What Is, Is

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by Arcanum

You didn't create what I actually am, just your interpretation of what's happening, and perhaps the encounter itself. Even if your perception of me were accurate, it would still only be a problem of interpretation. After all, I'm not actually in a position to cause you harm with my sociopathic ways.

No, I know. The God smiting thing was a joke.

Which is part of that wishful thinking, I suppose, that you could just lighten the ♥♥♥♥♥ up to show that you're human.

[ChristsLight]

Originally Posted by Beingist

Yes, you're probably right about the struggle to transition to the impersonal, but honestly, I don't want to transition if I end up speaking or writing in esoteric or cryptic monotones. Not that I enjoy emotions, but it's nice to really laugh once in a while. The joy that I've experienced tells me that I'll have all that and more, once I'm clear of all the junk, but as yet, I'm not entirely convinced that the arcane one is entirely impersonal, either, if he's admitting to playing the role of "hated one".

Remember, arcanum is just appearing how you are perceiving there. I suspect there's a lot more joy there than you suspect, but you're not seeing it because your button is being pressed from your perception of him.

When he says he is playing the role of the "hated one," I also suspect he is willing to play that role for you, because you are putting him into that role—not that he tries to be in that role himself.

If we were all sitting round a table, I'm sure there'd be a good bit more laughing than is coming across here.

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by Arcanum

It would indicate that I had an ego, which would make you feel more comfy about yours, and give you more reason to dismiss me.

Why are you afraid of revealing an ego? Why are you afraid of being dismissed by anyone?

In my understanding, it is fear that ultimately draws a reaction. Perhaps mine is to this fear of yours?

I'll take the risk of you misinterpreting and say that the part I'm playing in this little drama is that of the hated one. I don't know how to convey to you how much love there is for you that I'm happy to play that role on the off chance that the clouds may dissipate a bit more than they already have.

Have you ever considered that you, yourself, may be creating, in your own way, these clouds for me, that would be dissipated?

I'm not saying that you are, btw, just to be clear. I only ask to see how self-inquiring you are. I admit that I may have a cloud or two to deal with. But you don't, or can't, or won't. Such prevents the rest of us from realizing our shared brotherhood with you.

[ChristsLight]

Originally Posted by Beingist

Okay. More necessary digestion of I-don't-know-what. Here's where you lose me, again and again. Right over my head

Surrender/acceptance isn't a choice because ... the world isn't objective? what's that mean? What's the relevance? How do you know this?

I apologize for not being as smart and articulate as you, Arcanum. But seriously, your explanations will likely continue to go over my head as long as you write the way you do.

The flat tire never happened. It's just a projection. Neither the flat tire, nor your perception of it, is what is.

Originally Posted by Beingist

This makes a little more sense, except that it leaves me with the same question I've been trying to ask of you--what is real, then? (To you, I mean).

Being is real. We've agreed on this before right? But you're filtering being into a bunch of projections. Take off the filters and you'll have what's real.

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by ChrisGinsburg

The difficulty is that you likely believe Arcanum has attained or found something. He has attained nothing. He has merely stopped believing he is something other than what he already is and so the obvious truth became apparent. This truth is not reserved for him. You too already are eternally free and the calm by which all emotions rise and fall. They are not yours to own nor are they even a problem. You want him to come back into delusion with you and identify with these emotions so the mind can be put to ease but this will not happen. The courage is already there for you, just go with it.

Actually, no, I never said that I believed Arcanum had attained anything. And I question whether the "clarity" of which you have spoken mean that one is completely emotionless. Even Jesus wept. And although I don't consider compassion an emotion, it can still appear as one. In Arcanum, there appears nothing (short of, as I say, a bit of very mild humor).

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by ChrisGinsburg

Well, believing in oneness may actually be part of the problem. The belief is the twisted personal interpretation of what appears to be contradictory to what the person actually experiences. There then needs to be reconciliation of everything being one but a seemingly separate part making 'me' frustrated and pushing 'my' buttons.

You speak of Oneness as though it were as in an absolute, or religious belief. If it were, I'd agree with you.

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by Arcanum

I've said many times on this forum that the idea of real and unreal has little meaning for me. Either it's all real or nothing is real because there isn't some ultimate physical reality to use as a reference. It's all a dream, or to use your language, it all just is.

Then "some ultimate physical reality" isn't real? Then, if you follow your logic, if it's all or nothing, then nothing is real. In which case, even you aren't real.

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by Beingist

Maybe that's what at issue (in my own mind, admittedly)--maybe you're simply devoid of emotion (which is one of the things that make people real to me).

I can never help but wonder if someone who is so utterly stoic isn't or hasn't been trapped in the Buddhist "void".

Originally Posted by Arcanum

So essentially, I'm damned if I do (react) and damned if I don't?

