Mark, YES! Truth and Love. Those are the energies I try to open up to in each and every moment; they are the energies that drive me to face the world with open and extended arms. They are the energies that will save us, if we are to be saved. That's my read, anyway.

---

To be nobody-but-yourself -- in a world which is doing its best, night and day, to make you everybody else -- means to fight the hardest battle which any human being can fight; and never stop fighting. - E.E.Cummings

I took some time before writing.  Writing again and again my post.  I decided this morning to write directly.  Is it more truth when we speak without preparation?

Your comment Mark brought me back few years ago when I was struggling with the differenciation between the "human love" and the altruism.  Reading your post, I felt a pain.  Why do you make a difference between both?(Or is it my reading?) If WE wish a more open and more respectful love, turned toward the other, trying to understand and to accept his point of view,  why should it be without a selffulfilling return?  When WE open in truth AND in respect, WE are both winners.  The WE and the I's.

This openess and acceptance, not by force but by a true respect for Life in all its ways, is an Integrated Love, isn't it?  So, I should say WE are totally winners, innerly and outerly.

Martine

Martine,

Please accept my apology if my post caused you to feel pain. I have been sitting here going over what you wrote and it has opened a door for me. When you first came back with the short post on Love, I was not sure from where that came, so I followed a "line" from the point I could see. Now, what I am about to write is in direct response to your post, and it is direct, so please do not feel any pain. Be in this very moment of reading and see all that there is to see. What follows is just my line of thought at the moment and from my place of view (which is constantly moving).

I think the WE can only exist in a moment, as it cannot exist outside of "that which we are in" (as WE can be no other place at a moment). For "human love" lives inside this moment and when it is WE, then both forms of Love are there (altruism and human).

I guess what I am saying is that for us to reach human love we must "pass through" true Love, that which is altruistic. It lives on the other side, and so does openness and all that Love is. As we are singular beings, then only we, can make the WE. Only we can feel the WE. If the other does not make the WE or feel the WE, then there is little we can do about it, but to know that we have Loved by being WE.

Letting go of everything and free falling is hard to do and knowing the other may not do the same is about where they are on the mountain trail (or the view they see from the mountain, as Ken puts it). As part of this WE, we have to accept this, as part of the many paradoxes of life and the universe, which holds everything in place.

Perhaps the greatest chance we have of reaching "Integral Love" is to become WE and pass through to see what lies on the other side.

I hope this does not cause you any pain, but assists you to see what I am trying to say. The passage about Love and Truth is from a paper, which I would be happy to send to you if you would like to read. Please let me know and I will send, as it will give you the context of where this fits.

Looking forward to hearing from you again.

With all my WE Love

Mark 

Colin,

Thank you for your comments and yes it is about energy, but not sure about what we will be saved from? Ourselves, others, humanity?

I don't see that we perhaps need to be saved from anything, but please expand.

Mark

It feels really good Mark to feel your consideration for my well-being.  I see you aren’t just talking but you’re walking too. That’s right that with a cryptic sentence, we open a lot of doors for the other(s).  If it’s often interesting in a play ball (from a side to the other), it’s not necessarily the best for a strong WE. 

 

I touch something that is troubling for me.  Cognitively,  I understand this WE  only in the present moment.  The feeling that I have with that is a trouble for the treason (I know it is a strong word but it is the one I feel inside) toward the loved ones.  A lack of continuity.  I understand the PRESENCE in the WE but I do not understand the absence of PRESENCE outside the WE.   The Presence even in the absence. Outside the moment, WE (past, present and future) is there.  Always there.   It is the same for “human love” and altuism.  Are we not PRESENT when we choose to act in conformity for the well being of people we don’t even know for exemple buying fair-trade products?  Are you speaking of Presence, to be totally there for the other, With the other? 

 

And, for sure, it would be a pleasure to read your paper Mark. 

 

And Colin, will you put a log in our fire?

Martine,

There may be some cross cultural issues here, and hopefully I get what you are saying. I have a genuine concern for people, and your comments have made me think of just where the WE is.

In the context of the WE (as I have described it), I don't think it can exist outside of the PRESENCE, or the MOMENT, as we cannot be anywhere else. It is in the PRESENSE that we are aware of the WE and are able to live it.

