There’s Always Something

Carl

Hi Joe, Brrr… We’re getting snow in the hills today… just a taste of what you have. Now, to digress...

[cite] Joe:[/cite]I'm thinking neither is true. In the sense that vacation is an illusion. We hope to escape from whatever difficulties we experience (at work, in relationships, whatever) by going somewhere else on vacation. But, we always carry our difficulties with us, so there isn't really an escape.

My best "vacations" are the ones when I've let go of expectations, and am simply totally present in the moment. (Try scheduling a flight to mindfulness on United Airlines!)

Of course, neither is true in the sense of ‘[chref=56]profound sameness[/chref]’ . But, our nervous system evolved to tune into ‘difference’, and so we can’t help make mountains out of molehills. So, couldn’t we say that ‘ease’ and ‘difficulty’ are likewise illusion. One revolves into the other before our very eyes… within our very eyes. [chref=58] The straightforward changes again into the crafty, and the good changes again into the monstrous[/chref].

I marvel at how the disconnect between what we can see and what we actually feel offers us unending ways to ‘work it out’.

Carl

The view of Oneness, mentioned in The Tao of Jesus, is at the core of most religions, even though it may be expressed very differently. That we have difficulty approaching daily life with that perspective is not surprising. Heck, considering how the nervous system works - on / off - (yang / yin), it stands to reason we would view life through that two sided lens, e.g., good, bad, light, dark, hard, soft, etc. And so the question, [chref=10]when carrying on your head your perplexed bodily soul can you embrace in your arms the One and not let go?[/chref]

What surprises me is that we can sense an overarching Oneness at all, given how the sensory system’s organs function. Although, a meta view would suggest that this is also just an emergent property of the ‘on’ ‘off’ neurological response. In other words, Oneness is the ‘off’; duality (on versus off) is the ‘on’.

In this same vein, I’d have to say that a meta view of balance must include unbalance as a key aspect of balance. Unbalance ‘balances’ balance. Seen together, balance and unbalance compose an all inclusive whole. Thus, whether I’m balanced or unbalanced makes no difference for I will need the other to counterbalance the situation. I suppose that explains why nothing ever resolves itself. If it did, the universe would end. Poof! :shock:

Lynn Cornish

Ok, I'll bite. What do you mean by meta view? I was thinking metta, like the metta prayer for the wellbeing of others. But you spell it meta and the dictionary says: referring to itself or to the conventions of its genre; self-referential. If that's what you mean, then I am stumped.

Sounds like something from a C++ programming class I took once or twice.

Carl

I don't know what it means either. Andy is always using the word so I thought I'd try it out. Luke, the intellect that he is, said my post made sense to him.

Anyway, I take 'meta view' to mean the farthest most outside the box, big picture, overarching view of the view. The analysis of the analysis or the analysis of the...

"Referring to itself" sounds kind of right. But it's more than that as well. Still, "referring to itself" kind of hits the nail on the head concerning the 'intuitive sense' I have when thinking, writing or speaking, that I'm always simply beating around the bush.

Let me go see if Andy will elaborate...