Now who's doing the "doing?"

Seems to me (which means it's not necessarily true), that the only thing you're doing is avoiding the expression of a reaction. How is that clarity? Isn't that the very thing you've been critical of me for?

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by ChrisGinsburg

Haha. I don't mean to be insensitive here, only to say that I had the same reaction before I actually totally realized what he had been saying all along.

I don't take you as being insensitive.

Care to fill me in on what he had been saying all along? (Is it possible, without a text wall of psycho babble? )

[ChristsLight]

Originally Posted by Beingist

No, I know. The God smiting thing was a joke.

Which is part of that wishful thinking, I suppose, that you could just lighten the ♥♥♥♥♥ up to show that you're human.

It makes me laugh a little, because I see a bit more of that human side that you apparently are not. I know little more than you do, besides what I've learned in PM discussions, but I can see that the things you are perceiving are strictly within you, emotionless psychiatrist and all.

I hope arcanum won't mind me sharing, but I had a problem with him for a while. The last straw was when he seemed to insist on bringing one of my threads off-topic (I don't remember which at this point). I sent him a PM on it, and it generated the most beautiful discussion than I've had for a while. It got me thinking about a lot of the assumptions and expectations I held, and I saw that I was just projecting those on him. After that, I suddenly stopped having a problem with reefs/arcanum/ChrisGinsburg altogether. There is really something there that you are missing because you are too concerned with your projections, and calling them reality, or "what is."

So just let go of this blame for a second if you can, and see how you might be simply projecting the whole of it.

[ChristsLight]

Originally Posted by Beingist

Then "some ultimate physical reality" isn't real? Then, if you follow your logic, if it's all or nothing, then nothing is real. In which case, even you aren't real.

Depends what you mean by "you." If "you" is the person, then right, "you" are not real. Sorry for the bad news.

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by ChristsLight

When he says he is playing the role of the "hated one," I also suspect he is willing to play that role for you, because you are putting him into that role—not that he tries to be in that role himself.

Well, no, actually, it seems to me that he does it for everyone. He even mentioned something himself about making "everyone go unconscious", or something. I've seen him do his spiel on Maguru and inri. If I saw any different in my case, I'd be ... less reactive.

If we were all sitting round a table, I'm sure there'd be a good bit more laughing than is coming across here.

Well, sure, but I'd bet there'd still be some tension amongst some us that would have to be hashed out (and not just between myself and Arcanum).

[ChristsLight]

Originally Posted by Beingist

Well, no, actually, it seems to me that he does it for everyone. He even mentioned something himself about making "everyone go unconscious", or something. I've seen him do his spiel on Maguru and inri. If I saw any different in my case, I'd be ... less reactive.

I would think this is because most are unwilling to look at their own projections, which he is more than happy to point out to them.

Again I ask, why does your reactivity depend on the actions of another?

Originally Posted by Beingist

Well, sure, but I'd bet there'd still be some tension amongst some us that would have to be hashed out (and not just between myself and Arcanum).

In all seriousness, Beingist, the only tension I'm seeing is in you.

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by ChristsLight

It makes me laugh a little, because I see a bit more of that human side that you apparently are not. I know little more than you do, besides what I've learned in PM discussions, but I can see that the things you are perceiving are strictly within you, emotionless psychiatrist and all.

Huh? Arcanum's the emotionless one. My heart's on my sleeve. I never said I wasn't human. I'm not claiming to be enlightened.

There is really something there that you are missing because you are too concerned with your projections, and calling them reality, or "what is."

So just let go of this blame for a second if you can, and see how you might be simply projecting the whole of it.

Not sure where you got it that I'm calling my "projections" (another term I have to perpetually question) 'what is.' I admitted to being reactive, that is all. And I've admitted that my reaction (maybe that's what you guys mean by 'projection' ) is not 'what is'.

As far as letting go of any blame, that will happen when it happens. I'm not really "blaming" anyone, anyway, at this point. If I did, I would have reported or neg repped a post, by now, or left the board entirely, I'm sure. Rather, I've been reacting, and know that I've been reacting. That's really all.

[ChristsLight]

Originally Posted by Beingist

Huh? Arcanum's the emotionless one. My heart's on my sleeve. I never said I wasn't human. I'm not claiming to be enlightened.

No, I said that I'm seeing more of the human side in arcanum than you are seeing in him.

Originally Posted by Beingist

Not sure where you got it that I'm calling my "projections" (another term I have to perpetually question) 'what is.' I admitted to being reactive, that is all. And I've admitted that my reaction (maybe that's what you guys mean by 'projection' ) is not 'what is'.

It's been evident from the interactions in this thread. There have been many "if you'd only ..." statements that really have nothing to do with the person they are directed at.

