Post

Separation, habitual dominance, and wholeness…

6 comments

 

 

We so habitually separate.  We, psychologically, separate the perceiver from “that which is perceived” so readily, so habitually, just as we were taught… and just as primitive conflicting, opposing factors (over eons) have dictated.  Time, additionally, is separated.  Of course, chronologically, actual physical time (in many, limited respects) has sections, but we, psychologically, almost constantly live in (and “as”) the past, as learned (stored) symbols, words, and concepts (of the past) that we constantly use (and are protrusions of what was poured into us).  What is projected internally (psychologically) is what we are (i.e., what we actually are) fundamentally.  If we remain in the old and limited, we remain old (internally) and limited.  Even our concepts about the future are extensions of past accumulated (old) symbols/patterns.  (Even when we think that we often live in the present, we — in actuality — do not.)

One can’t choose to perceive correctly… any more than one can choose to be wise or choose to be a genius.  Choice and will are not keys to vast understanding.  Understanding takes place when limited perception and fragmentation are not dominating factors.  Will and choice are crude extensions of limited fragmentation; the chooser separating himself (or herself) from the choice is a mere continuity of primitive, illusory, fragmentary opposites.  When fragmentation and limited perception no longer dominate, then there is a wholeness that is not the result of a mold or a mere blueprint.

 

 

 

Wildflower Flower Pods … Photo by Thomas Peace c. 2018 .JPG

Post

Responsibility and Love

20 comments

 

 

When there is the negation of what order and love are not, perhaps love will be there.  There is no “you” that wills that negation, for the very self itself (i.e., the “I” or the “me”) must be part of that negation… not merely controlling it from (or “as”) a distance.  Of course, we are not suggesting harm to the body in any way; such harm would not entail love.  Love is not merely measurable (i.e., not merely of measure), so one cannot merely “know” that one has it.  Thinking and time are of measure and a mind that is merely caught up in thinking and measurement (in and “as” time) cannot love deeply (though it can easily think that it can).  Clinging to an isolated concept of “me” (apart from all of life) requires distance and a measurement of opposites.  Psychological distance and measurement create the “I” and the “I” would not exist without such psychological distance and measurement.

A lot of people say “I love you” very easily (as if one knows that one “has” it… as if it entails an absolute separate subject and object).  Is there really an “I” that is separate from what the whole world is?  Is there really an isolated “you” — that is looking from a (learned) distance, an accumulated psychological space — that is separate from what the whole world is?  Psychological separation, isolation, and conflict depend upon limited thought/thinking, and without limited thought/thinking, such separation wouldn’t exist.  

Our minds are often so very distorted and not whole.  The grocery stores, these days, are chock-full of fragmented, over-processed, pseudo-foods.  And, in the United States, for example, there is more obesity and more cancer (and strange, deleterious syndromes popping up) than ever before.  Too few of us eat real, whole foods like our grandparents did; we assimilate garbage both mentally and gustatorily, and we don’t mind being normal (and swallowing it all) one bit.  

 

 

 

Yellow Tiger Swallowtail Butterfly … Photo by Thomas Peace c. 2018

Post

Pinocchio

24 comments

 

 

Pinocchio
            you’ve told so many duplicitous lies
            in your disingenuous politician style 
            it makes me wonder 
            if your incredible nose 
            could possibly grow
            even longer

 

 

Boll Weavil (but at least it’s not voting to destroy the environment) … Photo by Thomas Peace c. 2018