Soul Fragments

Initiate
Posts: 290
Joined: Sun Jun 23, 2013 1:35 am

PostSun Jun 30, 2013 7:51 pm » by SolStone


1ofus wrote:Solstone wrote "I don't believe we made a terrible mistake long ago; I believe God made a terrible mistake long ago".

Again, if you are referring to the genderless collective spirit when you erroneously use the title God, we as individuals and he/she as our collective spirit are two parts to the same thing. Any way you say it "we" made a mistake long ago that needs to be corrected.


And this is why I always say, "love is not compromise." In my last post, the error I made in communicating how I feel, is in allowing your definition of 'god' to go without a counter of my definition of god; had I followed through rather than brushing it off as 'semantics,' you would not have made claim to know how it is I think on 'God.' My mistake, I should have trusted my instincts to begin with.

In fairness to my feelings on god, I would bring up the Principia of Part & Parcel. And in fairness I will tell you why. Should you continue along the road of failing to distinguish between the Original Mover and the fragmented parts (namely You), then the fallacies of the early gnostic mystics will haunt your endeavors and land you ultimately in failure. If you truly want to understand the fragmented aspect of your soul, how can that be accomplished if you fail to distinguish between the Original Nature of both God (the genderless, Original Mover, Dweller, King of Kings, ect.) and You, the fragmented shard of the Whole.

Assuming because God has all of You in Him/Her, does not equivocate You containing all of God; if it did, you would learn at the speed of light and would not carry the amnesia which shrouds your spirit. In other words, your Desire would be your Reality, and you would not be desiring to Know God because you would already be God (in completeness). Failure to distinguish the difference will lead you ultimately to a messiah complex born out of misguided arrogance - namely confusing your identity with the First Mover (rather than from and in the First Mover).

To each their own, as we all have our own ways. This was me correcting my mistake from yesterday and explaining why I disagree with your definition of god. Had I done this yesterday I would not have accidently led you to that assumption off my previous comment. I apologize for being unclear to you :(
on my definition of the First Mover.

Initiate
Posts: 154
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 2:39 am

PostSun Jun 30, 2013 9:55 pm » by 1ofus


SolStone wrote:
1ofus wrote:Solstone wrote "I don't believe we made a terrible mistake long ago; I believe God made a terrible mistake long ago".

Again, if you are referring to the genderless collective spirit when you erroneously use the title God, we as individuals and he/she as our collective spirit are two parts to the same thing. Any way you say it "we" made a mistake long ago that needs to be corrected.


And this is why I always say, "love is not compromise." In my last post, the error I made in communicating how I feel, is in allowing your definition of 'god' to go without a counter of my definition of god; had I followed through rather than brushing it off as 'semantics,' you would not have made claim to know how it is I think on 'God.' My mistake, I should have trusted my instincts to begin with.

In fairness to my feelings on god, I would bring up the Principia of Part & Parcel. And in fairness I will tell you why. Should you continue along the road of failing to distinguish between the Original Mover and the fragmented parts (namely You), then the fallacies of the early gnostic mystics will haunt your endeavors and land you ultimately in failure. If you truly want to understand the fragmented aspect of your soul, how can that be accomplished if you fail to distinguish between the Original Nature of both God (the genderless, Original Mover, Dweller, King of Kings, ect.) and You, the fragmented shard of the Whole.



Assuming because God has all of You in Him/Her, does not equivocate You containing all of God; if it did, you would learn at the speed of light and would not carry the amnesia which shrouds your spirit. In other words, your Desire would be your Reality, and you would not be desiring to Know God because you would already be God (in completeness). Failure to distinguish the difference will lead you ultimately to a messiah complex born out of misguided arrogance - namely confusing your identity with the First Mover (rather than from and in the First Mover).

To each their own, as we all have our own ways. This was me correcting my mistake from yesterday and explaining why I disagree with your definition of god. Had I done this yesterday I would not have accidently led you to that assumption off my previous comment. I apologize for being unclear to you :(
on my definition of the First Mover.