Beingist, what is your definition of being? And let's avoid tautologies.

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by ChristsLight

I would think this is because most are unwilling to look at their own projections, which he is more than happy to point out to them.

Indeed, "he is more than happy" to play the role of a ... "hated one", by pointing out people's own projections (whatever those are), despite their consent?

My apologies, but this is the very thing I take issue with. Thank you for confirming it, as well as clarifying it. At least I am sure that it is all completely intentional.

And maybe, just knowing this will help me to get over it. So again, thanks.

Again I ask, why does your reactivity depend on the actions of another?

And again (I think) I say, I dunno.

In all seriousness, Beingist, the only tension I'm seeing is in you.

Fair enough.

But, now that I have the arcane one's M.O. confirmed, maybe there will be a little less tension. However, when one is dealing from the bottom, even if it is ostensibly for another's benefit, I hope you would understand if there's a little more apprehension in letting that person deal.

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by ChristsLight

Depends what you mean by "you." If "you" is the person, then right, "you" are not real. Sorry for the bad news.

No one is real. Nothing is real. What's the use, even, for the word, "real?"

[ChristsLight]

Originally Posted by Beingist

Indeed, "he is more than happy" to play the role of a ... "hated one", by pointing out people's own projections (whatever those are), despite their consent?

My apologies, but this is the very thing I take issue with. Thank you for confirming it, as well as clarifying it. At least I am sure that it is all completely intentional.

And maybe, just knowing this will help me to get over it. So again, thanks.
And again (I think) I say, I dunno.

I am only guessing, of course.

Why do you take issue with it?

Originally Posted by Beingist

Fair enough.

But, now that I have the arcane one's M.O. confirmed, maybe there will be a little less tension. However, when one is dealing from the bottom, even if it is ostensibly for another's benefit, I hope you would understand if there's a little more apprehension in letting that person deal.

I don't understand. Please explain?

[ChristsLight]

Originally Posted by Beingist

No one is real. Nothing is real. What's the use, even, for the word, "real?"

What's the use of it for you?

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by ChristsLight

No, I said that I'm seeing more of the human side in arcanum than you are seeing in him.

Okay, well, I suppose it's somewhat relieving to hear that.

It's been evident from the interactions in this thread.

'Projections' have been evident? Again, if 'projections' are 'reactions', I'll admit to them.

There have been many "if you'd only ..." statements that really have nothing to do with the person they are directed at.

So, saying, 'if you'd only...' makes something a 'projection'? Well, I did say that, so I guess I've been projecting. Not sure exactly what that means, but ...

Beingist, what is your definition of being? And let's avoid tautologies.

My definition of 'being' is the common dictionary definition, but when I capitalize it, it defies all description and definition, and is synonymous (to me) with the word, 'God'. (I don't like to use 'God', as it has so many different meanings and connotations and .. oy!)

[ChristsLight]

Originally Posted by Beingist

My definition of 'being' is the common dictionary definition, but when I capitalize it, it defies all description and definition, and is synonymous (to me) with the word, 'God'. (I don't like to use 'God', as it has so many different meanings and connotations and .. oy!)

Is Being one or many? Are you Being?

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by ChristsLight

I am only guessing, of course.

You're only guessing? After PMing with him, you're only guessing?

Well, it's still a confirmation for me, because I've been guessing for quite some time, but haven't said anything, because it was directed towards me until this thread. (Which, admittedly, I brought upon myself--is that a 'projection?').

Why do you take issue with it?

I don't understand. Please explain?

I take issue with deciet. I take issue with "the end justifying the means." I mean, wouldn't anyone react to the idea that they're being deceived? Now, he's lost all credibility with me. Don't you see how that works?

If you want to Love someone, why not let Love be Love? Why is it necessary to deceive (or even harbor mental reservations) on such a grand scale, in order to be Love? This isn't a surprise birthday party.

It reminds me of the Freemasons. Why keep such secrets? Such is not on the up-and-up, and so such is not indicative of anything genuine or authentic. It's shifty.

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by ChristsLight

Is Being one or many? Are you Being?

Being is All there is in Reality (as opposed to material actuality, which is illusory). Being is essence (from the Latin, esse, meaning, to be). There is only one Being. Hence, yes, I am Being, you are Being, even Arcanum is Being, but in Reality, in essence, in the abstract, not in appearances.

This is Being, as I understand it (which means that someone else might understand It differently, and that's okay). We're all doing the best we can (and yes, even Arcanum).

[ChristsLight]

Originally Posted by Beingist

You're only guessing? After PMing with him, you're only guessing?

