Mystical experiences vs radical recontextualizations

[Zweistein]

9 hours ago, Zweistein said:

@tsuki

Would it help if you treat the statement "the world needs healing" as reality and the statement "teacher=student" as illusion (it usually is, right?). So, if we want to change reality, it would help if we don't stay stuck in an illusion, wouldn't it?

 

@tsuki We could also treat the statement "the world needs healing" as illusion and the statement "teacher=student" as reality or both as illusion or both as reality. After all, reality = illusion, right?

8 hours ago, now is forever said:

just tried to get that... you know tsuki i’m a designer for products and i learned to work with all kinds of material - i know exactly what i’m talking to when i talk to an object.

so maybe that’s why i don’t get what you say or ask here.

from that perspective all information is made by people, everything is constructed by people with their heartblead. with their hands their health in the line using more or less of their dreams to get to that point where they can survive on it. 

in a book that starts from a tree and the writer - to the people who work on the text like editors, the people who build the machines to turn the wood into paper, build the machines to print, binding the book by hand or with machines. even the glue that’s used to bind the book. and i also know that i‘m just a tiny part of all of that. but i sit at one end of that process one of many with dreams.

i don’t know what to make out of the mystical experience yet if that’s what you want to point at. i sometimes don’t know what’s real and what’s phantasy though. and how it works, and what it’s substance or form is. i just acknowledged it as process until now. i just know it works through symbols as well as through loose associations and some kind of explorative child like mindset. but what kind of real substance there is to it without putting it into form or visual inner experiences. i really have no idea.

all i can say - we have a cinema inside of us, that’s driven by emotion. where that comes from or if there is something paranormal about it. and what substance it is made of is something i try to discover. 

until that it’s phantasy - you see i try to stick to the significant level, to not get lost in space.

@now is forever

I love the way you approach this  - a totally different perspective and still kind of the same (at least it feels like that to me.)

[tsuki]

10 hours ago, now is forever said:

just tried to get that... you know tsuki i’m a designer for products and i learned to work with all kinds of material - i know exactly what i’m talking to when i talk to an object.

so maybe that’s why i don’t get what you say or ask here.

from that perspective all information is made by people, everything is constructed by people with their heartblead. with their hands their health in the line using more or less of their dreams to get to that point where they can survive on it. 

in a book that starts from a tree and the writer - to the people who work on the text like editors, the people who build the machines to turn the wood into paper, build the machines to print, binding the book by hand or with machines. even the glue that’s used to bind the book. and i also know that i‘m just a tiny part of all of that. but i sit at one end of that process one of many with dreams.

i don’t know what to make out of the mystical experience yet if that’s what you want to point at. i sometimes don’t know what’s real and what’s phantasy though. and how it works, and what it’s substance or form is. i just acknowledged it as process until now. i just know it works through symbols as well as through loose associations and some kind of explorative child like mindset. but what kind of real substance there is to it without putting it into form or visual inner experiences. i really have no idea.

all i can say - we have a cinema inside of us, that’s driven by emotion. where that comes from or if there is something paranormal about it. and what substance it is made of is something i try to discover. 

until that it’s phantasy - you see i try to stick to the significant level, to not get lost in space.

@now is forever What you describe is wonderful. I totally get what you mean.

Do you remember the mindfuck/soulfuck when I equated people with things in @Zweistein's journal? Things move things around.
If that was a mindfuck, then it bears similarity to the mystical experience that you are trying to connect to.
From what I understand of your post, you are left in oneness through shared human effort that is ever-present in all objects.
That is a wonderful experience.

Can you imagine the world in which humans are objects that are manipulated by technology?
The world in which humans are empty canvas in which objects create skills?
The world in which objects invented humans to reproduce?
The world in which humans are cells in the bloodstream of the skyscrapers?
That 'we' are the bacteria in the gut of the living cities?
That cars invented us to move around?

However, what are humans other than organs that are made of cells that are made of organelles that are dead?
Humans came from apes that came from something else that came from bacteria that came from dead material.
We are all equally dead=alive when we inspect Materialism closely.
What is the difference between the creator and the created?

In this recognition of oneness between us and 'the other' you recognize the cell of reality within all objects that is not merely a canvas to humans. It is a canvas to us, artists, but we are a canvas to them as well.
In this recognition lies the inherent oneness of cells that recognizes the mirror as boundary and that new boundary as a mirror once more.
If boundary=mirror, then mirror=boundary.

