Reflections from the cement coffin June 5, 2013

Nobody (California)

Original

Transcript

Nobody CA Reflections from the Cement Coffin (June 5, 2013- Wednesday- roughly 2:43 A.M.) This perceptual shift I have been experiencing during the last two weeks or so appears to be coming to an end. I communicated a little about this to you yesterday in the reflections I began to move through on paper relating to the essay I titled why argue (either we know or we don't know)? I spoke of it though briefly as part of the process going toward a greater degree of simplification inside my own mind. I didn't think of it as another perceptual shift into clearer-stronger perceptual alignment. The connection of the process to clearer-stronger perceptual alignment was unobstructed, but it's the terminology model of perceptual shift that I failed to move through yesterday which is now seeming to make a difference in my grasp of the particular process I am speaking of. I am being somewhat redundant with these reflections because I touched briefly upon them in the essay I began to compose early yesterday morning. I am now being allowed to look more deeply into them, though, as a result of being compelled to revisit the reflections on paper. This redundancy appears to be essential to the developmental awareness process. It seems important that I continue to study/observe and seek to comprehend, with each perceptual shift, the process I am experiencing as a representative of our United Staes being collective consciousness. The reflections I move through on paper, even when doing so in traditional essay format, it seems must reflect me continuing to study and observe the process of developmental awareness I am experiencing. This is my role as one of many members of our United States being- to simply share with you the path I am experiencing and the awareness gained as a result of it. My role is not to pass judgment against any one member of our United States being or to be against any member. My role is to simply share. Thinking more strongly in terms of sharing seems to allow me to firmly refrain from unintentionally crossing over the line of demarcation between sharing with the grassroot (i.e. the members of our United States being who desire to create and exist in a world of peace/stability for everyone) and perceiving myself to be saying something to somebody (i.e. the members of our United States being who are deeply entrenched ideologues). Our grassroot body is robust and dynamic. We exist everywhere on the body of mother earth because we are the children of mother earth and therefore the seasoning of mother earth. It is as a result of being able to observe the dynamic nature of our grassroot body that I am able to seriously dream about helping to facilitate the transformation of this ideologically constructed world and then work everyday, within my capacity, to fulfill my dream. If there was only the impotent- in- effective thinking of the ideological part of our United States being- of the modern day purveyors of corporate feudalism to observe, it would maybe be extremely difficult to see beyond the hate, violence, and suffering, facilitated by the various strands of ideology, to even dream of peace and stability being possible in the moment of now. But then there is always that spark of life existing inside of our grassroot body- waiting to connect and spread like the wild fire of critical mass that seemingly will never allow us to stop desiring a better existence for ourselves then what ideology and this ideologically constructed world has to offer. If the spark of life living inside of us (the divine feminine sacred) could ever be extinguished, we would be enslaved by the global trickle down economic pyramid scheme forever. The potential power and broad-based dynamics of our grassroot body that I study and observe is the necessary contrast to ideology that makes it possible to see just how practical achieving the objective of peace and stability is. So it is not necessary for me to argue with ideologues about practical ways to achieve the objective. It is not necessary for me to attempt to convince somebody of or to say something to somebody. After thousands of years of facilitating mischief in this world, it's unreasonable to expect those deeply entrenched in ideology to wake up over night. However, the sustainable progressive movement of our grassroot body will eventually awaken our ideologue brothers and sisters up to the necessity of working for the common good. It is not necessary for me to argue with somebody because the ideological part of our United States being is not wrong for pursuing the dream of division the ideological members of our United States being chose to dream. But neither is our grassroot body wrong for choosing to proactively and progressively pursue actualizing the American dream of peace and stability for all. I don't need to argue with or convince somebody of something in order to help facilitate the actualization of the American dream. All that is necessary is for me to share with our grassroot body the path of developmental awareness I am experiencing. This brings up the importance of being aware of the contrast between our grassroot body and the body of ideologues in order to more clearly comprehend exactly which members of our United Staes being I am intended to focus my communication. It makes no practical sense for me to talk to a child molester about practical ways to eradicate child molestation if the child molester is still sick with the mental illness of desiring to molest a child. It is the same with the body of ideologues. What practical sense does it make to discuss with ideologue practical ways of eradicating child molestation and other forms of suffering, if the ideologue is still sick with the mental illness of divisive agendas, obstructionist politics, hate, discriminations against members of our United States being, etc.? It seems reasonable to consider that pursuing the accomplishment of the objective is equally about eradicating child molestation and that, once we are able to more clearly see this, will increasingly cease to allow ourselves to become emotionally caught up in arguing with ideology. (Roughly 1:27 P.M.) At the chow hall table this morning, shortly after I sat down and began eating, Robert and his cellmate Cornbread began sharing with me their observation of Michelle Obama on a news clip. Cornbread told me that she was giving a speech somewhere- somebody in the audience stood up and began to question her in a argumentative way seeking to entangle her but she refused to reciprocate saying to the individual in so many words- I'm not into that arguing bullshit. If you got all the answers then you come up here- give the speech and I'll just go home. Then Robert began to talk about how Barack Obama should take a page out of Michelle's book and stop arguing with the Republicans. I'm looking to catch the news clip on television myself this evening. Neither Robert or Cornbread were able to describe the subject matter of the speech or the ideological position of