robdl

If one thinks they are present, but the "I" or "thinker" is still in operation, is it true presence? The "I", which is a part of the movement of thought-self itself, and is made out of memory, experience, knowledge (i.e. the old). So if the old/the "me" is meeting the present moment, is it true presence? It's the past meeting the dynamic present.

Right - as to give meaning to something is to give it significance, that significance based on memory/belief/knowledge/desire/conditioning, which is one and the same as thought.

I'm not familiar with spiral dynamics/what the colours mean.

It depends - what do you want? Do you want to be more achieving, successful, respectable, etc., or do you want to understand the movement of thought-self (ego) which seeks success/achievement/respect/self-improvement in the first place? He doesn't really provide much in terms of the latter.

I don't think one finds "meaning" in non-duality/enlightenment necessarily. Meaning is always a thought-construct out of belief/knowledge/memory about something to give it significance. It's being-ness, not meaning-ness. Being-ness goes beyond meaning-ness. Beingness is direct. Meaningness is always indirect. Some things can lose their meaningfulness to us, but being is never lost.

The ‘I’-thought immediately identifies with thought, having not realized it was just moments prior bred/perpetuated out of the very same movement of identification. So thought breeds ‘thinker’ breeds thought breeds ‘thinker’, etc. - in perpetuity. This isn’t speculative concept but can be observed directly. It’s a mistake to absorb it as knowledge, which everyone can be susceptible to. The instability and impermanence of the “I” is to be seen for oneself.

And having to express in dualities (fear-desire), (thought-self), etc.

So can it be said that the insight is whole, in the now. And then expressed fragmentally through the old (thought/language/knowledge) as a pointer?

By the limitations/cultural conditioning of the particular language used for example; grammar/style of the language

If you’re speaking about your life history you are speaking from ego; speaking from the conditioned. To have total insight and to point to it via thought is not quite the same.

I would say that there is whole insight into all of this. It is then expressed through thought/language later. These thoughts aren’t the actual thing but just a pointer. That is more like speaking through ego than from ego.

Quite right.

Indeed. In writing it is just concept - just a pointing though. For thought-self to absorb the concept only perpetuates thought-self. There is whole insight into all of this that is beyond word/concept.

Is this this ‘I’ the thinker of your thoughts or is it just another thought (‘I’-thought) taking place in the movement of thought-self? I.e. no thinker, just thoughts. This is to be seen with total observation/insight.

There are beliefs of the thought-self, and there are the facts of total observation.

You’re speaking from within a thought-self loop, and we are speaking on the nature of the thought-self loop itself, total/whole observation of it. This whole insight then is expressed through thought for the purposes of communication.

Thought seeks movement in its own security. It’s not a thought-self that interprets this/makes this judgment. As the thought movement IS the thought-self. The thought-self is observed.

If it’s a semantics issue, substitute “indisputably the case” for “fact” then.

I speak on the facts of the nature of the movement of thought-self. These aren't things I've read about and started believing. This is based on whole, direct insight into the complete movement of thought-self. Direct self-understanding. That thought-self perpetually seeks security in its own movement, and uses beliefs, knowledge, ideas, etc., to do so -- is fact. It is to be seen for oneself.

To seek to love others more is an act of fear.

"you must have a belief" ---- says the thought-network of beliefs.

okay, so we've established that seeking is a form of desire in which one wants something; a movement from what-is. Can it also be said that to seek enlightenment is to escape the "unenlightened state"? To get out of your current state? Now what is fear? Is fear not an act of escape? Is fear not a movement-from-what-is? Desire and fear are both a movement-from-what-is, as that is the very nature of the movement of thought-self itself, which gives it this perpetual security-seeking nature. The security-seeking can take on the apparent form of desire or the apparent form of fear, but it's all one and the same movement.

so thought-self believes they are unenlightened, and is therefore seeking enlightenment? The "seeking" being a movement of desire, yes? A movement from-what-is?

You may need to use a more apt analogy, for the reasons faceless pointed out.

If there's an 'I'/self who thinks they're saying it, it is, in fact, a movement of thought-self seeking security in its own movement, therefore a movement of fear.