Thinking about Water

Just as there are only two emotions – good and bad – there are two ways of considering Universe.  The first considers all that is as matter; life and the universe are material and by manipulating the material, improvements can be made so the brain can interpret the five senses as good.  The second considers all that is as Conscious force using a meme of energy to create what is perceived as the material universe; thoughts are the creative energy that construct the three dimensional world the brain can interpret as good (or bad) from the senses.

As one wag put it, the first is an outside job, the latter an inside job.

Those who hold the materialistic construct have a belief that hard work, sweat, and a degree of suffering, is the only means of altering the material world for personal satisfaction (a good feeling.)  This approach has been taught for untold generations – no pain, no gain.  A classic example is JFK’s explanation of why the USA should go to the moon and return – “…because it’s hard…”  This belief observes obstacles to a desired goal (a range of good feelings) and, like boulders, the obstacles must be moved, crushed, or otherwise manipulated.  This is hard work.  An outside job.

Those who hold Consciousness as force have the belief that thinking (thought selection) is the creative energy that determines the construct of the perceived universe.  If the desire is to feel good, then thinking is directed (this is the consciousness element) to those similar energies and matter that the brain interprets, via senses, as good.  For many people engaged in that great adventure of lunar exploration, the whole thing was fun – that is, the feeling of satisfaction, exhilaration, achievement (all degrees of good) that resulted in physically getting to the moon and back.

Granted, the lunar example is flawed because of so many moving parts, but JFK did clearly state it would be done because it was hard, not easy.  On a daily level, the issue is to “do something” the hard way or the easy way.  Well, of course if one opts for the “easy way” then somehow he/she is cheating, or taking a short cut, or some other diversion from doing the “hard work” that is required to earn (be worthy) the desired goal.  At least that’s the way a materialistic thinker views it.

The distinguishing thoughts go something like this:  1) “I’ve got to make this happen,”  2) “What’s the best way to do this?”  The former grits teeth and puts the shoulder of thinking against the challenge/obstacle.  The latter relaxes and allows information to flow to reveal the solution.

Water doesn’t flow up hill.  That’s the hard route to the ocean.  Water lets gravity do the work and carry it to the desired result.  Hence the wisdom of “go with the flow!”

Since humans are materialistically mostly water, then why not consider the wisdom of water and  take the path of least resistance to the desire end?

Heck, even the dog gets it…

Take a Break

Okay, for something a bit different...
If you'd like to kick back and just drift in some pleasing background sounds, you're in luck.  A bit of "music" from the Cossatot river in Arkansas.  The video is rather pleasing as well.

Allowing Toleration

To tolerate, or not to tolerate, that is the question.

Well, yes it is a question.  To tolerate means, in this sense, to endure and put up with someone/something (unhappily.)  In effect, “I don’t like (it, you, them, etc., ) but I won’t (can’t) waste anymore of my time fussing with (it, you, them, etc., )  Toleration is a quantum improvement over attacking, fighting, resisting, against anything that displeases you, or is not aligned with your usual way of thinking (a.k.a. belief.)

It’s axiomatic that anything someone wants and does is rooted in an expectation that he/she will feel better for having it.  There’s nothing complicated about this.  How often have you had the thought “I’d be better off if only (it, you, them, etc.) would ________ (fill in the blank.)  There’s a contradiction at play that cancels the desired good feeling – the focus on the mischief/mis-deed/whatever about (it, you, them, etc.,).  Just as two physical objects cannot occupy the same space at the same time, it’s not possible for a good feeling and a negative (bad) feeling to occupy the same attention at the same time.  Thus the problem with toleration.

Subtle differences

Toleration is a good thing.  It beats the heck out of a never-ending struggle and resentment towards (it, you, them, etc.,).  Toleration creates literal time and energy for the pursuit of happiness.  Think about it.  For this reason, tolerance is considered a virtue, and it is, compared to ardent struggle.  Becoming more tolerant results in greater physical relief, not to mention emotional and mental benefits.  Note:  Many people have a belief system that uses the word “forgiveness” in a similar vein as tolerance.  Forgiveness works wonders provided it’s understood to benefit the forgiver and not something for (it, you, them, etc.,).  Forgiveness, and tolerance, are often considered “letting (it, you, them, etc.,) get off of the hook, or getting away with something.  Not at all.  It’s a shift from giving attention to something disturbing to something preferred or desired.  That shift in itself is quantum.  It gets better.

There is a strata of perspective a notch above toleration.  It’s called Allowing.  Someone eaten up with resentment may, in a moment of frustration, comprehend the concept of toleration or forgiveness.  It’s unlikely, however, they could grasp a concept of allowing at that moment.  Someone who has developed the ability to tolerate (it, you, them, etc., ) may be able to catch a glimpse of allowing.

The difference between the two is subtle yet vast.  Very similar to the subtle yet vast difference between a thought of that which is hateful to yourself do not unto another and do unto others as you would have them do unto you.  Toleration carries with it the idea, the memory, the picture of whatever it is about (it, you, them, etc., ) that offends/angers you.  Allowing is free of that burden and (it, you, them, etc., ) are allowed to be what/who they are – sans judgment.

It’s the without judgment part that blocks access to this level of thought for many people.  Allowing and judging cannot occupy the same mind at the same time.  To judge is to seek and find fault, however defined.  The solution is for the judged to correct the “fault.”  For instance, in New York city there’s a ruckus over newborns having formula for food.  Who decides if a newborn is breast fed or bottle?  In this spat the judgment is from the state (city government) to force the mothers to breast feed by making formula very difficult to access in a city hospital.  Is this justice?  It is judgment.

So, the value of any judgment is relative to who/what is judging and who/what is judged.  Floating just above that clamor is the old adage live and let live, which is an application of Allowing.

The subtle difference between tolerance and allowing is very similar to the distinction between being grateful for something and appreciating something.

The bottom line is that too many people deprive themselves of joy simply by the manner of their thinking. 

Another Conversation with Time

A moment passed

not proud at all.

I reached back in time

to correct an errant thought.

To find the thought

was to err some more

and keep that thought alive,

my purpose not at all.

“’tis past,” said Time,

“Why would you, now,

have it rule again?”

Correct the past?

Create, now, the thought,

supreme.

Such is the mischief of Time.

Think now, think now,

the best of all.

Thus is a future formed.

Every now and then a bit of verse muscles its way in.  The Gnome must be around.