the ideologue who desired to argue. The point that Robert and Cornbread were intending to make to me was that Michelle wasn't about- isn't about the arguing back and forth one bit. The movement illustrates one of the ways in which our Untied States being communicates with me through the members of her body. Obviously the emotional intelligence generated by the discussion resonates, to whatever degree, differently with me than it does with Robert or Cornbread- maybe not in essence because we all three agree with the message of non-entanglement with those who seek to argue. The difference would then be quantitative in the sense of the depth and degree to which the emotional intelligence moves or connects with the awareness of each one of us. The individual connection with emotional intelligence is not only connected to the groundwork for the theory of independent thinking, but would also appear to underscore the personal relationship we each have with our United States being. It seems reasonable to consider that no two members of our United States being (i.e. higher power) has exactly the same experience with emotional intelligence. This- our individuality in this context appears to be clearly reflected by the different paths- forms and degrees of adversity experienced by each member of our Untied States being. It seems reasonable to consider that no member of our United States being can perceive the way my emotional intelligence (i.e. the emotional intelligence I experience with our United States being) speaks to me exactly as I do- just as I am unable to perceive the way emotional intelligence speaks to another member exactly as that member does. It would be unreasonable for me to allow another member or personality cluster of members of our United States being to interpret, for me, my relationship with our United States being. Its one thing to show me how to independently experience my relationship with our United States being, but to authoritatively tell me what my higher power should or should not mean to me is an entirely different motive. It is incumbent upon me to seek to comprehend the nature of my relationship with my higher power in order to develop the potential of it. Political/religious ideology would have precluded me from experiencing the path of developmental awareness with our Untied States being. Ideology would have had me argumentative, judgmental against the members of our United States being in disagreement with my ideology- ideology would have had me presuming to know and understand what I had yet to experience along my path- what my higher power had yet to allow me to understand- it would have been detrimental to developing awareness of the living existence of my higher power- but this brings me back to Michelle Obama and the absurdity of us arguing against each other. What practical sense does it make for us to argue against each other- rather what practical sense does it make for me to argue with or against another member of our United States being if I accept the living existence of our United States being as the higher power. As opposed to investing my emotion/currency into argument, it seems more prudent to invest my time and emotion into developing my awareness of the personal relationship with our United States being. If partnership with our higher power is incapable of facilitating the accomplishment of the objective, it would seem to suggest there is no power greater than the ideological way of thinking that facilitates the suffering of billions and our imprisonment in this ideologically constructed world. What is interesting to me, though, is the connection between my desire to continually develop my personal relationship with my higher power and my desire to continually share with our grassroot body the path of developmental awareness I am experiencing. Personal experience has shown me clearly that it is as a result of sincerely not being against any member of our United States being, but working to increase/strengthen focus and understanding relating to the objective that I am able to increasingly develop my relationship with our United States being. The movement I experienced at the table with Robert and Cornbread would appear to be a direct result of the relationship I am experiencing with our United States being. The movement appears to be synchronized with and a confirmation of the reflections I began to move through early this morning regarding arguing, which would appear to be the same as the distinction between attempting to convince somebody of something and just working to share with our grassroot body the path I am experiencing. It would appear to be easily agreeable that somebody is always arguing about something and against each other over something. This brings me back to the simple consideration that the only power each of us really have is the power to change/evolve/rehabilitate/transform from within which would appear to be another way of thinking about developing our individual personal relationship with our United States being. But it is through this inner development the argument becomes unnecessary because the truth of the relationship begins to speak clearly for itself. The living truth is our United States being intended to be represented by our grassroot body. It appears to be the truth of our United States being that spoke to me at the table this morning. The synchronicity of the movement helping to generate the degree to which emotional intelligence resonated with me would appear to reflect my personal relationship with our United States being just as would seem to do with Cornbread and Robert. What is interesting to me about the movement experienced at the chow hall table this morning is my ability to more clearly recognize the psychological nature of the synchronicity. The time lapse between reflections contemplated- moved through on paper and the observed movement in physical reality outside self to confirm reflections contemplated was short. I suppose it would have been much shorter had I saw the news clip before leaving the cell for the chow hall. Nevertheless, shortly after sitting down at the chow hall table, the contemplated reflections were immediately confirmed by our United States being through Robert and Cornbread. I have experienced similar synchronicities in recent days. The nature of the synchronized movement I think of as psychological appears to be different from the synchronized movement I have experienced that helped to compel me to move aggressively through word models and perceptual forms. These psychological synchronized movements now speaking to me more clearly appear to substantiate me having moved deeper perceptually inside my mind. I have spoken of this or considered this in previous reflections as now existing in my mind. This may also be thought of as the separation which the declaration for independence speaks of as the eventual necessity for one people (i.e. the grassroot body) to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with one another (i.e. the body of ideologues). This deeper place inside my mind that