Well, it's still a confirmation for me, because I've been guessing for quite some time, but haven't said anything, because it was directed towards me until this thread. (Which, admittedly, I brought upon myself--is that a 'projection?').
I take issue with deciet. I take issue with "the end justifying the means." I mean, wouldn't anyone react to the idea that they're being deceived? Now, he's lost all credibility with me. Don't you see how that works?

If you want to Love someone, why not let Love be Love? Why is it necessary to deceive (or even harbor mental reservations) on such a grand scale, in order to be Love? This isn't a surprise birthday party.

It reminds me of the Freemasons. Why keep such secrets? Such is not on the up-and-up, and so such is not indicative of anything genuine or authentic. It's shifty.

This is what I mean by projections. Where do you see deception? I don't see deception anywhere.

I think you want to be angry with him, or anyone, so you're making up excuses, and you'll pick anything. That's what we get when we let the mind run away with its projections.

[ChristsLight]

Originally Posted by Beingist

Being is All there is in Reality (as opposed to material actuality, which is illusory). Being is essence (from the Latin, esse, meaning, to be). There is only one Being. Hence, yes, I am Being, you are Being, even Arcanum is Being, but in Reality, in essence, in the abstract, not in appearances.

This is Being, as I understand it (which means that someone else might understand It differently, and that's okay). We're all doing the best we can (and yes, even Arcanum).

So if there is one, then how can one appearance of being blame another appearance for anything? Do you see how from the perspective of Oneness, you are just raving on like a lunatic? Who is this "arcanum" that you speak of, who is an emotionless psychiatrist and is deceiving people into who knows what?

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by ChristsLight

This is what I mean by projections. Where do you see deception? I don't see deception anywhere.

I think you want to be angry with him, or anyone, so you're making up excuses, and you'll pick anything. That's what we get when we let the mind run away with its projections.

So, I suppose we're 'projecting' when we see an actor on a screen, and think he's really the character he's playing?

And yes, I assert that this is a deception, yes. It's not a 'bad' thing, but a deception, nonetheless. In any event, he's not being real self, and so you'll have to pardon me if I withhold at least a modicum of trust, and I honestly don't care if you think that's 'projecting' or not.

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by ChristsLight

So if there is one, then how can one appearance of being blame another appearance for anything? Do you see how from the perspective of Oneness, you are just raving on like a lunatic? Who is this "arcanum" that you speak of, who is an emotionless psychiatrist and is deceiving people into who knows what?

Indeed.

[ChristsLight]

Originally Posted by Beingist

So, I suppose we're 'projecting' when we see an actor on a screen, and think he's really the character he's playing?

No. Projection is when you see the character, and make up all sorts of stories about that character that have more to do with yourself than the character.

Originally Posted by Beingist

And yes, I assert that this is a deception, yes. It's not a 'bad' thing, but a deception, nonetheless. In any event, he's not being real self, and so you'll have to pardon me if I withhold at least a modicum of trust, and I honestly don't care if you think that's 'projecting' or not.

How did you conclude from what I said that he is not being his "real self"?

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by ChristsLight

No. Projection is when you see the character, and make up all sorts of stories about that character that have more to do with yourself than the character.

Okay. But what's the problem, then, if it's just a character playing a role (in this case)? Isn't the fact that a character is leaving everything not depicted in his act up to the imagination, anyway? A character isn't real. He's not playing himself. So what's the problem with imagining him as anything he's not depicting? Do you see my point?

How did you conclude from what I said that he is not being his "real self"?

Well, I've suspected that he hasn't been his real self, which is the very reason I've been reacting. You confirmed my suspicions (though still call that 'projecting', for whatever reason), when you confirmed his admission to playing the "role of hated one," (his phrase) "quite happily."

Seriously, though, I don't feel so bad now, for 'projecting', when all along, he was the one doing the 'projecting' of his 'role as hated one', while everyone else thought I was crazy for suspecting him of anything. Seriously, I feel ... somewhat vindicated.

[ChrisGinsburg]

Originally Posted by Beingist

Agreeing with this, also, which is why I've yet to report the arcane one, nor neg rep him--not because I see compassion, but neither do I see malice. I honestly don't see anything except, perhaps a bit of very mild humor.

Not that I expect perfection, but a little humanness would be a big plus.

You're seeing precisely what you want to see. You've reached the dilemma where what's being said is starting to take shape but the mind can't see over the hill to see if letting go will be safe for you. Since you can't actually determine this, the second option is to verify Arcanum's credibility or lack thereof. This is the very reason Arcanum is not going on about his personal details because it is already known that the mind will panic and look for ways to discredit what's being said by the basis of who's saying it. In the absence of finding someone or something to blame, perhaps then the whole charade may be exposed.

The fact that you think he's somewhat of a robot is actually kind of funny because it doesn't feel like you've really been living until you let go off all the crap that isn't true.