Your comment raises the question of that which is outside of the PRESENSE and what do we do with the WE outside of it? The answer, I think, is in being able to recognise all the world is, even though it is never fully present to us at one point and therefore can never be part of WE. Which leads us to the point of Love and can it exist outside of the WE and the PRESENT.

No, I don't think it can, but what we might be able to do, as humans, is to be able to be a certain way with some people in order to keep the continunity, so to speak, so that when we meet with them on a regular basis we keep the sense of WE. When we are apart we can't be WE, but only an imaginery figure.

You see, I don't actual subscribe to the past, present and future concept of this world, as it is a human construct made in order to try and keep some order, at least, in our lives.

So Love for me is that which I can give by being in the MOMENT with whoever, in the PRESENSE. Does this mean that I Love everybody? Yes, when WE are in the MOMENT, but when it comes to human love, do I Love all humans, then again I would say yes, but I can't be WE with everybody, as I can only encounter that when PRESENT with them.

Do I Love my wife of 30 years, yes I do, but in that I have also chosen to enter into a relationship, which encompasses certain things that we agree with each other to do.

Hopefully, this is making some sense?

As for being totally there for the other, then I don't see this as being part of that WE, as again this can only be in the MOMENT.

Will think a bit more about it and sleep on it.

Will also send paper shortly.

Look forward to hearing from you.

Mark

I want to come back at your definition of Love.  Doing that WE are in OUR past.  Even if WE are eternally in the Present, this Present is made of our past, present and future.  You are envisaging the Future, aren’t you?  And this Future is constructed on the Present, as our Past.  We think at our Past into our Present.  In fonction of our Present.  So, we can say there is a continuity in the Present.   You said we (human beings) create those concepts to keep some order.  What is the problem with the order?  The order, a kind of order, doesn’t oblige us to limit our creativity. What I have in mind is a painter we saw lately in I-N.  I tried to find him and was not able to do to honor his work and his influence on my thoughts.  We saw different paintings reprensenting different periods associated with conciousness.  I found that progression very interesting. Going deeper and larger in time. But there had an order in each period.  A different kind of order but an order all the same. 

 

You wrote about cultural issues and the people who talked me about being in the moment were male.  If I may (not necessarily want) think in fonction of the Moment for the people I love,  I CAN NOT do that with my daughter.  When we raise children, we are constantly responsible until they become adult.  My daughter is adult but I have again this concern about her.  Imagine when she was a child.  I should be curious to know what others think about the PRESENCE, in particular those with children.  The fact to have our children inside of us and to have to let go them, we continue to bear them in us after.  Do you think a female God have a PRESENCE’s definition different of a man?

 

The principle of the Presence is that we are creating this present.  So, we don’t have to care about past or future.  The Now is what we need, our Soul needs in the Present.

Your definition of Love: Love is defined as – Acting and caring with absolutely no consideration of oneself at all, in any way (pure altruism). This does not form the basis of what is know as “human love”, which is the type of love dependent upon reinforcing the needs of one individual by satisfying the needs of another, in order for that satisfaction to be returned.

 

As we are in the Colours’ thread, we could put it in colours with egocentrism diminushing upward toward the pure altruism.  Where I have some hesitations is “with absolutely no consideration of oneself” but the Self, the higher Self has consideration for Oneself.  Sometimes, I see it as if the egocentrism of the Self is just enlarging, englobing all what it is.  Is it not egocentric?  I have some doubts.  What is the Creation if not a satisfaction for the Self? Ken said often that it was boring so God created All or something like that. 

 

That being said the open heart and not self centered in altruism is better for the human beings in this humanity.  For the living of human beings. 

 

With pleasure in this other moment in WE.

 

Martine

 

 

 

 

I guess I will put this into context (as I have written in my paper - Martine, I am unable to apply an attachment to the email from this website, so I have sent you my email address direct). The paper is called - Navigating the Future. In this I conclude that while we can "plan" what I call Macro events (such as, I will go to work today, or I will go shopping, etc), there is no way one can "plan" what will occur in the micro (that which takes place when I get to work, or shopping). These micro events are a combination of many different people creating whatever they wish or intend. Therefore, I see three ways in which one can act. The first is when encountering the micro, to simply act as one has in the past (where I act in accordance with a set of rules, yours, society, etc), the second is to act with reference to the past, but with the possibility of creating something new if one desires it (again I use some rules based on what you have learnt). The third is to completely disregard the past, any rules, and stand in the MOMENT and decide at that MOMENT what I wish to create. Now, if I am not acting (in the micro) on the basis of any past or rules I have learnt, etc, then on what basis should I act. The conclusion is - one can only act on the basis two things - Love and Truth.

This is the context where I defined Love and Truth previously, and one can act in this way. This notion of being able to act without reference to the past or rules (my own or society) comes from Steiner and much of his work.

What WE have done in this posting is to take this to another place (while outside of the context) is still relevant to us as humans. Now, to your direct points.

I simply do not see any need or reference to the PAST as such, as it has nothing for me, I can do nothing about it, I don't have access to it, so for me the PAST has no real point. This is a very Existentialist view, I know (Satre), but in being able to bring full creativity to the PRESENT, the PAST provides nothing. This is not to say that I do not use "things" I learnt in the PAST when I am PRESENT, as I surely do, but they are used for the purpose of being NOW and are not connected to what went before.

As far as order is concerned, very happy to live without it, as I don't think we need it. As far as children are concerned, again the Love here is completely alturistic, as you give and give and give and you do not expect anything in return. They are part of your life and will be forever and yes I am concerned about them, but when they are not PRESENT, then this does not mean you don't Love them, as, when they are PRESENT, the WE is very strong (have two daughters and five grandchildren).

Now, there is a point which I think I have probably missed. Is there a level of strength in the WE? Does the level of WE vary depending who the WE are? Good question, will have to think about that.

As for male and female (and yes God is Female), I can't see any difference, and haven't for a long time. People are people and no matter what we are, we are all one and connected. Yes, there are different views from a male and female persepective, but once you develop then these differences seem to disappear.

Now, back to the colours. I will, on the next post, put up an alternative to the colours in regard to development, which will show how we move away from egocentric to worldcentric, etc. A different system, so to speak.

As for no "me", I think it is not until we give it "all away" that we actually come back to "me". I think holding onto "me" does not allow us to move to a space or place where we are able to see all and therefore understand how the ME/WE works. This is completely paradoxical, I know, but this is how it seems to work.

I guess, until I lose ME I never find WE.

Thanks for your comments and wise words and look forward to hearing from you.

More to Ponder and - Love in the WE moment.

Mark    

Mark,

You give me a lot to think.  Is it a good thing?

The words are tricky sometimes and it's why I wasn't sure to agree at that you said.  As you explain it now, "I" is comfortable with.  You use the learnt things in your NOW and there is a continuity with your loved ones.  It's that I need.  I had conversations in the past with people who honestly tried to find truth in their life and to arrive at that didn't engage themselves with no one.  Being in the WE with every one, implying also their sexual life. Even if I can understand their point of view and honor their real search for honesty, I'm not personally able to act in this way.  By the way, I appreciated the comments of Liz and Arthur on this point lately on the site.

I invite you in the Ironist thread to share with us your lights on the subject. 

Now, on the subject,  I have to say it seems to me I really tried to act in this way, the third one in the past.  But, even if I did, I feel, Truely and Lovely, I'm a beginner in that way. 

I don't have finished with your last post.  A lot to ponder again.  But I'm not in the ideal conditions to write.  On the road.  I don't have internet access in my room. 

Martine,

Thanks for your comments, and yes the words are sometimes tricky and the meaning is often hidden. Glad I give you something to think about, as I do myself when writing this.

I have tried a number of ways to import the diagram that I have done which is an alternate to the colours, but it seems this software will not accept what I am trying to put in.

So you have to imagine a MAZE, A circular one with seven circles, with the smallest one in the middle and then a ring around that one and so on with seven rings or circles. It is like a bulls eye target.

However, in each circle or ring there is an opening where you can go from one ring to the outer one. None of the openings are near each other and are scattered around the rings or circles in a random manner.

Within the "corridor" of each ring or circle is a series of lines, which cuts the circle or ring into segments, but do not close it off, so one can move around the ring or circle and go from one part to the other as if these lines made up rooms.

The outer ring or circle also has an opening. Looking at this it appears like a MAZE, one of those ones where you start on the inside or outside and have to find your way through.

Hopefully you have the "picture" in your mind.

Each of the rings or circles have a code attached to them starting with the inner circle as - M1, then M2, then M3, W1, W2, W3 and finally I/H1.

Now, this is how the Consciousness MAZE works.

The Properties:

1                    Each layer (spaces) of the circles have “rooms” in them.

2                    There are doorways from one layer to another (shown as openings).

3                    The boundaries (“walls”) between each layer are made of one way mirrors.

4                    The mirror is on the inside of each “wall”.

 

The Theory goes as such:

 

1                    We all commence our lives at M1, which is the central ego state (ME State).

2                    We are only able to see that which is in that space, as it is one space.

3                    When we look at the “walls” all we can see is ourselves.

4                    However, we are able to move to the outer layer “space” through the opening.

5                    Entry through this opening signifies an increase in awareness of consciousness.

6                    This increase in awareness can be brought about by a number of factors.

7                    Once in M2, one has progressed to another space, but still with the ME state.

8                    Being one way mirrors, in M2 one can see what is happening in M1.

9                    But cannot see what is happening in M3.

10                In M2 one can move from “room to room” based upon experience.

11                Again one can move to the outer layer “space” through the opening.

12                One can do so without having to have been to all of the “rooms” in that space.

13                An increase in awareness will lead one from M2 to M3.

14                In M3 one can see both M1 and M2, but not W1 (or any layer “space” outside of it).

15                M3 is the last layer “space” of the ME state.

16                W1 represents the first layer “space” which is a WE state.

17                Again the same applies with W1. From W1 – M1,M2,M3 can be seen, but not W2.

18                Once in the layer “space” one can move from room to room based upon experience.

19                The I/H1 layer “space” represents the first of the Integral/Holistic “spaces”.

20                These layers transcend the ME and WE states and layers “spaces”.

21                The opening from this “outer space” depicts that the model goes beyond.

22                What lies beyond are further layers “spaces” - an infinite number.

23                The model has no end as such.

The operation of the model, taking the above points is as follows:

Each layer “space” represents stages of consciousness development in humans, commencing with the centre, as M1. As each human develops in life they have the opportunity to increase their spaces of awareness in consciousness where they are able to move from the centre to outer layers “spaces” through various openings. These openings are events within life that an individual or a group may experience which will increase their space of awareness and allow them to see more than what can be seen from the previous spaces.

It is expected that most humans will develop through the spaces to at least M3 and possibly W1, but there is no guarantee on this and the experiences one has in life determines if progress is made through the openings into the outer layer “space”.

 

Being in the outer layers “spaces” allows one to look back to where one has came from and to also journey back there if one wishes. Not all movement is from the centre, although it may commence as movement from the centre, once out into the other layers “spaces” there is always the option to move back through the layer(s) “space(s)”. However, from a layer “space” one cannot see what lies beyond or on the outside, so to find the opening takes some sense of adventure and courage to move beyond.

 

One may meet people who have reached an outer layer “space”, and recognise that they have done so, but they are unable to see what that person can see, given which layer “space” they are in at the time of meeting. The journey from one layer “space” to another is a personal one, but may be taken with others in terms of experience (combined). In other words the journey can be taken with others, but ultimately it is the individual who must move from layer “space” to layer “space”.

 

The rooms in each layer “space” represent different experiences that one may have in this layer “space”, with there being no requirement for one to visit or experience every room, before finding the opening and moving to another layer “space”. Once again, one may move back to a layer “space” and visit a room which was not previously experienced, as movement back and forth from layer “space” is not limited once one has reached a layer “space”.

 

What this model explains is – Human development is not hierarchical, as most other models suggest, but rather it is awareness driven with there being no “highest self” or higher part to achieve. One progresses from the ME state to the WE state to the Integral/Holistic state, and beyond, but not in the sense of reaching something higher, but rather in an ever increasing expansion of awareness and what is able to be seen.

 

The model also explains how human cultures develop through the similar movement, based upon experience. The model honours the Gebser’s ever present origin in that one always contains the previous layers “spaces”, and all of oneself is included within the various layers “spaces”. What type of experience or development is required for one to move from layer “space” to layer “space” and increase awareness? 

 

This experience can be a combination of things, and in many cultures these are the "passages" through which people travel.

That is as much as I have at the moment and still bringing it to concept, but it uses the ME/WE principle in a different way and takes us away from the colours, or does it?