Can you see the world from the point of view of technology?
It is not that this perspective is any more true than the perspective of the world in which humans use technology.
Humans use technology which uses humans.
Technology=life.

Edited August 6, 2018 by tsuki

[tsuki]

@now is forever Have you seen Koyaanisqatsi?
Is the ending is a plea to change, or is it a statement of human nature that expresses equanimity?

It is a very powerful film that left me in meaninglessness for several weeks until it settled down.

[tsuki]

I=you=we
@tsuki=@now is forever=@Zweistein

[now is forever]

 

1 hour ago, tsuki said:

Can you see the world from the point of view of technology?
It is not that this perspective is any more true than the perspective of the world in which humans use technology.
Humans use technology which uses humans.
Technology=life.

guess what - yes. i studied at a very good design school, even though a small one. where the human is still at the center of the workspace. be it student or the people who are being addressed.

i studied form until it’s deluded in many directions.

i even know of solutions that would never see light because of that shadow. they just spend their shadow lifes in some cupboards. i know how hard it is to fight against that. and still often feel overpowered by it. 

for my personal life i often try to subtract the shadow side to hang on. if you can‘t breath you have to create space to breath.

i just see that shadow space as a neglected space. it‘s a space to be reshaped - and that’s possible on a horizontal level. a level of significance.

 

when i walk a supermarket or a shop i don’t see the trash anymore, i just see what’s good. often still buying stuff with shadow sides. so neglecting the big shadow is one of the best methods to just let it go hungry. think the rules for communication technology are a little different, because it’s a dream factory, so it’s more important to know the shadow there, but still not feed it by not using it. 

in a social network, thats different though. it’s an elephant vs a dinosaur.

 

Edited August 6, 2018 by now is forever

[tsuki]

32 minutes ago, now is forever said:

guess what - yes. i studied at a very good design school, even though a small one. where the human is still at the center of the workspace. be it student or the people who are being addressed.

@now is forever What I am projecting here is that your identity as a designer is important to you, but I fail to see how did I suggest your incompetence in this area. I did not ask these questions to test you, but to invoke a perspective. It was not about you and I cannot see how you addressed that perspective in your response.
I am entirely aware that I may not be willing to acknowledge your response because I got caught up in my projection.

In your response, I still see the perspective of a creator that pities the poor little creations that are trapped, never to be seen.
Not that you are somehow wrong, or lesser than me because of that.
I am simply sharing my perspective in which nothing is a poor little creation.

Edited August 6, 2018 by tsuki

[now is forever]

@tsuki it was a positive response in the sense of how to approach the dinosaur.

figuring out what’s junk and what not is a very good tool to communicate better with objects. not with people...well maybe with their context.

you see we are talking about different zooming ins all the time.

my perspective of zooming in is this:

 

Edited August 6, 2018 by now is forever

[tsuki]

@now is forever Now I understand better.
Why starve the dinosaur though? You make the dinosaur more and more angry by starving it.
Positive attitude of approaching dinosaur is great, but what if the angry dinosaur approaches you?
Doesn't it sometimes?

What I'm saying is that there is no dinosaur when I say that master=pupil.
All of what I'm saying is in relation to that. I let myself buy groceries and I let myself buy trash.
Isn't it more fun that way?

[now is forever]

@tsuki hahaha, yes sometimes, but i buy trash usually only when there’s at least some meaning in it. the dinosaur is not me... i‘m the elephant you see. so i nourish the elephant not the dinosaur. it’s evolution.

inside dinosaurs you can often find elephants who have evolved backwards because they got so hungry they want to be mammuts.

Edited August 6, 2018 by now is forever

[tsuki]

46 minutes ago, now is forever said:

my perspective of zooming in is this:

@now is forever From my perspective, there is no middle Matrioshka.

No elephants, no dinosaurs.
The stillness is achieved by allowing motion.
The gif moves, but is exactly the same.
One level is an elephant, the other is the dinosaur.
Elephant=dinosaur. Teacher=pupil.

Edited August 6, 2018 by tsuki

[now is forever]

@tsuki did you not find your inner child? or the stillness within? 

i just imagine it as zooming in and out - sticking to mirror metaphor. a little bit like alternate nostril breathing. from one world to another. the mirror is inside but there is also silence. 

hahaha - now i got it...

you see i try to be clear water. but it might be impossible if i want to be a mirror at the same time.

i was never a good student in that sense  my mother always encouraged me to be a teacher.

