Faceless

Those girlfriend experiences can be great for learning heh? ?

Yes.. Can we observe this mechanical compulsion to become psychologically secure as that movement of FEAR in resistance to itself arises throughout the day?

Thank you @cetus56??

Well said... It is quite easy to detect this movement of image projection. Indeed, some will read this thread and see first hand fragmentation in movement. As this too is an opportunity to learning in relationship. As the tittle states...PHENOMENON

Indeed so.. Fear will conform to the idea of passivity to sustain its own continuity. This subtle movement to sustain-maintain psychological permanence will chase the abstraction of “passivity”. This is effort-motive-intent, psychological time in movement. Thought has then simply deceived itself into identifying with its idea of passivity. The question is, are we aware of this divisive movement influenced by psychological becoming in all its subtle forms? After all, that is the intention of this thread.

The burden of psychological authority.... The dependence on authority inevitably nourishes fear, in which leads to antagonism-violence. This perpetuation of Fear = antagonism-violence. The guru destroys the disciple, and the disciple destroys the guru.

That’s a great question, I see it as important to get across as well. I posted yesterday about it... To depend psychologically on an authority is the same as the self seeking security in its own movement of thought, (experience, knowledge, memory). This is the root of psychological insecurity. This is to nourish the false division between the knower and that which is knows. To contribute to the disorder of thought and its mechanical reaction to fragment itself off from that which it seeks security in. To preserve the illusion of “the self”, the “psychological entity”, as being independent from the contents of thought itself. To shelter-harbor unconsciously, a spot for (fear-self), to conceal and preserve its own movement of self deception. To promote the activity of self sabotage, disguised as an aiding remedy. To advocate such irresponsibility is to assist in the continuation of the conditioned consciousness. There is nothing wrong with listening-learning from one another, that is essential, but to depend psychologically on one another only strengthens the disharmony in relationship with ourselves, and one another as a result of that. Everything I write can be observed by the reader as a fact that takes place in oneself, depending on if they are capable of listening-seeing the truth in that fact. If the reader doesn’t see what I write as fact, and instead sees it as concepts, theory, or abstraction, in which then that reader conforms too, then we have ourselves an ego seeking psychological security in an authority. The same as the self seeking security in its own movement of thought.

@molosku lol yeah these last few posts kinda ran off course, but the stuff about fragmentation can be directly observed in yourself. It’s all right here in ones experience. As is expressed in the threads tittle; The phenomenon of fragmentation. It can literally all be observed directly. But the conditioned eye prevents that observation. Any way, I appreciate your honesty and post as well. ??

It may seem like that but the mind is very complex...It’s not content-information to be accumulated. We are not building scaffolding, (a series of conceptualizations in which one seeks security in). It’s in seeing-understanding the whole of thought there can be an holistic-choiceless awareness in which doesn’t perpetuate the self feeding loop of fragmentation. So there can be an awareness to positive-negative movement of the self, in which incomplete action or divisive action is not nourished. This is about embodiment. To embody holy action. Not be influenced by conflict, confusion, and contradiction that is the result of this fragmented action nourished by dualistic movement of the self-thought. To aid in the cessation of psychological registration, recollection, and its projection. Essential when it comes to relationship with onenself and others. Also the only way in which there can be healdessness or an awareness in which is timeless everyday, all day, if one has that leisure of course. It’s Not a temporary communion with the absolute, but an ongoing relationship with it THE HAPPENING. Or otherwise known as the ending of experience, or the ending of time. In the ending of experience is the beginning of that which is sacred, THE IMMEASURABLE.

@who chit thank you for the posts??

Quite so... That which is finite, being thought-(measure), can never capture that which is infinite; that which is IMMEASURABLE.

Tricky little

Indeed... But the self is very illusive. It will try and pull one over on itself ?...it is one of the subtle ways even the most “advanced” lol..get sucked in to illusion-self deception. Indeed again... thought-self implies identification, which clings to familiarity, (what has been and projects in accordance to that), and what-is implies constant change, being dynamic. The self it’s accumulation can never actually meet what is without distortion. You are right, thought-self/fear always moves away from what-is. I think we are in communion on this, friend. Then perhaps ones head may go missing ??

You as well ??

I’m sure you are aware that god doesn’t identify. Just think it’s a great heads up u know As to dis-identity or to identify implies negative & positive movement of the self...the burden of conditioned mechanical response, introduced by the limitation of choice, as “the chooser”.

Would you say that it is also very important to understand that the self will also subtly dis-identify itself with that accumulated content/movement of thought/self-experience, and identify with something “greater”? The self will also seek security in thought/identification with god. Would you agree that will further nourish the self feeding loop of time-fear/division?

