Faceless

The more we are able to identify positive-negative movement of thought-self (fragmented action in movement), the greater awareness to that contradictory movement, the more complete-unlimited actions will be expressed as a result. In seeing-understanding the whole of what is incoherent, there is complete action in which brings about coherent action. To understand that which is disorder, is action in and of itself, in which manifests as ORDER, (INTELLIGENT ACTION). This holistic insight/perception is intelligent action, which is whole, (not influenced by fragmentation).

@now is forever I’m just carrying on from where I left off. Just to continue in regards to certain parts of my prior post.

Without this holistic understanding (insight/perception), the capability to maintain the necessary choiceless awareness to (positive-negative movement of the self), is much to difficult. Conditioned (response-reaction) will go unnoticed because we will not be able to identify that which is positive-negative movement.

(Time-thought-fear-psychological time), does sound like nonsense to one who is limited by conditioned reaction-response, pre-conceptions(bias-prejudice). This is to see through the narrow veil of experience, knowledge, memory, as the i. Which is to see through conditioned eyes. Having a holisic insight into the whole of thought sees all of thought as one unitary movement.

To identify with an idea, being that which is accumulated in time(the past), also implies the self seeking security in thought. Time as the i seeking security in its own movement. The self doesn’t notice that the idea, and itself, “the i”, are actually one and the same movement of time-(psychological becoming).

(Thought-self-time), seeks security in that which is familiar. What is familiar is its own content, which is what constitutes the self. The self is its content. An example of self feeding loop. The movement of time is that accumulation of content, (experience, knowledge, memory), in which the fragment of the self identifies with. To identify implies a resistance to what is not familiar, and ultimately a movement of fear; to resist what is, to what should be in accordance to what has been. An example of thought-self and it’s mechanical nature, which is expressed in the form of bias and prejudice action. The fragment of self seeking security in its own movement of thought-time.

Registration, recollection, response-projection in accordance to that movement of thought. Non-proprioception of Division = Identification-time Psychological registration, recollection, responses-projection, being one and the same movement of (time-fear) as the self.

Indeed... Biased/prejudice; the nature of self-thought. Not understanding and being aware of thought is quite dangerous.

Has nothing to do with gender. We are speaking about division in general. Playing the opposition game has had its day. Just another game of fragmentation.

@now is forever This post above has to do very much with the thread.. THE PHENOMENON OF FRAGMENTATION. Its not an attack on an “individual”...it’s a fact that is produced by that phenomenon. There is value in your participation here. We are not actually opposed perspectives...That is an illusion of division-fragmentation. We are together in this, if you want to be, friend.

Communication can be difficult when intention is not other than personal. It’s great that you see the significance of this, my friend??

I appreciate your interest in this thread and find your post as a contributor into some clarity on this thread??... We may want to remember that we are trying to make this thread of value to the reader as much as possible. There are parts of your post in which i understand and others which is an unclear as to the intention. As far as this part of the post I think we shouldn’t jump to conclusions. Before we go into how the “individual” and “the society” are abstractions and the result of fragmentation, I think we may want to first be concerned with with fragmentation as the “individual”. After all we can’t go beyond what we have not begun. This seems reasonable yes?. The old, psychological knowledge; (the accumulation of limited-partial experience), encounters the that which is new, (experiencing’s that are again partial-limited). So static content of the past, (thought-self), which is also accumulated knowledge, meets new information. But that psychological knowledge doesn’t actually meet new information. It distorts the new to protect what is old. Psychological knowledge or (the past knowledge of the me) is selective, bias, mechanical. Psychological knowledge (the self), seeks security in its own movement/content. It continues to do this because it is caught in that pattern and doesn’t see it. It’s a conditioned pattern, and because of that it is not seen that this is caused by the notion that the experiencer is separated from the experience, thinker separate form the thought, and so on. As long as this is not observed as a fact or truth, we continually fragment. We fragment-divide because we are confused being caught in this incoherent pattern, and because that pattern is unaware of itself there is this mechanical tendency, (compulsion to secure psychological needs). Are we all meeting on this part? Psychological registration, psychological recollection, psychological response-projection ...The birth of the self. Experiencing is perceived in fragments due to the limitation of experiencing as there can only be a small percentage of what one can be consciously aware of at once...We know that. And yes it is a channeled conscious attention or what I call concentrated attention. Or otherwise known as spotlight attention. And indeed the self is selective, it picks and chooses between fragments. That being another example of psychological knowledge choosing between the opposites, or divided action. Can we see that this is the result of fragmentation? This “unneeded data” is an example of the self clinging to its bias. The self being identified with its content...Identification implies that; identity with what has already been, or attachment to that familiarity. Fear, the self, (psychological knowledge), identification, with the content of (experience, knowledge, memory), bias-prejudice and the mechanical attachment to its content, all being a movement of fragmentation, (perpetual, self feeding, divided action). ...as is to change pre-conceptions is also a movement of fragmentation. A movement of the chooser or otherwise know as dualistic movement born of contradiction. Are we meeting here?? The self is so subtle isn’t it. Sneaky sneaky indeed?

