The mysterious nature of time

[zenmaster]

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?

A definitive agreement: "we can and must do that"

Why do you think "we must do that"?

[AnthroHeart]

And this woman too. She is a wonderful representation of "this"

Thanks, an interesting perspective. This is a wonderful video I've found to help me face and process catalyst. Try to watch it without giggling or getting offended.

[Meerie]

if any one wants to see how us people in Bavaria curse, go watch the following vid. He is a comedian and he talks about the rich and how he is not jealous of all their riches. He then gets more and more agitated and insulting. It culminates around 3:30.

[AnthroHeart]

Thanks Meerie. I don't speak Bavarian, but I still could feel catalyst being generated. So it seems the effects of catalyst are beyond language.

[3DMonkey]

A definitive agreement: "we can and must do that"

Why do you think "we must do that"?

I don't.

We ourselves can and must do this,

---

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.

---

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"

---

if any one wants to see how us people in Bavaria curse, go watch the following vid. He is a comedian and he talks about the rich and how he is not jealous of all their riches. He then gets more and more agitated and insulting. It culminates around 3:30.

Language is right up there with time's mysterious nature

[zenmaster]

A definitive agreement: "we can and must do that"

Why do you think "we must do that"?

I don't.

We ourselves can and must do this,

That was in the context of after having found, or rediscoverd, or integrated, or accepted, or developed a new condition which supports a deeper or broader aspect of the creator, so to speak. It tends to be expressed by our beingness. I'm not talking about a peak experience of 'oneness' and that somehow showing a way. 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.

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.

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. 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. There are things which support the upward movement, like attention and acceptance. 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. People can trust, they can be honest. These things are just rare because of perceived survival needs extended beyond their appropriate agency.

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. 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.

[Confused]

Time, Space, and Speed~Caroline Myss~Part 1

[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.

[Confused]

---

---

---

[Confused]

[transiten]

3.33

[Confused]

transiten.

---

[AnthroHeart]

Some descriptions of Tao represent it as Infinity, some descriptions resemble intelligent infinity, and some represent intelligent energy. The Tao is described as moving, and infinity just is. The movement is more related around intelligent energy, the creative force of the Universe. One note on semantics, the meaning of a word can change in the moment. So Tao means what you need it to mean in the moment. It's not just the Infinity (that first known thing).

I was riding my bike, and did 15 miles. It had been probably a year since I did any riding, and then 6 miles was about as far as I'd go at once. It became almost effortless, even when riding in 8th gear going uphill. I surrender to a certain extent and let the Light do the work. There was still some muscle work involved as my body is getting used to allowing the light body to work. I'm sort of working my light body's "muscles". At times when I stopped, I'd get off the bike and stand. When you're in the flow, you can rest in a standing position. The light would hold me upright and I could let go as if I were lying down. It even pulled me off center just a little so I was physically unbalanced, and it still supported me.

When you get to a point of surrender, letting go and emotional detachment, the gravitational force of the singularity in our 3rd eye will provide a sort of gyroscopic force that balances us physically. So when I was on my bike, I could shake the bike and it had incredible stability. The light actually moved me to a standing position on the pedals. Something I would rarely even try, but it was effortless. It was stable, even when the light steered the bike, doing weaving patterns. The singularity holds you stable when doing these "little stunts".

[Meerie]

you know what I asked my self when I watched Confuseds videos? The first one talks about living in the now and becoming co-creator, and the Tao ones just talk about letting go, of desire, of anything, just live in the moment.
Isn't that contraindicative? one is like "anything goes", accept anything, and the other one about creating.
or does the creating result naturally of a state of "being okay with what is in the now"?

[Confused]

Clemens Brenan: JUNG AND THE TAROT - OUR JOURNEY THROUGH THE UNDERWORLD - part two

[AnthroHeart]

you know what I asked my self when I watched Confuseds videos? The first one talks about living in the now and becoming co-creator, and the Tao ones just talk about letting go, of desire, of anything, just live in the moment.
Isn't that contraindicative? one is like "anything goes", accept anything, and the other one about creating.
or does the creating result naturally of a state of "being okay with what is in the now"?

I think when you're starting to learn these things, that dichotomy is part of the learning. In the confusion, thinking through what is right and wrong is naturally part of that.

