Robes of expression.

[mkirkpatrick]

We are expressions of a life force an animating energy
that propels us along a long road of unfolding evolution.
At the "centre" of this life force I see "spirit" that pure
essense that "holds" life itself? The robes we wear are
expressed in manifold ways each at a differing vibrational
pitch,down through the octaves until we arrive at the
physical body the lowest level of expression.


Consciousness coexists within this matrix and is the "tool"
that allows us to "uncover" the many layers of maya that
keep us in ignorance and pain.

By being self aware we are able to examine ourselves and
ask questions,who are we? What are we? How are we?
As we inquire within (for thats where the answer resides)
we begin to tune in and come online,much like becoming
radio-active we begin to attract to ourselves that which
is most needed to expand our evolutional arc.

Tbc

regards michael.

[SteveA]

... expressed in manifold ways each at a differing vibrational pitch,down through the octaves...

I think there's something of this in every human pursuit. Little glimpses of an ideal that is never seen in perfect form, but is instinctively recognized - a few notes here and there that after a while give hints to incredible music or mathematical forms or textures that have never been felt and images that have never been seen and maybe even societies that have never been experienced - or maybe another example would be of watching the waves in the ocean and recognizing that they arise from layers of properties underneath that must act together to create it all and then realizing it's not limited to just making waves - now how to make scuba gear? (Though there's no type of scuba gear you can make from the waves on the surface that will work)

(I actually had some luck making some rather amazing images with mathematical algorithms - basically it was just some simple mathematical steps but repeated trillions of times. I had three computers running for months and generated images that were both unusual and unique but very organic, flowing and natural ... the main points is that though the images could contain diverse qualities and textures etc. they all "grew" from very simple seeds and evolved in complex, unpredictable and beautiful ways and if you dig into the details some it's very similar to fields of force flowing, though again, it quickly passes an ability to follow the complexity by hand. There should be music in there too, but I can't figure out how to extract it - though similarly there could be ways of mapping it to textures, geometric forms and other experiences and patterns of organization - so what would it ultimately be - it would appear to be the limits of (my personal) imagination (but similarly the imaginations of others which perceive different things) - seen through the limits of physical perceptions, which may be finite, though they occasionally appear to grow as new and unpredictable experiences occasionally enter the scene, so perceptions may ultimately not be limited but growing to encompass a larger space of possible realities and you get those little hints of a larger picture every once in a while, or you do something you've always done before but it changes meaning and gains a new context that wasn't there before and with that expanded frame of reference it's also easier to see the finer details - I don't know where it goes exactly, but it looks more like an inward/outward motion).

[mkirkpatrick]

Question,how many forms of life are there in the physical
universe? A seemingly impossible question to answer,but is it? There is only ONE form of LIFE in this physical universe,
and that one form of Life is "expressed" in an infinite number of ways.

Behind all expressions of energy we find life,sometimes hidden deep within its vortexial motions.

One "Robe" expressed as many,some see it as energy,some as light,some as consciousness,whatever way you "see it"
it is all the same thing.

tbc

regards michael.

[SteveA]

Question,how many forms of life are there in the physical
universe? A seemingly impossible question to answer,but is it? There is only ONE form of LIFE in this physical universe,
and that one form of Life is "expressed" in an infinite number of ways.

Behind all expressions of energy we find life,sometimes hidden deep within its vortexial motions.

One "Robe" expressed as many,some see it as energy,some as light,some as consciousness,whatever way you "see it"
it is all the same thing.

tbc

regards michael.

I think there are two ways of looking at it - everything in the universe you experience is tied together by at least a single property - time, that keeps everything synchronized. This is likely an innate property/ability of yourself, though shared with everything you experience as predictably existing in time - it's there one moment, it's still there the next, it remains with you and even if it's absent at some moment, your ability to recognize it and interact with it remains a known potential (I think in many ways the laws of physics are much like properties of logic and thought - you possess an ability to interact with them and in this sense they are your internal abilities, but logic can't describe things irrational and thoughts are constrained by imagination, comprehension and limited to working with seeds/building blocks of previous experiences etc., so though they may not appear as limited, in some respects, as physical laws, they still possess rules that limit them).

This is really just the first person perspective of experience though it could also extend to things that are not immediately experienced but follow predictable mechanical laws over time - I don't know specifically how large or small this "realm" is - in some ways the physical universe is a body, but it also isn't necessarily as large and complex as it could appear to be and experiences occur via. surfaces of interaction and not as directly 3 dimensional, though in many ways experiences do not occur within any specific dimensionality of space, but 3 dimensions appears to be a very natural perception for communication over time.

There can also be another perspective outside this, but it's not specifically of physical experiences in the universe. I don't think growth or change arises from something internal (though in many ways internal and external can appear closely related and what appears as external or internal can be mirroring properties on either 'side' - if you didn't have some ability to understand some concept, it could not be seen as existing external to yourself or similarly, if you recognize some property about yourself, then you've similarly likely experienced its influences 'externally', otherwise there would be no reason to consider you possessed the property).

But if we just look things that are unpredictable and that change and do not appear to follow specific rules or things that are simply "random", you can split these into two components - the components experienced by you of the change that remains (which I think represents properties internal to yourself, though they may be 'additions' or a growth, though I guess loses are possible also, but at least the potential for a return remains as its something that is known to be experiencable or knowable etc.), but there's an invisible, unexperienciable, and to me at least, apparent incomprehesible and indescribable component - just the simple fact that something different occured and at its lowest, most fundamental level, it appears there's no way to point to anything or describe it in any specific ways, because it's the thing you could never describe at the time, though maybe you could after the fact.

