overly dramatic sub heading required

Thursday, August 7, 2008

Two Worlds - An Asside

After reading worlds 1 and 2, we shall see what happens next, yet I am already intrigued and full of rudimentary commentary:

though I'm sure some would foolishly dismiss, your are in fact quite clever, and its unfortunate people adopt impatience as their identities, though for anything I can accuse I am not completely immune, especially with traffic and or excessively law abiding drivers, people who slow down for me, ect, ect, i become impatient for them, the road is like a river to me, not some rigid system, the only rule is to not crash, or avoid the crash police who think you will crash when your not, but my theory is they just want to make money anyway, and that crashes keep them in business. Your concepts are intriguing, world 1 is fascinating in and of itself, and I expected more harsh of a contrast in world 2 (yet I have more to read). I feel as if I begin life in world 2 but somehow became slowly convinced world 1 was all that is real, though world 2 is still always there on command, its like a personal world with nobody else in it, its excellent, or at least peaceful and serene... but I am wondering if you mean for world 1 and world 2 to subsume all categories of light-workers and dark workers (i expected some more drastically alternate world), and if there is a preference or distinction for them between worlds or if there is a relatively even distribution between each. I like the idea that the borderlines blur in any case since if greater knowledge really leads to improved results in the 'real' world (or i suppose 'seemingly shared' is more accurate than real) then knowing each world would in fact help one succeed in world 1, bringing peace to those 'blindly trapped' or 'blissfully stuck' in world 2. Its too bad there are so many limitations I get so caught up in the fact that world 2 does not entirely appreciate world 1 and vice versa becomes quite disgusting to me the lapses that occur in communication but your certainly correct in that it doesn't trap itself between borders between cultures, no matter what group one might try to accuse, its always easy to find some world within their foreign world that seems utterly backwards to oneself unless truly experienced in the nature of existence, in which any and all worlds are equal and valid possessing truths of their own whether conscious or not realized, everything becomes useful in determining truth of existence, even terrorists hold some truth, or at least they are convinced of it is my opinion, and there must be some fragment of truth to what they believe, even if they were mislead. I'm sure this is all old news, and I've only began reading your material, but keep up the good work, it seems habit forming.

Wow now finally to the original intention, negative words having a negative impact and instilling fear, I think depends on ones ability to reshape and re-cast and or re-mold words as other things (yet you probably have more articles about this I haven't read which may or may not address this). I think society is too quick to dismiss words as "bad" or "politically incorrect" and that in fact there is much usefulness trapped behind the facade of maliciousness, all that is fought against in outlawing negative words to me is connotation, a 'war on poverty', a double negative, becomes a positive, in a sense, or at least logically ought to be positive, just like a 'victory of wealth' negates itself (at least eventually, through complacency, or by simply adding a 'y' to the end of wealth). Resources are forever finite (words may be finite resources for expressing reality to people living within that universe of words), and I think that avoiding negative explicitly, or based on because it 'feels' bad, separates oneself from truth (all good things come to an end, and that end must be mitigated or accounted for preemptively, but cannot be described without having a negative connotation, how can we have a concept of danger or warning without negatives?), but then again that may be in a more world1 oriented objective sense of a shared reality truth, as opposed to a personalized truth of oneness with world2, which to me is the only source of any real and lasting peace, even if its a personalized dream based fabrication, any one can only do so much in world1, and we all eventually go back to whence we came, to the warming or paralyzing abyss of world 2, the heavens or hells we imagine infinity to be, all of which are in some ways true, but luckily I believe not everlasting, though my physical body seems to like it here. There are infinities everywhere, and between these we are pulled, as if to settle on one for good would form a solution is an illusion of a short lifetime, while I know we live forever, through more than just our own experience. Between the infinitely short sighted, and the infinitely far sighted, must lie some optimal balance, but to be in an active state of balance seems necessary to distinguish from stagnation, though it may appear to the manic as if stationary, focus seems to me the unit of measurement.

No comments: