The Principle, Forms & Their Dynamics

On identity-awareness and the barrier.

In the state of knowledge, or “identity-awareness”, the content of remembrance or original Self is hindered by the subject’s perception. The sensory-experiential field and awareness of the subject, if enabled to permutate through a period of self-reflection after the content without any temporal presence or measurement of time is in effect, the subject has misplaced the regurgitation of experiences to sensory input.

The content does not adhere to the limitations of the “barrier”, or of the Ego, which is supposed to be the agency responsible for our so-called separated sources of action. The barrier will create obstacles for itself out of selection, which are made by excluding other input outside of areas it is focused.

This gives rise to the reason why the sensation of “dismembering” the subject feels counter-intuitive, because it is akin to having the reversal of a “dream-state”. Instead of being attentive to the content of knowledge or identity-awareness, the subject regresses back into the dormant state of having no recollection of the intemporal content. And the subject does not really comply with this psychologically.

The reasoning for this unwillingness to return to the barrier-consciousness is the incomprehensible and furthermore indescribable aspect of the content which can only be designated by the term “union of felicity.”

This often triggers an undulating process in our sensory-awareness when the regression has taken place, which is caused by the sensation of “pretentiousness” of things. This undulating process might be called “laughter”.

Limitations, or values we formulate with our barrier have little to do with the content, from our perspective it could be called “nonsense”. It is only when the subject tries to “make sense” out of the content that it starts exhibiting limitations and creates a byproduct of disbelief after the fact.

Quantifiable knowledge requires that it can be analyzed. And this dream-state does not allow direct access to information beyond or outside itself, except on extremely rare occasions.

One might symbolically imagine it, but it is not equivalent to direct knowledge. The subject’s subconsciousness is the propulsive underlying aspect which stands beneath or before the conscious attention and of the barrier.

Together the barrier, sensory-awareness and subconsciousness constitutes what Carl Jung described as the Self or “totality of the human psyche”. However, this is not to be equated with the original Self.

So, one can apply this analogy to the content. Once the subject transcends the dormant dream-state, and realizes the state of knowledge of one’s identity-awareness, they have effectively “reset” their sensory-awareness to its true [or rather, its unimpeded] capacity without the barrier.

When you “dismember” yourself back into the dream-state, you cannot regurgitate the experience the same manner as ordinary memory-experiences. Because memories are only useful for an organism who has to continue in the process of the life-cycle.

One’s original knowledge-state, transcends all finite conditions in which perception plays key part in dealing with information it filters through the subject’s identity-awareness and thus the subject receives what is called awareness of the external world. And this produces the conditions for the “principle” to occur.

The pattern which defines the underlying principle of the system itself is so subtle, it creates fluctuations even in the most simplest of forms [beings]. The mechanics of it might elude the forms themselves, but it does not escape the identity-awareness, which must stand true or unimpeded at all times.

The sensitivity of one’s ability to withstand the seeming barrier which blocks one’s view of it becomes so potent at the most random temporal and spatial frequencies, it is as if its function is to withstand it, that is to say, avoid it. It comes with its adverse sides undoubtedly, but it enables one to access new domains of experience one could never have imagined before.

The catalyst for such an ability is not limited to the confines of ordinary things and events, but resides outside the construct of space-time. Thus, it does not adhere to the rules “written” within the totality of phenomena, on the contrary, it supersedes them.

The very many methods which makes this possible is therefore given to the forms responsible to oversee that the pattern is kept in check whenever and wherever possible, keeping in mind the restrictions under which they are ‘forced’ to operate [dynamic systems and their limitations].

The operating forms are furthermore set up in such a way that they “screen out” any undesirable forms that cannot retain nor deal with the variables involved within the pattern.

While this model has worked perfectly in a certain sense throughout the centuries, it creates one problem. The superior-inferior paradox, which hides beneath it an authority question which if let out of the confines of the inner circle would render said paradox ineffective. Whether this model is necessary is up to anyone to decipher.

It is the subject which is responsible in the end whether to take this paradox seriously. The overload of information it produces within the forms is so cataclysmic, it creates what is known as “truth-apprehension”, which makes the forms inherently resort to loop-causes around their problems. And this begs the question, why a problem in the first place?

We can look at this from two points of view. The first is that the perfect state is required for a problem to appear. If there is not that, the problem would simply be part of the scenery. Hence the cycles through numerous maha-manvantaras. In other words, if the problem was not a perfect problem, perfection itself would be the problem.

The second point of view is more difficult. The pretense of the entire system does not include the subject’s perception as it manifests within the sensory-awareness. Instead it “hides” itself within the multiplicity of phenomena, going so far as to deny [human relations] it outright.

If the subject’s perception is sufficiently sensitive, it may “cross over” into frequencies where experiencing the obscuring of the system becomes apparent. It is akin to seeing the points in a network and their entire relationship within a totality of interconnectedness.

The barrier also has a parallel function in this: it has the capacity to overcome the cumbersome prospect of myopia, but only on special occasions. The barrier is actually “helped” by identity-awareness even when the principle has trouble breaking through.

The information received by both the barrier and the sensory-perception is filtered even further by the subject’s beliefs. If it becomes too convoluted, the subject may have the experience known as “psychological fatigue.”

When a belief is held on too tightly, it loses its power, and becomes a blockage in itself. When it is sought out, the subject is “seeking”. And it is this seeking which keeps the subject in a perpetual cycle of space-time. By projecting the past and the future, it creates the barrier for itself. However, this is only a partial view of it. Belief [in Maya] is a by-product of the separation idea.

Seeking is created when a subject has the sensation that they are missing a component, and so has to seek it from outside their own sensory-awareness. It is constructed more exactly by creating a vacuum, and then reacting to it by projecting a potentiality within it with the subject’s barrier, and then through desiring sought out until this pattern is repeated again and again.

The inability to make the belief a reality will create “psychological starvation”, resulting in more loop-causality between their desire and their desire’s objects. This is also partly the cause for fear.

Fear is created in perception from the separation idea. It is an inherent function of the barrier, which scans motion in the environment to see what changes. If it is “safe”, or stationary, it means it can’t cause pain to the subject. If however it is in motion, the subject will feel discomfort to certain extent. The discomfort is directly proportional to the relative speed between the subject and the change in its surroundings.

This change depending on the case, determines the levels on which this fear happens. These levels can range from imaginary to instinctual. In any case, fear is rooted in the barrier. The opposite of fear is felicity, which is also the content of the state of knowledge. And it is felicity’s function to undo any fear within the subject, and it does it through direct experience.

L.

P.S. This is probably the most nonsensical piece of text I have ever had the pleasure of writing. But man, I enjoyed every bit of it!