04-18-2012, 01:07 PM
(This post was last modified: 04-18-2012, 01:08 PM by godwide_void.)
Gary, anagogy (I originally said welcome to the forums but saw you've been a member since '09... so I change this to say, post more! 
), that was a very illuminating and clarifying discourse between you both. Gary's statement of will being enabled by faith is a very powerful and accurate perception and this statement by you also stood out:
This discussion reminded me of the words of Nietzsche:
In my Philosophy course at college the work we've been studying is The Birth of Tragedy which makes the distinction between Dionysic and Apolloniac (or Socratic) approaches to art. Essentially, Dionysic is the pure undifferentiated experience, the formless, that which IS and may be perceived as "unintelligible" when considered from the viewpoint of aesthetic Socratism which states that a thing must be intelligible in order for it to be beautiful. It is the "thing" without any attempts at chiseling away at the thing with reason. The Apolloniac or Socratic is the application of reasoning to understanding a thing, and in doing so setting up a barrier which filters and carves down one's base feelings and emotional instinctive reaction to the thing and transposing it into a logical format. In doing so one inevitably ends up distorting the thing one attempts to make sense of by applying various angles dictated by rational processing. It would be like being at a concert, where the guy enjoying the experience and losing himself in the ecstatic throes of the event is the Dionysic, the experiencing, and the fellow in the back just observing and conceptualizing is the Socratic. Ultimately both are experiencing the same thing, yet one does so through feeling it, unbiased and undistorted, while the other is trying to make sense of the experience from an outside perspective.
This same paradigm applies to our present discussion of the faculties of faith and will. Now, every perspective offered here is phenomenal and we've successfully given form to the formless so to speak, but ultimately faith and will are Dionysic in that it is a pure feeling, one that doesn't need words to justify or make sense of their being experienced; reasoning and rationalizing these concepts doesn't do them justice no matter how much we are able to logically break them down. Come to think of it, applying the term "feelings" to them is also distorting them in a way since we don't necessarily "feel" will or faith so they are moreso different modes of focusing one's innermost desire through two distinct albeit very blurred and overlapping sets of characteristics particular to these modes of thought, so to avoid my going in circles it'd just be easier to say that these are mental formations bordering on volitional formations as faith and will are dependent upon and are the funnel for the intentions one holds.
@Gemini Wolf: You asked
Unfortunately I wouldn't be able to give you a suitable answer for that as the "indigo ray" is a concept that has no bearing on my experience or the paradigms which shape my particular perspectives. If by "indigo ray accelerating the dissolution of the illusion" you are implying that through establishing a more conscious and cognizant connection to the divine essence which pervades our experience, the mystery in which we only experience indirectly and in a variety of manners that it chooses to reveal Itself in, that one is able to shift their perception of the world from a set, physical material realm to that of being a holographic construct in which our true nature is obfuscated, then yes, I would agree. Your heart ray, or the faculty of love, has nothing to do with seeing the world for the illusion it is. Rather, its primary use is as a tool or focal point which we filter ourselves through as we navigate through the illusion and interact with the various contents of the illusion. The indigo ray/illumined awareness is the magnifying glass or microscope, and the heart ray/love I would say is that which gives shape to and determines what the one holding the magnifying glass' reaction will be to the revealed subject the glass is magnifying.
A good context this could be viewed in is with an "unstable" relationship, in which while in the relationship one might be "blind to the flaws" that are present, yet once one has stepped outside and re-evaluates it one begins to see what those flaws were exactly, and the insights of why and how those flaws pushed one away arises as well as examining one's own relation to the flaws and the aspects of personality which feel aversion towards these flaws. Once one becomes aware that there is delusion and starts to understand what about it categorizes it as delusion the natural progression ends up becoming seeking what is not delusion, what is its antithesis, and how one approached the previous gradually disintegrating delusion will directly determine and define how one may relate to the non-delusion.
), that was a very illuminating and clarifying discourse between you both. Gary's statement of will being enabled by faith is a very powerful and accurate perception and this statement by you also stood out:Quote:You touched upon something key here, which I find most interesting -- the true Self, which does not require belief. I agree whole-heartedly. We use different words to talk about it, but I can see the core is the same. Rather than use the word faith, as you do, which, for me connotes a kind of belief, I have often used the made up word "knowing-ness" to describe this "belief" (or raw intuition) that is beyond "belief", if that makes any sense.
