The mysterious nature of time

[3DMonkey]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?)

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.

---

Frankly, this is ego regurgitated.