You have no idea of the roads I've been down and any and all roads I choose will go where they go. Neither you or the gods will steer my course, I've got that covered. It appears the conversation has gotten a little less relaxed and a little more judgmental. It's one thing to state ones opinion or beliefs and another to suggest my failures or where my roads will lead. :nope:

In reference to the Gnostics road; to be honest I haven't even studied the literature enough to know much about it, but haunt? I'll have to consider how that is different from the gods. As for distinguishing between parts or fragments and the whole; we are the accumulation of our past decisions. If we are ascending we are growing or adding fragments to who we are. Just like tree rings on a tree. If in descent we would be loosing fragments. Tell me of the knowledge and wisdom you have accumulated that proves you have succeeded and not failed.


Learning at light speed, you got anything to back that up? that sounds interesting. I view god as an obstacle that I have to get around, I understand what he is when I go by him. I understand that he isn't a god at all, just more bullshit and deception but I always understand what he says and does as I continue to learn.

There you go again on where my roads will lead. Listen, if I'm not following you, and I'm not, you don't have a clue where my road leads.

The biggest error you've made is assuming that I want to know god or be as god! That may be your objective but not mine. If anyone or anything using that title comes my way I will continue to view them as an obstacle as that has been my experience thus far. Do I want to know the spirit? It is my experience that the more I learn the more the spirit reveals him/herself to me.

Messiah NOT!!! He will be our end! :hell: It's rather like the leaf of a tree gaining special consideration because of his close association with the root. The spirit of which I speak does not demand my obedience or worship as your god does. All I get from the spirit is love and encouragement, it only makes sense, if I am a part of his/her sensory apparatus the spirit wants me to learn. Everything all of us learn becomes apart of the spirits reservoir of data that he/she can draw from in making his/her/their/our decisions.

Initiate
Posts: 290
Joined: Sun Jun 23, 2013 1:35 am

PostSun Jun 30, 2013 10:47 pm » by SolStone


1ofus wrote:
SolStone wrote:
1ofus wrote:Solstone wrote "I don't believe we made a terrible mistake long ago; I believe God made a terrible mistake long ago".

Again, if you are referring to the genderless collective spirit when you erroneously use the title God, we as individuals and he/she as our collective spirit are two parts to the same thing. Any way you say it "we" made a mistake long ago that needs to be corrected.


And this is why I always say, "love is not compromise." In my last post, the error I made in communicating how I feel, is in allowing your definition of 'god' to go without a counter of my definition of god; had I followed through rather than brushing it off as 'semantics,' you would not have made claim to know how it is I think on 'God.' My mistake, I should have trusted my instincts to begin with.

In fairness to my feelings on god, I would bring up the Principia of Part & Parcel. And in fairness I will tell you why. Should you continue along the road of failing to distinguish between the Original Mover and the fragmented parts (namely You), then the fallacies of the early gnostic mystics will haunt your endeavors and land you ultimately in failure. If you truly want to understand the fragmented aspect of your soul, how can that be accomplished if you fail to distinguish between the Original Nature of both God (the genderless, Original Mover, Dweller, King of Kings, ect.) and You, the fragmented shard of the Whole.



Assuming because God has all of You in Him/Her, does not equivocate You containing all of God; if it did, you would learn at the speed of light and would not carry the amnesia which shrouds your spirit. In other words, your Desire would be your Reality, and you would not be desiring to Know God because you would already be God (in completeness). Failure to distinguish the difference will lead you ultimately to a messiah complex born out of misguided arrogance - namely confusing your identity with the First Mover (rather than from and in the First Mover).

To each their own, as we all have our own ways. This was me correcting my mistake from yesterday and explaining why I disagree with your definition of god. Had I done this yesterday I would not have accidently led you to that assumption off my previous comment. I apologize for being unclear to you :(
on my definition of the First Mover.