As you move on, little by little, you naturally allow the light to carry you more. It's all a trust issue. The more you learn to trust the light within you, the more you can "let go", and still be very much in the moment. Such as when I was doing the bike riding and let the light within me do the steering for me. I was sort of like a puppet on a bike, and my hands just turned when needed, perfectly, with like zero effort on my part.

[Meerie]

I think the problem arises from the wishes or desires that lead one to want to create, and that are ego-based.
because the adept should be okay with whatever circumstances he / she finds themselves in, right? yelling neighbors? no problem! noisy streets and stinking cars? no problem! a job that is low-paid? no problem! no relationship? no problem!
Everything is part of the creation and of the whole. Everything is part of the picture and serves a purpose.

[AnthroHeart]

Confused, can you find any material on intensifying desires? That's what I was doing. When I had something that would arouse me (seems sexuality was my strongest desire), I would mentally let the story build until it was too much for me, and then I'd back off. Then I'd build it more, then back off. That's how I got rid of desires that I have so far.

Now the things that used to really set me off, even those fetishes I had, produce pretty much no response, even when looking at artworks of them. If there is a particularly stubborn desire, I'll even use masturbation to build the sexual energy, but I don't reach orgasm as I don't want to cut off the flow. I want to build the intensity of the sexual energy as much as possible, and then integrate it into myself. Believe me, this is a very difficult way to tackle desires. The sexual energy has my legs shaking quite dramatically.

I had to be honest with myself in this process. There is a degree of mental fortitude to tackle one's desires in a direct manner without giving into them. I also did the same with fears, intensifying them.

[Meerie]

so your goal is indeed having no more desires? but then you are not interested in creating either, are you? No desire... no need to create anything!
Because anything, no matter what circumstance you will find yourself in, will be okay.
How does the result of integrating the sexual energy into yourself look like? do you mean that thusly you increase in spiritual mass?

[AnthroHeart]

I love your style of thinking Meerie.

Creation is a fundamental part of who all of us are. That doesn't go away. We still will create, but we won't have an emotional attachment to what we create (I guess unless we want one, I haven't gotten that far yet).

So in my mind I can create a character now and not have that immediate response to it. Otherwise my projection (the character) would have some control of the energy. We don't really want our creations to control us.

I still have a lot of internal blockages to get through to understand the finer points of the nature of creating things.

It's funny, because I have to bring myself down energetically sometimes in order to not speak at too high a level. The level of consciousness we are at is how we will communicate.

[Meerie]

I love your style of thinking Meerie.

Creation is a fundamental part of who all of us are. That doesn't go away. We still will create, but we won't have an emotional attachment to what we create (I guess unless we want one, I haven't gotten that far yet).

So in my mind I can create a character now and not have that immediate response to it. Otherwise my projection (the character) would have some control of the energy. We don't really want our creations to control us.

Yes that makes sense, thanks for clarifying! by the way I liked what you wrote about these characters that play scenes out in your mind. Seems like you continously have movies there going on, don't you? (you still have not answered my question as to how it feels to integrate the sexual energy. That interests me as well )

[AnthroHeart]

Think of what the orgasm feels like. In men it pulses about 5 or 6 times or so, but not sure about women, if it pulses or not.

I will note that I've opened my kundalini, so my experience may be different than others.

When I'm at the peak of sexual intensity of these characters, it's like the button for the feeling of orgasm is pushed, except it doesn't pulse but it stays on, right on the sexual chakra, and then it tapers off. Sometimes the feeling of an orgasm stream (that continuous non-pulsing orgasm feeling) is in the heart as well. The men's orgasm pulses because the chakra turns on and off the stream so that it doesn't overpower an underdeveloped sexual chakra.

This intensifies the energy around me substantially, so that it can be a little disorienting. Integrating is like letting off the pressure slowly as I allow it to come into my own body. Orgasm streams of the heart and sexual chakra can be almost overwhelming, to where they begin to hurt a little. The body also must get used to the substantial increase in Light, and this can cause muscles to hurt as well. When sexual energy is intense enough, the body's muscles will spasm.

[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"?

[3DMonkey]

Things develop as a course of nature, yes. One person can become aware of their needs, but I do not see it as a checklist where one can mark it off and move upward beyond others or beyond previous self; it is simply a new mixture of energy.