@who chit your insight of thought-self has become much more holistic I noticed. Nice to see you on the thread??

Indeed... Conflict brings about that heavy feeling.

Looking to understand fragmentation through the fragmented lens of thought can be very complicated and confusing. The problem is there will be divided attention, (discerning-analyzing), fragmentation as if it were something separate from that fragmentary process itself. One will then be looking at fragmentation as an idea or a concept; the self trying to understand fragmentation as if it were independent of that phenomenon. Looking to understand this phenomenon as an abstraction won’t suffice. It is a fact that can be observed within the structure of thought-experience, but thought-experience will distort the actual seeing of that fact. To be identified with thought is also to be in resistance to what-is. This resistance is the attachment to this process of discernment-analysis, (pre-assumptions-bias/prejudice), in which has been accumulated over time. To see the truth in this fact, the psychological accumulation of “the self”, as in experience, knowledge, and memory, cannot be acting as a barrier in that seeing-understanding, (observation). It will be very difficult indeed to understand-observe this process of fragmentation, which is a conditioned response, with that same limited and conditioned observation. As long as this understanding is looked at as a concept-theory, the insight-understanding will only be partial and incomplete. Unconditioned observation is the only way to have a holistic insight into the whole of this phenomenon of fragmentation-thought/self division. It’s only in holistic observation that there is complete action, in which doesn’t further feed that self feeding loop of fragmentation.

Well said, and precisely what was implied... To depend psychologically on an authority is the same as the self seeking security in its own movement of thought, (experience, knowledge, memory). This is the root of psychological insecurity. This is to nourish the false division between the knower and that which is knows. To contribute to the disorder of thought and its mechanical reaction to fragment itself off from that which it seeks security in. To preserve the illusion of “the self”, the “psychological entity”, as being independent from the contents of thought itself. To shelter-harbor unconsciously, a spot for (fear-self), to conceal and preserve its own movement of self deception. To promote the activity of self sabotage, disguised as an aiding remedy. To advocate such irresponsibility is to assist in the continuation of the conditioned consciousness. There is nothing wrong with listening-learning from one another, that is essential, but to depend psychologically on one another only strengthens the disharmony in relationship with ourselves, and one another as a result of that. Everything I write can be observed by the reader as a fact that takes place in oneself, depending on if they are capable of listening-seeing the truth in that fact. If the reader doesn’t see what I write as fact, and instead sees it as concepts, theory, or abstraction, in which then that reader conforms too, then we have ourselves an ego seeking psychological security in an authority. The same as the self seeking security in its own movement of thought.

@MarkusSweden It’s more than fine to have discussion with each other. But the line must be drawn when it comes to psychological authority. It can be very subtle indeed to understand-see its effects on the stream of consciousness when one is caught up in the self feeding loop of fragmentation. We are friends, brothers, one of many “private mixtures” of consciousness.

The burden of psychological authority.... The dependence on authority inevitably nourishes fear, in which leads to antagonism-violence. This perpetuation of Fear = antagonism-violence. The guru destroys the disciple, and the disciple destroys the guru.

This processs of Identification feeds off its own familiarity. Stillness, emptiness, or the silence of what-is is a direct threat to the continuity of this process of identification. Identification depends “things” to identify with. As has been said before, identification is frightened by change. The self is always in movement to capture and maintain a sense of permanence. The dynamic nature of NOW is always changing, which reveals the self the fact of its own actual impermanence. Identification implies attachment and clinging to its own content which is inevitably static in nature. To cling to the static content of thought is to sustain the illusion of security-permanence, which in fact only perpetuates insecurity-impermanence. Without “things” or (thought), which is static, and (familiar), the self feels threatened. The self seeks security by projecting its own pre-conceptions (what is known), or (bias-prejudice), to meet the fact of insecurity that the dynamic nature of the present moment or THE NOW presents.

Indeed..nice post!! Desire-self in pursuit of satisfaction, self affirmation, self validation, and so on, all being evasion from the fact to the invented abstraction, (idea). To move away from what-is, is to seek psychological security in thought, (what should be) or (the abstraction invented in accordance to its content accumulated from the past). Both the content of accumulation, (thought), and “the self” nourishing its own movement of psychological time.

Indeed Yes..”the self” fuels that fear by moving away from itself as if the self were seperate from that fear. Movement in any direction by the self implies a movement of fear. “The i” doesn’t see that because it still is acting in accordance to the idea that it is distinct from positive and negative movement.