More to ponder

Mark

Bonjour Mark,

What I don't find in your model is something every one experiment a day or another:  the peak experience. In the W-L latter, the explanation is the interpretation of the peak experience is done with the understanding or the view of the stage level but the experience is there.   The deep WE experience of unity may be made at a ME level. 

What makes a WE? Is the WE coming from the gross body, the subtle body or the causal body?  Is the WE different from one to another bodies?  The life, as it is, would be created by the causal body of the largest WE called Kosmos would be different of the WE of this forum, or our WE.  But, is it really different?  Is the departure of Lindsey related to thoughts on the subject in this site previously?  Is our WE depend the fact I didn't receive your email or the software doesn't work in your mind? 

Is it that you "speak" by an Integral/Holistic state?

WE

 In the bull’s eye, isn’t the heart being the target not the outter layers?  Isn’t the exterior waves initiated by the center of the I?  When you say you were practicing for the last year to disappear as ME to become WE, is it cause you disappear as ME or cause this ME is healthier and needs less of struggle, less of attention?  Being open, the waves don’t stop around you but go far around touching other deeper in WE. 

In the Holon, the ME’s don’t disappear but they are included in WE.  When WE is composed of stronger ME, those ME doesn’t need to concentrate their attention on their ME, they put it on the WE.  A stronger WE may, at its turn, be included in a larger WE. 

I’m truly glad for you being at this level.  God blessed you if you touched such a grace. 

Martine

 

Martine,

The reference to the bulls eye is the wrong way of conveying it, as I tried to build a mental picture of what I could not draw in this software.

I have been thinking all day about what layer "space" I may occupy, and this is in line with your above comments. You are right to say the ME never disappears and I seem to be moving in and out of ME and WE depending upon the MOMENT. In some cases the MOMENT requires a ME, while other times the MOMENT needs a WE. But when I have to be in a WE space, then I have to make the ME disappear as such (although it is still there).

So, yes the ME is included, but with the MAZE, you are able to occupy a layer "space" which is in the WE, while looking at the ME layers "spaces". I think it is a matter of being able to move from layer "space" to layer "space", but you can't move into a layer "space" unless you have found the opening to do so, otherwise you are "stuck" in that particular layers "spaces" and the ones inside it (all of which include ME).

Thank you for your comments about reaching a being at this level (although I would say I have arrived at a layer "space"), and yes I often feel blessed for that, in being able to see all that I can and looking foward to see more as I arrive at new layers "spaces".

Love in the WE.

Mark

 

Martine,

Thank you for the good set of questions. I don't think the MAZE excludes people from having peak experiences as such and W-L would still apply, only instead of the understanding being from a stage level it would be from a layer "space". The difference would be in the way that an individual would view the experience. If somebody was in, say the M layers "spaces", then they would see the peak experience from the ME perspective, while if they were in the W layers "spaces" they would see it from the WE perspective.

I don't see peak experiences within the WE or ME, but rather these are layers "spaces" where the experiences are seen from.

In relating this to Ken's levels of being, then there is not a direct correlation to this, as I think the Subtle, Causal or even the Nondual exists within the various layers "spaces" and within these in the various rooms.

You see the difference here is the MAZE is not a hierarchy system as such and therefore one does not "move upwards" towards anything, but merely to different layers "spaces" based upon increasing awareness of consciousness (moving to the outer circles or layers is about increasing awareness, not reaching some higher self).

The answers to some of your questions are therefore not possible, as they came from a different paradigm.

Also, I don't think the WE is dependent upon what we can communicate as such (I guess by the above you didn't get my email), but WE happens when things do happen, not when things don't happen, as when things don't happen there is no space for WE to exist.

Finally, all we ever do is occupy a layer "space", I don't think we ever become the layer "space", as all one can do is to occupy it and from that layer "space" see what one can see.

More to ponder.

Mark 

 

Mark

I think I begin to accept your point of view. Do you agree your model is hard to conceive at first tier?  At least, in my own actual way to see first tier.  Even the word MAZE is frightening.  I guess you read a lot of science fiction Or physic readings.  We have to let go all the usual way to conceive life.  I said that already in 2024 but I have not yet changed the way I live events. 

Do you agree also if I see with your point of view, it is not ours?  It's like the WE exist but WE have not find a "space" to live this WE. Do I understand you now?

If I didn't get your email, maybe it is cause I want WE is not only yours.

Martine