You have no idea of the roads I've been down and any and all roads I choose will go where they go. Neither you or the gods will steer my course, I've got that covered. It appears the conversation has gotten a little less relaxed and a little more judgmental. It's one thing to state ones opinion or beliefs and another to suggest my failures or where my roads will lead. :nope:

In reference to the Gnostics road; to be honest I haven't even studied the literature enough to know much about it, but haunt? I'll have to consider how that is different from the gods. As for distinguishing between parts or fragments and the whole; we are the accumulation of our past decisions. If we are ascending we are growing or adding fragments to who we are. Just like tree rings on a tree. If in descent we would be loosing fragments. Tell me of the knowledge and wisdom you have accumulated that proves you have succeeded and not failed.


Learning at light speed, you got anything to back that up? that sounds interesting. I view god as an obstacle that I have to get around, I understand what he is when I go by him. I understand that he isn't a god at all, just more bullshit and deception but I always understand what he says and does as I continue to learn.

There you go again on where my roads will lead. Listen, if I'm not following you, and I'm not, you don't have a clue where my road leads.

The biggest error you've made is assuming that I want to know god or be as god! That may be your objective but not mine. If anyone or anything using that title comes my way I will continue to view them as an obstacle as that has been my experience thus far. Do I want to know the spirit? It is my experience that the more I learn the more the spirit reveals him/herself to me.

Messiah NOT!!! He will be our end! :hell: It's rather like the leaf of a tree gaining special consideration because of his close association with the root. The spirit of which I speak does not demand my obedience or worship as your god does. All I get from the spirit is love and encouragement, it only makes sense, if I am a part of his/her sensory apparatus the spirit wants me to learn. Everything all of us learn becomes apart of the spirits reservoir of data that he/she can draw from in making his/her/their/our decisions.


I have not succeeded and that is the point. Everything follows something, just as light carriers information and you follow that pattern through your sensory stations. This is exactly what I mentioned. The rational you are following is that within You is contained all the information present in the First Motion; were that the Truth you wouldn't be following anything, not the movement of the planets, nor the stars, nor the light emanating (illuminating) from them; there would be no gap present between your Desire and Manifestation.

That there is a gap and that you do follow many authorities, shows that all present in the Beginning is not present in You. You are a fragment and have an origin; understanding that origin gives You a point of reference to begin appreciating what preceded you and the currents leading you where you are going in your Process throughout Manifestation.

Lawlessness and absence of awareness of one's point in Space/Time is a denial of the experience taking place during our motion (or life).

I'm not judging you and I'm sorry for my choice in words; I'm ignoring the fact that all awareness is self-awareness and would posit that this argument is proof of that.

I'll leave this post, again I apologize (especially to the Original Poster; I did not intend to interrupt your thread, only to contribute).

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 1058
Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2010 2:51 pm
Location: Netherlands

PostSun Jun 30, 2013 11:01 pm » by Seriouscitizen


Dont mind me Solstone. There is much to be learned from our interaction with one another :D

No Prob. I am trying to see where both of you are coming from and how it fits in my personal understanding.

Then I will most likely reply since it seems that this is a matter of understanding the 'standards' or maybe 'foundation' . Not sure which word is the proper one. And to know how it begun, and in my personal interest: why, is an interesting tease for my consciousness.

guys :cheers:

Initiate
Posts: 154
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 2:39 am

PostMon Jul 01, 2013 1:58 am » by 1ofus


@solstone, I apologize as well for my defensive attitude, perhaps I'm having trouble following where you were coming from. As I mentioned, this thread is quite deep. I will chalk it up as my mistake that I can learn from.

In truth, I am having trouble recognizing your position. In a sense I hear you saying that I should know or recognize a truth that as yet has not been reached. How can I possibly know what the whole is all about if I'm only a part of that whole.

I am trying to say that as I become aware of who we are, piece by piece or fragment by fragment, step by step I am learning what that source is. How can that source be comprehended until it chooses to reveal itself, any assumption before all the pieces are put together is just that, an assumption.

As I said several posts back, I think any and all of our differences are in the definitions.
I look at it like this ; we are both putting the same jigsaw puzzle together. You may put yours together from the edges inward and someone else might put the same puzzle together from the inside out. If the puzzle comes together does it matter how we got there?

