I ALWAYS thought that I could learn through logic to uncover and explain the underlying fabric of “universal truth”…..And actually...I still do.~~~~~~
It’s not simple trying to define and then express the nature of the heart. Love, emotions, pain and forgiveness.
Seemingly untangible, formless, yet what a blessing we have, such a powerful force to drive us and give us expression and also creative freedom. Yet it rules us.
Too many in my opinion. This is not to say it is “wrong” or “lesser awareness” to be encumbered by it’s tides and flow, but without respect to the heart’s innocent and pure nature, and the relationship it shares with the aware level of consciousness,and to the more subtle subconscious ego,the heart can be poorly blamed for irresponsible acts- culminations of a generally misunderstood process.
Of course then, in some reaches of the “higher awareness factions” in society, a rudely accredited way off r, forces by verbal-proxy the interpreter to associate “the true self” with the heart, a rather one-dimensional ideology.
This, is no more true than the former.
Epistemological as it may sound,given the nature of our ever so wanting language limitations, to communicate the definition of the heart -in terms of the emotional experience of it- could never even hope to reach the level of true communicational understanding.After all, we are using the term as a metaphor.This must be understood in order to progress.The label, the meaning that we have painted over the physical heart- is not a solidity of fact. It is a sub-doing of self growth, by entrapping one’s “reality” of self.This does not go to say that the two- the physical heart, and the emotional experience, are not of the same manifested creation, but it does emphasize the opening of acceptance to other forms of nature having constitutional entanglement within (and unto) the bonds of this relationship.
Think outside the box.
The experience of emotion is no more “true” or “false” of the self’s identity than the experience of thought.And how juvenile of us to entirely leave out the other states of experience.Now, to the more conservative-in-practice to the ART of thinking, this may appear epistemological as well.As only the experiencer can verify without a doubt it’s factuality. But this is accustomed to, say, a scientist refusing to look through a microscope.It is purely and only the failure of the subjected experiencer to open themselves to such an experience as meditational one-ness, so called in some spiritual circles.Luckily, the experience of such a thing as being without thought, without clouds of emotion, is not limited to those believing in spiritual themes at all.
A completely scientific, athiest, or any other such labeled skeptical ideologist, is completely capable of witnessing the same conclusion. Irony is woven thick here, as that the experience of one’s “reality” is completely subjected to her-or-his belief structure, the experience of being in such a state of awareness, or rather, BE-ing in such a state, does mean the viewer in case must open themselves to other experiences as possibilities of awareness in consciousness.
Now I’m going to be firm here, because words fail to express fully what I’m elaborating.When I speak of “opening one’s self to other possibilities” – I mean just that.I don’t even mean some sort of “one must believe this as true and factual to experience”No.Quite opposite.
Opening one’s self to other possibilities is to let go of held belief structures, and has nothing to do with forcing one’s perspective to see in any one sort of way.It has to do with stepping back from the trees – to see the forest.Now, it has been too long a thorn in humanity’s side to have such prior logical fallacies as seen, debated, turned over, and left as unmanageable to identify logical form upon.In this we now have 3 states of experiential consciousness, which immediately begs the question of interlinking relationships between the three.
Sadly,this becomes obviously (a word hated in philosophy, but I argue this statement is not philosophy, but an applicable and probable fact no longer limited to being verbally expressible),subject to one-dimensional attack, from those that would platform this third point-of-experiential awareness as linear to the others, and “therefore must be the true self!”.
…. I do not judge nor blame this conclusion being approached, it is only of course natural and must be approached. What must be attended is the same scientific method that got us here being applied once again to the new foundational structure. Is there more?
While for now I leave conjecture up to the reader, and as well also ask all and any to have the courage to call out any logical fallacies that may lie within my own statements,as such is and should be the responsibility of all who acclaim love for humanity and want for humanity‘s conscious evolution,I will also add- There Doesn’t Need To Be More even from that conclusion alone for it to be evident in common understanding that the so called “true self” may be illusory in nature right from the applied label and conjectured meaning.To call any part of one’s experience any more “true” or “false”, sabotages the perspectivity of the experiencer to have chaos between them all. A spiritual identity chrisis if you will.
And as “irony is the face of God“,thus submits the hopeful spiritualist, or at least, seeker of self, to a limbo and cycle of juggling realities as factual or false.This leaves the victim to a inherent flaw in approach- they ostrasize themselves from the possibility of pure acceptance in all of self-acts being experienced, and all of self-acts being forgiven.Temet Nosce,or, Nosce Tiepsum- to “know thyself“.Many have said it and I’ll say it again here:Knowing who you are is detrimental to the life you experience, and throughout each individual taking responsibility in this, detrimental to the wellbeing of society, ergo, the evolution of the conscious stage of humanity.So if there is an everlasting internal war within,
how can anything else be expected but a forgoing war externally?
Separation of humanity,
race, culture and country identified pride..
is that not an obvious, ..no… DEPENDABLE conclusion from all of the same happening within the masses of individuals?
I have no expectations of these words changing the stubborn ideologies of humanity, no matter how logically proven against, and no matter how evidently destructive and unnatural is culminated.But I can say to those readers who have read and understand this article, that now you have no excuse.In which case NOW-if you disagree and yet consider yourself “humane and a human, in HUMANITY“- are responsible to comment and argue against any fallacies you figure lay within- in order to further awareness and understanding in humanity,or if you agree, then you must sternly apply and critique all future values and relativities based on this higher level of reasoning.Anything else,well,that would be lying to yourself,and who these days can afford to besuch a hypocrite