Maybe continue here just to get others on board if confusion has arisen.

Glad to see this thread has caught some interest. Seems to be a little resistance with the communication though. Tends to happen with inattention-fragmentation in movement. But that can be a learning device as well.

Fragmentation and codependency being actually one and the same movement of time-division.

I understand you. The necessity of freedom...unburdened by the influence of fear-reaction... Ultimate freedom is NOT dependent on conditions. It’s only in freedom, (end of reactionary response), or (CHOICE), as (the chooser), that intelligent action manifests on its own. Intelligent action is born of freedom, which is unconditioned. It’s one thing separating yourself from others as a reaction born of the lack of freedom, and another thing entirely when holistic intelligence acts on its own. Any action determined by conditioned response implies contradiction right out of the gate. This conditioned response is born of fear, insecurity, psychological seeking. Any movement in this direction only perpetuates further lack of freedom. Intelligent action on the other hand implies holistic perception/insight into danger, and completely acts in steering clear of those possible dangers. This action is not reaction born of choice, but freedom without choice. If you are not influenced by fear to separate from the family, well that intelligent action will decide-act on its own, but if there is this influence of fear determining action/choosing, you will continue to depend on circumstances, conditions, or THOUGHT to come to a conclusion in what you should do. Any action influenced by the movement of self-thought will be action born of confusion and conflict. As long as this conflict is in movement, this implies division is being nourished, and intelligence is NOT. Intelligent action will not operate when this conditioned movement is in motion.

Idk...Is there a seeing of these “ghost”? Knowone can answer that for you. That’s the beauty in it all

@Jack River Reaction to attachment implies isolation or to be alienated. Division disguising itself as being whole. Sneaky sneaky dualistic entity indeed

?yes indeed... Reaction to attachment in which remains a subtle form of attachment. Great eye?, friend. You are seeing all the ghost ? aren’t you? These ghost will haunt consciousness and because that consciousness is conditioned the haunting is unseen. Can’t see with the conditioned eye. Being consumed by fear, and compulsive-mechanical, or (positive & negative) movement of time as the i. The veil of time muddles this seeing indeed.

@Ingit ??

Your Welcome... As long as you were obseving all of what was said as a movement that in fact takes place in yourself, then you were helping yourself. That’s just thought measuring-comparing itself to what it feels it “should be”. The words we use tend to use us? It’s ok, everything said above is common. Just keep learning about the this conditioned pattern of fragmentation. This is also to self reflect.

Indeed... Anything through the lens of “the i” is the result of inattention. I refer to the lens as a response of concentrated thought, which is always directed in a specific direction. Or as @robdl said, (motive, desire, effort), or (choice as the i). All one and the same movement of fragmented action.

If there is no recognition (understanding) as somthing being dangerous, what good is attention-awareness to it? Make sense? If not, it’s ok. Keep at it. Once you get this, then there is freedom. Then there can be a going beyond to perhaps, truth, or the unknown.

Example..... It’s like being attentive that we are being inattentive when walking to fast in a jungle full of the numerous dangers that jungle presents. When there is attention to that inattention that ends that inattention. This is perhaps the best way to start attention and have that grow into awareness. But first there must be an understanding of all the possible dangers and how to identify those dangers as dangerous, in order to be attentive-aware of them.

If there is attention to inattentiveness doesn’t that bring a hault to further divided action?