Edited August 6, 2018 by now is forever

[now is forever]

@now is forever what about you? do you feel more like a student or like a teacher? or do you change perspectives? 

magical zooming glasses, hehe.

Edited August 6, 2018 by now is forever

[tsuki]

40 minutes ago, now is forever said:

hahaha - now i got it...

@now is forever So, if one level is a dinosaur, and another is an elephant, then we are all exactly lost.
There is no middle matrioshka. You make a matrioshka a middle by stopping the movement.
To you, all of us are the same because the middle that you stopped by is accidental.
They just stopped somewhere else and their middle may look like a dinosaur, or an elephant to you.
But so does your middle look to them! We are all exactly the same in this sense.
This exactness is done through seeing how dinosaur=elephant (like I did above).
This way you turn the boundary into a mirror and arrive at unity.

For me, the path is different. I zoom all the time and arrive at stillness through indifference.
This middle, or that middle is temporary and accidental. This indifference is what lets me see that teacher=pupil.
However, because I zoom in all the time, I see that there is no way to tell which dinosaur comes after which elephant.
There is no order of elephants, or dinosaurs. There is no way to see the difference, because all elephants are elephants.
All dinosaurs are dinosaurs. And dinosaurs are elephants because I'm indifferent.
This way, we are all the same. This is the movement that sees that teacher=pupil.
This way I turn the boundary into the mirror.

Is this perhaps the difference between a woman and a man?
Is this why women keep polishing their mirrors by zooming in and out?
So, perhaps you were right. I told you to stop breathing and become a man.

PS. Just to make it clear: the master=pupil means the same thing as dinosaur=elephant.

Edited August 6, 2018 by tsuki

[now is forever]

@tsuki hmmmmmmmmmmm - but the elephant means a little bit different things in different levels... on one level it is democracy and on another level it is community and on another it’s ganesha and on the child level it‘s the protecting hand of a mother.

so the elephant was there from long ago - and it’s a plant eater, i mean all elephants are plant eaters.

and who needs dinosaurs, when we have dragons.

Edited August 6, 2018 by now is forever

[tsuki]

5 minutes ago, now is forever said:

@tsuki hmmmmmmmmmmm - but the elephant means a little bit different things in different levels... on one level it is democracy and on another level it is community and on another it’s ganesha and on the child level it‘s the protecting hand of a mother.

@now is forever But you can always tell that an elephant is an elephant, don't you? In this sense, all elephants are the same.
You can also always tell that a dinosaur is a dinosaur. As you zoom, they alternate.
The difference is that I zoom and you don't. But we're both still, although in the opposite sense.
And by all means, dinosaurs and elephants are not absolute. You can turn one into another by zooming.
Can you zoom into democracy to turn it into a dinosaur?

[now is forever]

@tsuki not yet ? - hope it’s more of a dragon.

and yes i can still see an elephant as an elephant when i walk through the mirror into reality.

Edited August 6, 2018 by now is forever

[tsuki]

6 minutes ago, now is forever said:

@tsuki not yet ? - hope it’s more of a dragon.

@now is forever Tell me more about dragons.

You seem to be using cultural symbols as an absolute reference point.
Are you generalizing art into universal symbols? Do elephants and dinosaurs come from there?

Edited August 6, 2018 by tsuki

[now is forever]

 first of all it belongs to the world of phantasy and leaves enough space to dream. but there are luck dragons and angry dragons and flying dragons and small dragons and huge dragons and sleeping dragons.

it depends on how the dragon is tamed - but you know dragons are never really tamed. because it’s not really in their nature. 

don‘t ask me how to fly dragons - i‘m not there yet. but maybe it’s about the technique.

Edited August 6, 2018 by now is forever

[tsuki]

@now is forever So, to you a dragon is where the boundary between reality and fantasy becomes a mirror.
You can never learn to fly dragons. Dragons are nothing alike.
Learning how to fly one particular dragon lets you notice another kind of them.
Only fools try to fly them.

Edited August 6, 2018 by tsuki

[now is forever]

 that’s a compliment. who ever said i‘m flying alone? and mine is almost always staying at the phantasy world. it’s a creative dragon.

the dragon is not the mirror but it can pass through the mirror.

Edited August 6, 2018 by now is forever