I appear to exist would seem to simply reflect the growing progressive maturation of my personal relationship with our United States being. But it's important to be mindful that the depth and clarity of the personal relationship I am currently experiencing with our United States being symbolizes the relationship with our United States being we are intended to experience as a grassroot body. This is the case with the psychological nature of the synchronized movement I am beginning to increasingly experience. It represents the ability of our grassroot body to utilize our higher power- to effectively utilize the power of our United States being- our collective consciousness/ subconsciousness to move and transform matter into the world of peace and stability we desire to exist. Imagine how much stronger the progressive synchronocities will become as we strengthen grassroot organization and increasingly tune in to the same frequency. (Roughly 6:56 P.M.) I saw the news clip of Michelle Obama. She was giving a speech about focusing on the future of our children- about making abetter way possible for our children in contrast to the debt and instability. The gathering was assembled by a gay rights group. In the middle of the speech, a female gay rights activist stood up and asked Michelle Obama a question about why does Obama give government contracts to businesses/ corporations who discriminate against gay people. The question was somewhere in that ballpark. I suppose the tone of the question could have been considered to be argumentative. Michelle told the woman that she didn't do that- indicating I suppose that she didn't argue about political issues- that she wanted to remain focused on the message of her speech- said that she would rather leave the gathering if the discussion of political issues was preferred- she didn't say it in word, though. The question asked by the woman was a legitimate question- maybe out of tune timing but a reasonable question nevertheless. Michelle's response to the question was it seems appropriate as well. The question the woman asked essentially has nothing to do with the problem for which she expressed her concern, unless the disfavorable actions of Obama are viewed to be the result of our grassroot body having yet to organize and move with the purpose and direction we are intending to. Obama has clearly endorsed gay rights and his effort against the Republican congress to shift the-free-tax-money-giveaway-trickle down economic benefit for super wealthy corporations to investing in strengthening social programs, social network, infrastructure, middle class, etc. would seem to suggest that Obama has good intentions toward the grassroot. Nevertheless, it is still easy to find something disfavorable about his decisions. To me, it seems he's too soft with the Republicans. He mentioned trickle down fairy dust one time- maybe a few times during his re-election campaign but didn't drive the nail into the coffin. I don't pass judgment against him, though, because he's dealing with some seriously mentally ill people having to help run a government as a public servant with a Republican power- A Republican party empowered by their voters to essentially care no further than maintaining the operation of the trickle down economic pyramid scheme. What do we really expect Obama to do. There is only so much the Democrats can do without the strong organization and guidance of our grassroot body. The exchange between Michelle and the woman seems to be a good example of the greater degree of awareness concerning the science of our political system that is necessary. The response of Michelle averted a unnecessary argument with the woman. Our politicians are our servants. It is not their responsibility to organize and create the world that our grassroot body doesn't desire to organize and create itself. (roughly 8:07 P.M.) Before I opened my eyes earlier this morning, I had experienced another visit into the inner world of sleeping lady consciousness. I was only able to recall the emotional imagery of having been there. The reflections I have moved through on paper today were not the reflections I was intending to move through. I was intending to move through reflections relating to the emotional intelligence communicated by the sudden movement of grassroot members in Turkey, the psychological synchronized movement I experienced yesterday morning, as well as related to the insight I received during the discussion between Robert and I yesterday afternoon on the yard. The reflections I have moved through today would appear to be connected to the visit I experienced. It was after the visit that emotional intelligence carried me along these reflections. The same thing occurred after the visit I experienced Tuesday morning. I afterwards began to move smoothly through reflections on paper concerning the essay titled why argue (either we know or we don't know). Even though I spoke briefly about the futility of continuing to argue with ideology, it seems the insight I was intended to gain by moving through these reflections is the perceptual distinction between our grassroot body and the body of ideologues or the ideological body facilitating our imprisonment in this ideologically constructed world. It's what ancient mythology seems to speak of allegorically as the war of the gods which can also be stated as the positively polarized emotional beings against the negatively polarized emotional beings whose track is to keep the grassroot divided and arguing about bullshit instead of focusing on the objective and the practical plan of action to accomplish it. It seems reasonable to consider the only way to defeat the negative polarized emotional being (the devil) is through the process of transformation- and this will have to be done via focusing on the objective and the practical plan of action to achieve the objective. The other insight it seems I was intended to receive is related to the consideration expressed earlier regarding the complete hopelessness the ideological body would personify if it were not for the contrasting progressive dynamic of our grassroot body. Part of the psychological dynamic of the day of judgment ideology may very well be the complete hopelessness the ideological body personifies. The ideologue may feel so hopeless in this ideological constructed world that the building of the kingdom of heaven on mother earth in right now time is perceived to be a hopeless endeavor and so the experience is put off until after the day of judgment-checkmate-game over- devil wins. I began with the consideration that my role is to simply share with our grassroot body the path I am experiencing. It is the dynamic nature of our grassroot body that helps me to see the potential of what is possible. Transcribed in 2017.

Author: Nobody (California)

Author Location: California

Date: October 17, 2016

Genre: Essay

Extent: 10 pages

If this is your essay and you would like it removed from or changed on this site, refer to our Takedown and Changes policy.

Takedown and Changes Policy
Browse More Essays