This attachment idea you are projecting is limiting your honesty. I'm not creating these things. I am using words to express my point of view. Perhaps you are giving too much weight to precise word choice.

The hypocrisy is in that these "pioneers" supposedly "trying to create a bridge back" are actually creating the honest reality for themselves where "people frame them as ____". The honesty is that their "bridge" is their own personal bias and not a "bridge" at all.

You have created the need for society expanded consciousness. I say it already is expanded as it resides in reality now.

....
No, Ra admits they see no separation, e.g. between adult and child. The discovering of needs are simply discovery. These needs can be anything, and it does not matter what they are. One need is not more highly esteemed than another. The desire to establish a society consciousness of honest interaction in one need. The desire to go to war and destroy is another need. They are equal in that they are expressions of experience, and they do develop over accumulated catalyst.

You may have your own projections towards my use of "the pot calling the kettle black". To be clear, we all do it, and the fact that we do it is what honestly defines our "third density" existence.

What does everlasting entity existence have to do with anything? For one, it is THE motivation for anyone trying to do "work" with their spirit. It is this concept that Ra has used to give meaning to Harvest. It is this concept that that gives meaning to Densities. It is this concept that facilitates faith and gives one purpose. It is what makes us seekers. It has everything to do with everything, and yet can never be found. I see its effects and understand the purpose of these effects in humankind's psyche. ... Without it, there is nothing. I am living in the nothing. (It isn't a sad place because I am doing what I want to do, i.e. all that bias stuff that everyone else is doing). If there is a state of my being away from this body, in time/space, I tell that being "put up or shut up".

[Confused]

TAO Universe Nassim Haramein and Marko Rodin 1of4

---

Confused, can you find any material on intensifying desires?

I will see whether I can find something related to this topic, GW. May be I will PM them to you, if I come across videos like that.

However, this is going to be a difficult topic to search for, since you will have many videos on desireless-ness and not the opposite. A slightly difficult and obscure topic to find information through the video format on the internet.

[3DMonkey]

This one is fun

[Confused]

This one is fun

Why do you say that, 3? I confess I have not watched it yet. However, I would like to understand why it is fun. I need to watch the second part and link it here, before going on to the third that you have posted.

How is the little one coming along (Emilia)? Are you allowing the 3rd little one to hold her little sister yet? :@

If you find time, please do email some pictures across of Emilia (if you are inclined, of course), as she unfolds into an entity of her own.

[zenmaster]

Things develop as a course of nature, yes. One person can become aware of their needs, but I do not see it as a checklist where one can mark it off and move upward beyond others or beyond previous self; it is simply a new mixture of energy.

This attachment idea you are projecting is limiting your honesty. I'm not creating these things.

I'm not sure I follow. If it's not you, then are you channeling an entity which is attributing power goals, and foolish transcending of ego, and checklists to the process of development as I am stating it? lol, seriously though. Seems like you are creating these things to me? These things are indeed not necessary, yet you introduced them, apparently as a reaction to some illusory, foolish view of development (which doesn't exist). So, of course, that's certainly projection, and I called you out on it because such a characterization is a separate 'straw man' for some other tangential notion (presumably some fixation on an ego issue). And how is that limiting my honesty? It's like saying someone that has been to the moon is necessarily on a power trip because they have been somewhere else. Yet such a person may have something to share and may not be on a power trip. And, yes, that is an illusion, but that's what povides learning.

I am using words to express my point of view. Perhaps you are giving too much weight to precise word choice.

Has nothing to do with being precise. You are talking about hypocrisy with your creation of some kind of illusory, foolish attitude. You are the one bringing up a "checklist" idea. Do you see? I am maintaining that you are talking about something different than what I'm talking about. So we are not communicating. Also, first you say there is no development, then you say there is development. Perhaps you could clarify what is going on there?

The hypocrisy is in that these "pioneers" supposedly "trying to create a bridge back" are actually creating the honest reality for themselves where "people frame them as ____". The honesty is that their "bridge" is their own personal bias and not a "bridge" at all.

