'proof'. i am satisfied with strong approximations and probability. Again, getting to the floating nature of objectivity. I personally believe 'perfection' is but a notion. an ill gotten one at that. how is this possible in a world of change and flux. I also, based on certaiin cherished higher principals, believe the essence itself of life's beauty lie in this emergent character. the essence of life itself being an unfolding and mystery filled venture drawing us into its mystery. if something had a completely solid character, it would end all wonder. Not such a great idea. If one were to base things on a certain emerging idea of beauty as this unfolding. Captivated by the beauty in the play in it ALL.
I would never dare to put restrictions on that beauty. however, I would like to engage others in the rational attempt to discover it. perhaps we have swung too far from the rational underpinnings that have landed us thusly here in the sweep of times pendulum?
hmmm…..
all sorts of things to play with here. I will have to 'meditate' more on subjective experience. this is the heart of the spearhead of our present understanding, and the key which has unlocked so much for me personally.
i think the terms you have expressed things are just about right for me.
You're amazing Michael
LET GOD BE GOD (btw: how are you getting the colors!!!)
I would, however, like to press the reworking of the concept of 'objectivity' so as to at least communicate more clearly. i suppose I am concerned that the idea of subjectivity, which is so very useful, has caused many to misunderstand and give up on meaning itself as they deny 'substance'.
I believe it is IMPERITIVE that we continue to say something about this 'nothing' even though, we do so imperfectly. This is why i continue to attempt to say 'something' rather than push the idea of complete subjectivity. I believe this will lead TO a greater undestanding of subjectivity, WHILE simultaneously increasing the development of meaning or substance itself.
We are of substance, no, even it is of a very fine and subtle substance?
SURELY we are NOT of substance AS WE R of ENERGY, positive and negative, masculine and feminine et al … infinitely interconnected as ONE substance .. whose consciousness is slowly awakening to the REALITY of NOW.
ps BLUE is my chosen default profile colour for high-lighting the “entrances” to my multitude of interconnecting hyperlinked rabbit holes.
I feel such shame for not figuring that out. haha
I love to do that sort of hyperlinking stuff to previous stuff. I conjured up an idea whereby there would be an on line world, a community, where we would have a very, very , very large collection of our ideas and instead of constantly regurgitating so much we've already said, point people to some of our favorite 'works' in reference. Just as you are doing.
The other part of that idea is that the 'works' we had online would really get a lot of feedback so as to have a communication with aspects of our selves with the world in a simultaneous fashion. So…I set out putting lots of ideas out there. me thinks though, to get more comments, me best get out there and comment me self first. So…that's what me will do.
thanks michael