For example, let's say there exists an object that was truly randomly located in space - it would not exist coherently as mass with inertia and it could be found or not found anywhere in space. You may happen to detect it, by some non-random property, but this wouldn't necessarily be repeatable - the "particle" quality is not necessarily something random in itself - when it was detected, it appeared to act as a particle, but it's position in space was random and it's random position in space is specifically the property that can't be determined and isn't, in any coherent sense even attached to any specific laws of physics - fundamentally randomness is inexperienciable, and incomprehensible - you can't describe specifically what it is. You can describe every other non-random property surrounding, molding, shaping and giving a context to it, but not the truly random component itself.

I don't think this can be said in any coherent way to be a part of onesself, at least there appears little ability to include it as part of yourself, unless you become an unknown and there also doesn't appear any way for a logical structure to create itself - not that I'm trying to describe you (or me) as a purely logical structure - there doesn't appear any explaination why colors appear as they do or why vanilla smells like it does - they simple do possess those characteristics and I assume that's an innate part of onesself (though there's a potential for a wider variety of perceptual qualities to exist and if ultimately they had to describe an infinite quantity of moments in time, then they would have to exist in an infinite variety). So there are inexplicable components to onesself - properties or abilities that you possess that you didn't create or control, but the whys behind their existance and what they become in the future doesn't appear attachable to onesself in any coherent way, at least for those things that you did not yourself create - for example, if you made some musical instrument and played it, everything that you endeavored to create in your attempts could be seen as something resulting from you - even knowledge of the material involved could also be seen as arising previous from your pursuits and this could even string back to relationships you influenced since your birth or whatever initial existence there was, so the influences of your actions accumulate over time, but but there are still unknowns beyond this - though maybe they could be unforeseen consequences, or purely random and irrational or something not synchronized in time or maybe all these and more.

Anyway, I personally can't include something in the definition of myself that's an unknown because that just seems arbitrary - it may or may not be a part of myself, or their might be some components that are ultimately recognized to be part of myself and my actions and influences etc., but there are just too many unknowns, which in many ways could be considered to be just a single unknown. The model that appears most appropriate just has two components - the known and the unknown, or similarly self and other(s).

Consider that what someone might physically appear as is not necessarily what they are, just like a color blind person does not change the color of some object, but experiences an internal "universe" with different colors and different qualities. In a similar manner, what one sees or believes someone else to be is not necessarily what they are - though simulataineously there is no reason for them to be anything other than what you believe them to be (it doesn't make sense to constantly go around and second guess everything - whether experiences are real or illusion isn't particularly relevant. Everything could be considered real or illusion and it doesn't change any of the experiences though it does alter a context in which expectations can be different). In the case of someone else, if what one believes someone to be is based upon ones own knowledge about onsself, then properties that could exist beyond that will generally be overlooked, but if a recognition of uncertainty exists then there exists the potential for more to be learned. So the choice appears to me to effectively be whether or not you believe or desire there to be more - if you take things as they are, then knowledge tends to remain as it is and those things comprehended to be real tend to remain the same, whereas considering that there can exist more and that an unknown exists biases pursuits more toward the discovery, creation or recognition of diversity - sometimes you may want to delve into something specific and not have everything change outside this, other times you may want to pursue a new path and fling the doors of experience open. I don't think it's all one thing though everything experienced and known etc. shares the same "observational platform" - self, but I don't think it's all known and experienced yet, who knowns, maybe that day will come but it doesn't appear to be on any immediately visible horizon

[mkirkpatrick]

Locked within us is infinite potential,we are both relative
and absolute,one the outer expression the other the inner
expression.

As we expand in conscious awareness and our perception
becomes more finely attuned we gain greater access to
a more universal consciousness,we begin to "feel" that we
are much more than just the sum of our parts.


At first we were only able to express ourselves on a pure
physical level with a basic conscious awareness,then though as we evolved up the evolutionary arc we were
more able to percieve finer vibrations and percieve the difference.

We now stand at the doorway to the etheric and astral
levels of consciousness and many can today "tune in"
to this higher vibrational pitch.


tbc.

regards michael.

[Meem]

Kinetic energy, hidden potential?

[labelwench]

All of that 'empty space', both within and without, is not empty for those who know how to perceive it....

Some concepts are not easy to quantify or qualify.

Regards,

Labelwench

[mkirkpatrick]

All of that 'empty space', both within and without, is not empty for those who know how to perceive it....

Some concepts are not easy to quantify or qualify.

Regards,

Labelwench

You are absolutely right there Labelwench,it comes to us
in that moment of stillness that arises within us when the
"time is right" not easy to quantify no indeed,but we each
"feel" this perception pitch or rather hear it! When we arrive at that place where we should BE.

regards michael.

[Mohan.C]

You are absolutely right there Labelwench,it comes to us
in that moment of stillness that arises within us when the
"time is right" not easy to quantify no indeed,but we each
"feel" this perception pitch or rather hear it! When we arrive at that place where we should BE.

regards michael.

But the irony would be, if we did not know where we are standing?
At present, the place beneath our feet, is not far from home, indeed, it is home, but we believe it is the wild. Why?

[mkirkpatrick]

But the irony would be, if we did not know where we are standing?
At present, the place beneath our feet, is not far from home, indeed, it is home, but we believe it is the wild. Why?

Why indeed dear brother! Prehaps because of our ignorance and lack of insightful sensitivity.

Or our acceptence of what IS!


regards michael.