05-29-2016, 02:40 PM
What I said earlier is that I prefer to stay alone for now in an attempt to evolve and change. That doesn't mean I have never loved. I did have many occurences where I have been courted and it has bogged me down but I was not in love in those cases. When I did fall in love there was actually close to no courting involved and it was much more intense than I can still describe or understand to this day.
I try to keep my answers related to what you answer to me but maybe the fact we both get involved can mess it up a bit.
I guess what I am trying to do is communicate that it is possible to still be in accordance with Ra and not take so literally. But I guess even if you agree it doesn't have to be so literal, you seem to resonante with the concept literally and use it literally and that is where the line is hard to draw. You can find arguments where you can use courting differently but if you use it literally in real time it will be hard for you to really go deep into unknown territory in the opposite direction. I understand that. I just like going deep into the unknown.
One thing I said was maybe burried within too much text though. Do you see what I meant when I said that Ra didn't use the analogy at first when speaking of the archetype but used it later when asked to go deeper? What do you think is the reason the analogy was not part of the inital statement? How do you understand Ra's process of going deeper into descriptions?
The way I see it, Ra always seem to state things as less distorted as possible at first, and then seeks a way to elaborate deeper into distortions doing his best not to distort it further than we can take. And sometimes it goes borderline not because Ra is essentially distorted but more because Ra has to work with distortions as his tools of communication. At this point it becomes our job to elaborate ourselves so we can find the less distorted common ground possible together.
I try to keep my answers related to what you answer to me but maybe the fact we both get involved can mess it up a bit.
I guess what I am trying to do is communicate that it is possible to still be in accordance with Ra and not take so literally. But I guess even if you agree it doesn't have to be so literal, you seem to resonante with the concept literally and use it literally and that is where the line is hard to draw. You can find arguments where you can use courting differently but if you use it literally in real time it will be hard for you to really go deep into unknown territory in the opposite direction. I understand that. I just like going deep into the unknown.
One thing I said was maybe burried within too much text though. Do you see what I meant when I said that Ra didn't use the analogy at first when speaking of the archetype but used it later when asked to go deeper? What do you think is the reason the analogy was not part of the inital statement? How do you understand Ra's process of going deeper into descriptions?
The way I see it, Ra always seem to state things as less distorted as possible at first, and then seeks a way to elaborate deeper into distortions doing his best not to distort it further than we can take. And sometimes it goes borderline not because Ra is essentially distorted but more because Ra has to work with distortions as his tools of communication. At this point it becomes our job to elaborate ourselves so we can find the less distorted common ground possible together.