It's a "metaphor". Do you not understand that someone who has been to a place that another has not bothered to go, may, in fact have something to offer in the form of an opportunity? Such is the nature of experience and learning. (Ra's teach/learning). Healing opportunities work similarly.

You have created the need for society expanded consciousness. I say it already is expanded as it resides in reality now.

But it was never in that sense at all. It is a need to communicate just as Ra's 'pain in the leg'. Learning results in expanded consciousness/awareness. It is expanded, socially, to the extent that society has become aware in that 'racial mind'. That extent is, of course, limited. Yet it is evolving, as we all are here. Some slower than others, some faster than others. Whether or not one views such evolution as a goal or necessity is completely irrelevant to the evolution itself. There is a new context that results from evolution. That's the way it is. Is it "better"? No. That is not the point. Is it illusory? Yes. That is also not the point.

No, Ra admits they see no separation, e.g. between adult and child. The discovering of needs are simply discovery. These needs can be anything, and it does not matter what they are. One need is not more highly esteemed than another. The desire to establish a society consciousness of honest interaction in one need. The desire to go to war and destroy is another need. They are equal in that they are expressions of experience, and they do develop over accumulated catalyst.

Yes, this is obvious with respect to experience. Needs do change, however based on what has been accepted.

You may have your own projections towards my use of "the pot calling the kettle black". To be clear, we all do it, and the fact that we do it is what honestly defines our "third density" existence.

We all do it, that projective mechanism is the default 'how we get something out of the experience'. We enjoy the veiling's constraints, yes. Existence itself is, again, an evolutionary thing. For example, there is the ability to see projection, then there is the later ability to work with it more effectively. The separation is eventually embraced or accepted, and a change occurs which is not very common. There is indeed a difference between the society which results from embracing projective mechanisms, and those which unconsciously engage in it. Acknowledging such a difference is not separative or foolish. It's just a recognition of the obvious.

What does everlasting entity existence have to do with anything? For one, it is THE motivation for anyone trying to do "work" with their spirit.

Well, what is compelling is what is motivating.

It is this concept that Ra has used to give meaning to Harvest. It is this concept that that gives meaning to Densities. It is this concept that facilitates faith and gives one purpose. It is what makes us seekers. It has everything to do with everything, and yet can never be found.

Not sure I follow. There is no meaning there really as it does not reflect something to learn. It's a state.

I see its effects and understand the purpose of these effects in humankind's psyche. ... Without it, there is nothing. I am living in the nothing. (It isn't a sad place because I am doing what I want to do, i.e. all that bias stuff that everyone else is doing). If there is a state of my being away from this body, in time/space, I tell that being "put up or shut up".

'Been there, done that'. Life goes on after that initial discovery. The effects evolve as our processing of the effects evolve. There is simply more if we are willing to give ourselves more.

Again, it is not about 'power' or hierarchy or 'here' denying 'there' unless you somehow want it to be. This is not the necessity which you are claiming. That is what I wanted to clear up. The circle is a spiral. There are indeed those which have an experience which subsumes other's current experiences (with respect to logos integration) and are therefore able to offer opportunities which would otherwise not be provided. Is that important? Not if you do not want it to be.

[3DMonkey]

Your honesty is limited because you automatically assume I have not been where you have been. That is your choice. Free to do as you wish.

Of course we are talking about different things. This is communication. This is the only reason I point out that there is never agreement. Not because i'm "projecting". It is our existence= non-agreeing. Never. Doesn't exist otherwise. Acknowledging this is more honest.

"it's a state". Bingo. It is a state.

In an everlasting environment with a veil, one should not assume their state subsumes another's. In a non-everlasting environment, subsumed stature has zero relevancy. In a delusional environment, we always know better ourselves.

We are all geniuses that have it all figured out. This is our reality. This is our "circle." this is what we are capable of creating.

---

This one is fun

Why do you say that, 3? I confess I have not watched it yet. However, I would like to understand why it is fun. I need to watch the second part and link it here, before going on to the third that you have posted.

How is the little one coming along (Emilia)? Are you allowing the 3rd little one to hold her little sister yet? :@

If you find time, please do email some pictures across of Emilia (if you are inclined, of course), as she unfolds into an entity of her own.

"Fun" because it is playing with numbers. Playing is fun

---

I guess I need to take more pictures

[Confused]