The mysterious nature of time

[zenmaster]

I am talking about the experience of 'intersubjective emergence', which is a completely natural condition, sustained by some degree of consciousness.
After a certain amount of individuation, there is a more outward or intentional dialog. My understanding is that this has some correspondence to the green/blue chakra opening.

Like a meeting? Right? Or a seminar, or a family dinner.

Possibly, it's just any interaction where mind is invoked at a transpersonal level.

I do think I understand. In fact, it is what Im trying to explain as my view.

But your view seems to be addressing a conceptualization with a lot of different attachments. Why are you introducing these? Why are those necessary?

My view is that detachment is impossible, and those who think they have achieved it are fooling themselves.

But your particular attachments, those conditions which you were pointing out, are not necessary. That is what I was trying to say. Also, this isn't about achieving something - it's about finding something which is plainly obvious. So it's very much like you are saying someone is a fool for not needing a toy because they eventually outgrew it.

I'm clueless what attachments you see that I have. ... I don't think I ever said that.

Your attachments of:

"perfect mind"
"definitive agreement"
"power"
"fooling themselves"
"circles"
"transcendence of ego"

Do you see? You have made them up due to your attachments.

That's what I meant with the 'snake toy', and that's what I meant with "finding themselves on the opposite side of the table, and that's what I mean when I simple say "circles"

Yes, I am not addressing that context or those concerns, as they are not relevant.

I find this to be most relevant of all. That no answer is successful in light of any approach being failed within the answer itself.

When faced with the mirror, you either recognize the reflection or you act like a bird. Or to put it another way, the circle is not a circle, but a spiral upwards.

I disagree. Where is the upward spiral in context of intact entity after death?

There are things which support the upward movement, like attention and acceptance.

I disagree. This are just traits of existence. One finds them enjoyable. One finds them disdainful. Either way, these traits are no transcendence of ego. Rather, they are expressions thereof.

Who said anything about transcending ego? You have not been conceptualizing what I've been talking about. You don't 'transcend ego' you 'become conscious of its needs' or 'embrace it' or see that activity which it engages. Yes, possibly also with any emotional attachments like disdain or enjoyment. If you do not acknowledge that becoming being more aware of needs is developmental, or it is foolish, then I do not know what to say.

So the 'circles' remains (in some evolving form) and is addressed according to one's acceptance (developed acceptance). Meanwhile, what supports further individualization is something which may emerge from an intersubjective context which is quite telepathic.

Agreed.

Ok so you now acknowledge there is development after you said it was foolish? Just want to make sure we're talking about the same thing.

People can trust, they can be honest. These things are just rare because of perceived survival needs extended beyond their appropriate agency.

Again, I disagree with this. Honesty and trust are always here with us. One may recognize, one may ignore. The results are indeterminate.

There is no (widespread) social or context yet for applying a more accepting or more expanded consciousness. But there are pioneers who are trying to create a bridge back. And, of course, some people would frame these pioneers as being selfish, others as being loving, still others foolish, depending on bias and their own filters and abilities. You can't introduce such a idea to many, because the very thought contradicts or distracts from what they came here to do.

Again, I think they fail to see their own hypocrisy. Don't you see your own statement makes their ideal failed from the beginning? ("they want to do A, but the people won't let them". Doesn't everybody?)

But where is the actual hypocrisy? The attachment ideas you have would indeed make it hypocritical. But you just introduced those ideas as something separate from what the idea itself involves. Do you not see that? It's further separation. You created the idea of "power" which separates by virtue of the powerless. You created the idea of "perfection" which separates by virtue of imperfection, etc. These are unnecessary attachments. They have nothing to do with "intersubjective emergence", inherently. They are only introduced if that is what you bring to it.

That is, work on 'third density values'. But that's fine. I don't see anything incompatible with the two perceptions, just like the child's world is compatible with the adult's world by virtue of the understanding of the adult and the neediness of the child.

And this is the idea that I do not court. There is no adult and child when we speak of everlasting entity existence. This is the pot calling the kettle black. This is sitting on the opposite side of the table facing the chair you were just sitting in.

What does everlasting entity existence have to do with anything? We live in a developmental context which unfolds from the "now". This is what Ra has been teaching.
"the beginning entity is one in all innocence oriented towards animalistic behavior using other-selves only as extensions of self for the preservation of the all-self. The entity becomes slowly aware that it has needs, shall we say, that are not animalistic; that is, that are useless for survival. These needs include: the need for companionship, the need for laughter, the need for beauty, the need to know the universe about it. These are the beginning needs.

As the incarnations begin to accumulate, other needs are discovered: the need to trade, the need to love, the need to be loved, the need to elevate animalistic behaviors to a more universal perspective."

So just to be clear, in the above excerpt, you see Ra is "calling the kettle black"?