This discussion reminded me of the words of Nietzsche:
Quote:What then is truth? A mobile army of metaphors, metonyms, and anthropomorphism -- inshort, a sum of human relations, which have been enhanced, transposed, and embellished poetically and rhetorically, and which after long use seem firm, canonical, and obligatory to a people: truths are illusions about which one has forgotten that is what they are; metaphors which are worn out and without sensuous power; coins which have lost their pictures and now matter only as metal, no longer as coins.
Quote:We believe that we know something about the things themselves when we speak of trees, colors, snow, and flowers; and yet we possess nothing but metaphors for things — metaphors which correspond in no way to the original entities.
In my Philosophy course at college the work we've been studying is The Birth of Tragedy which makes the distinction between Dionysic and Apolloniac (or Socratic) approaches to art. Essentially, Dionysic is the pure undifferentiated experience, the formless, that which IS and may be perceived as "unintelligible" when considered from the viewpoint of aesthetic Socratism which states that a thing must be intelligible in order for it to be beautiful. It is the "thing" without any attempts at chiseling away at the thing with reason. The Apolloniac or Socratic is the application of reasoning to understanding a thing, and in doing so setting up a barrier which filters and carves down one's base feelings and emotional instinctive reaction to the thing and transposing it into a logical format. In doing so one inevitably ends up distorting the thing one attempts to make sense of by applying various angles dictated by rational processing. It would be like being at a concert, where the guy enjoying the experience and losing himself in the ecstatic throes of the event is the Dionysic, the experiencing, and the fellow in the back just observing and conceptualizing is the Socratic. Ultimately both are experiencing the same thing, yet one does so through feeling it, unbiased and undistorted, while the other is trying to make sense of the experience from an outside perspective.
This same paradigm applies to our present discussion of the faculties of faith and will. Now, every perspective offered here is phenomenal and we've successfully given form to the formless so to speak, but ultimately faith and will are Dionysic in that it is a pure feeling, one that doesn't need words to justify or make sense of their being experienced; reasoning and rationalizing these concepts doesn't do them justice no matter how much we are able to logically break them down. Come to think of it, applying the term "feelings" to them is also distorting them in a way since we don't necessarily "feel" will or faith so they are moreso different modes of focusing one's innermost desire through two distinct albeit very blurred and overlapping sets of characteristics particular to these modes of thought, so to avoid my going in circles it'd just be easier to say that these are mental formations bordering on volitional formations as faith and will are dependent upon and are the funnel for the intentions one holds.
@Gemini Wolf: You asked
Quote:Godwide, would you say that it is the indigo ray that can accelerate the dissolution of the illusion? I find that the increase of my heart chakra keeps me stable when things begin to happen that might otherwise freak me out.
Unfortunately I wouldn't be able to give you a suitable answer for that as the "indigo ray" is a concept that has no bearing on my experience or the paradigms which shape my particular perspectives. If by "indigo ray accelerating the dissolution of the illusion" you are implying that through establishing a more conscious and cognizant connection to the divine essence which pervades our experience, the mystery in which we only experience indirectly and in a variety of manners that it chooses to reveal Itself in, that one is able to shift their perception of the world from a set, physical material realm to that of being a holographic construct in which our true nature is obfuscated, then yes, I would agree. Your heart ray, or the faculty of love, has nothing to do with seeing the world for the illusion it is. Rather, its primary use is as a tool or focal point which we filter ourselves through as we navigate through the illusion and interact with the various contents of the illusion. The indigo ray/illumined awareness is the magnifying glass or microscope, and the heart ray/love I would say is that which gives shape to and determines what the one holding the magnifying glass' reaction will be to the revealed subject the glass is magnifying.
Quote:Shin'Ar: What I have found is that the farther away you get from delusion, the closer you get to the reasons for the delusion in the first place.
A good context this could be viewed in is with an "unstable" relationship, in which while in the relationship one might be "blind to the flaws" that are present, yet once one has stepped outside and re-evaluates it one begins to see what those flaws were exactly, and the insights of why and how those flaws pushed one away arises as well as examining one's own relation to the flaws and the aspects of personality which feel aversion towards these flaws. Once one becomes aware that there is delusion and starts to understand what about it categorizes it as delusion the natural progression ends up becoming seeking what is not delusion, what is its antithesis, and how one approached the previous gradually disintegrating delusion will directly determine and define how one may relate to the non-delusion.
![[+]](https://www.bring4th.org/forums/images/collapse_collapsed.png)