It's obvious that you have much you can share that I would appreciate hearing of in the future! In all sincerity I wish you well on your search for the truth. Have a great day! :)

Writer
User avatar
Posts: 98
Joined: Thu Jun 13, 2013 5:50 am

PostMon Jul 01, 2013 4:26 pm » by Ishtar77


It is difficult to find answers when you have never seen the source. It is all a great mystery.

There are limitation, if wisdom is imparted, are we given a limit to that information?

How does one blind from birth imagine color?

to realize the possibilities between the finite and infinite, for divinity can only be revealed by voluntarily submitting to limitations,

man relies on the perception of himself drawing on conclusion the infinite is like man

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/11935/11 ... 1935-h.htm

falling leaves return to their own roots

Initiate
Posts: 290
Joined: Sun Jun 23, 2013 1:35 am

PostMon Jul 01, 2013 5:19 pm » by SolStone


I did not want to respond because it only sounds argumentative, but it seems I'm being encouraged to share in the hopes of us reaching platonic understanding; this is my hope as well. I've read my posts and I agree that my failure to communicate did in fact sound accusatory and my apology was sincere. This post is sincere and I apologize in advance because I realize this message could be interpreted likewise; this is not my intent and I hope I am incorrect.

1ofus: My language was poor choice on my part. Procession & Succession are universal laws; that this message follows your last one (in context) is a truth. To understand this message one would have to read the one you wrote before this response; likewise, all the way to the beginning of this thread so that we may understand and remember what we are even speaking about.

Should I label the Original Poster "God" and choose to keep my responses in context with the original intent of this thread, then a wreck less abandon away from the title "God" would seem counter-intuitive. When I sounded accusatory towards you (and I did, I am sorry), it was frustration from a person who spent years attempting to reconcile Gnostic teachings and the reality of 'fragmentation.' This is not me saying because I could not, no one can - this is me saying I have never read of, nor met a person, nor examined a person throughout history (as recorded) as having reconciled these teachings. It was a warning to a sincere seeker (yourself) to spend your time more wisely than I myself have. And in truth, this is false (and unwise of me) because all knowledge is self-knowledge, meaning true understanding must come from within an individual and not from without (learned from another). This internal journey leads to external truths.

Believe me sir, I wish I had the freedom to go where I desired, and to meet persons such as yourself, to learn from your experiences, laugh with you over conversations and truly get to know you - but I personally cannot as I don't have those freedoms. I did not mean to accuse you of anything and I am sorry if I caused you distress, it was a failure to communicate my true feelings to you accurately.

Istar77: A blind person sees colors just the same as we do. The impossibility is in communicating what you and I agree is "red" to a person who has not been able to be educated in the same fashion as we were. However, we can translate "red" in brail and that blind person will be able to associate "a color" with the communicated concept of "red." Certain realities are shared by all and are truths, and this is the difference between concepts and understandings; and the impossibility of communicating understandings.

Before I say anything else, believe me, I agree with many of your past posts. Of the scriptures I'm a lover of the writings of Solomon and others who say much as you do; and I agree! Attempting to communicate these things are vanity, a striving after wind. I especially agree with that poem you shared earlier, it was beautiful.

However, just as English is learned either by being educated in the alphabet, or by watching television shows; it is a platform by which we share experiences. If the original platform (or context) is not agreed upon, communication becomes impossible. Sharing becomes impossible. Just as one can practice astrology to become adept in prediction, so could one practice the I-Ching and divine through sensing the changing seasons; both are astrological but one has more apparent internal applications. In reality both have internal applications; however, due to secret societies, the internal transmutations that can be found in so-called western astrology are fairly hard to become educated in.

What is of import to me personally, is that the context is understood and agreed upon, so that seeds for personal internal transmutation can be reached by each of us, and that we don't just brush it aside as valueless. My poor choice in words led to 1ofUs feeling (rightly so) that I was judging his personal beliefs and experiences, when I should have simply remained silent; it was vanity, I understand that.

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 1058
Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2010 2:51 pm
Location: Netherlands

PostMon Jul 01, 2013 7:00 pm » by Seriouscitizen


Solstone; " What is of import to me personally, is that the context is understood and agreed upon, so that seeds for personal internal transmutation can be reached by each of us, and that we don't just brush it aside as valueless. My poor choice in words led to 1ofUs feeling (rightly so) that I was judging his personal beliefs and experiences, when I should have simply remained silent; it was vanity, I understand that."

1ufos: "As I said several posts back, I think any and all of our differences are in the definitions.
I look at it like this ; we are both putting the same jigsaw puzzle together. You may put yours together from the edges inward and someone else might put the same puzzle together from the inside out. If the puzzle comes together does it matter how we got there?

I am trying to say that as I become aware of who we are, piece by piece or fragment by fragment, step by step I am learning what that source is. How can that source be comprehended until it chooses to reveal itself, any assumption before all the pieces are put together is just that, an assumption.

The spirit of which I speak does not demand my obedience or worship as your god does. All I get from the spirit is love and encouragement, it only makes sense, if I am a part of his/her sensory apparatus the spirit wants me to learn. Everything all of us learn becomes apart of the spirits reservoir of data that he/she can draw from in making his/her/their/our decisions."


The only measurement for success in understanding ANYTHING that we have, is ourselves and the mirrors installed in others.
Those mirrors are synchronizing energies that inspire us. Whenever we look into someones eyes it brings up a memory of a feeling. That is directly connected with an experience. I wish i was as well spoken in English as the posters on this thread are, and that inspiration comes from an understanding. One cannot recognize something outside of its own simulation window.

Communication is so valuable cause it triggers our being. And by being triggered we feel that what we 'want' . Though on the internet of coarse i always try to be as neutral as possible since i dont see use in calling people 'idiots' (unless they are my boyfriend, father/mother or sister), when i dont have the physical response-ability to help them connect. The internet is limited by the walls of our brain and so i think it is important to connect on the intellectual level as much as possible since that is the only validation we get.

Validation leads to a strong foundation to build images upon. And the stronger that foundation is, the parts where we sync, not the parts where we differ, the smoother our path is to inner growth. Without validation there is only illusion.

I dont know how that is related to our O.P. but I do think that our interaction with one another is very important. Every ' fractal' as small as it might be contributes to creation. Just look at ourselves and see how our ' missing' parts lead to destruction. And we know that is a truth because on our way we found some back and we were conscious of the influence of that experience. That is all we have...

So far our understanding is based upon that what we experienced and that what has been given to us. But we can only comprehend that what we feel. And as to ' god', 'spirit', 'Creator of Creators' the truth is we are torn between that what was given to us and that what we have experienced. The only legitimate way to uncover our reality is that in ourselves and in our mirrors. Just as how i have put the OP together based on my personal experience with the fragments In Me.

Thank you for your contribution, i recognize a great deal of myself in all of you and that is a true pleasure.

Initiate
Posts: 154
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 2:39 am

PostMon Jul 01, 2013 8:52 pm » by 1ofus


Although I am too busy right now to contribute anything of substance to the thread I am indeed happy that everything is good.

I very much agree with seriouscitizen in that even though I may not agree with what others have to say I still want to hear that thought or position.

@solstone, as I said in the last post I can tell that you are an intelligent individual with much you can share. It would be our loss if you didn't contribute.

Now, as much as I hate to, it's back to work. Can you imagine a day when that will be voluntary and not mandatory?

Wishing everyone a great day! :cheers:

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 3320
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 5:56 am

PostMon Jul 01, 2013 9:15 pm » by kentrb


i can imagine that
the voluntary world is gonna be cool i can imagine.i hope my great grankids,6 or 7 generations from now agree.
personally,i think those fragments are the purpose of my fragment,lol

i swear i just saw some fragments comin together in this thread.gonna have to keep checkin it,lol

:hugging:


Previous

  • Related topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post
Visit Disclose.tv on Facebook