What transmits from generation to generation

What I have observed is that,
There are 2 factors that determine a person’s actions:

# The situations/circumstance/surroundings/cultural-setups/environments (their adaption, fitting-in strategies, accommodation to all of that etc.)
# Their own interests/desires (which they pursue)

Generally, in the transmission from say parents to children (in the flow of genetic lineage),
Only the real essential desire of the parent is transferred to the child.
And whatever the parent did as adaptation, accommodation, and adjustment based on family/cultural/socio-political pressures of those times, does not pass over to the children.
This is because the children were brought up at a different world-time/age, with different family/socio-cultural/political/situational variables.
The world itself is at a different generation when the children are born,
And therefore the children adapt to those conditions,
And only the essential desires of the lineage continue through them.

For instance,
Say a father worked loyally in a single company all his life as a duty,
While the son decides to not work at all, and only work on his private passions.
On the surface, this looks like the father and son are entirely different.
But a more in-depth examination might reveal,
The father never had any real heart vested in the company affairs.
He may have done all of it from familial/moral/socio-cultural pressures,
While his real heart desire was in his personal interests.
So it is only the real heart desire that passes on to the son.
This can be taken much deeper than this,
But even now, with only this much penetration into the matter,
The son’s decisions do not look so outlandish in the light of this understanding, right?

Another instance would be,
If the mother dutifully married, had children, spent her whole life entangled to them etc.,
Her daughter might take up a completely different meaning in life and become ultra career focused.
Again, on the surface, both look completely different.
But on deeper examination,
Maybe the mother, as an adaptation to her circumstances, went along with that wave,
But her real desire was to fuse her identity into something larger.
Her situation might have been such that the role of caretaker was what allowed her this larger experience and expansion.
So the daughter in alternate times, may seek to fulfill this same desire by absorbing herself into the corporate world and its goals (career).
It is the same desire expressing itself in 2 different situations and times.
This is actually still just slightly under the surface, but even this level of understanding reveals the continuity and similarity of desires passing through.

Everyone gravitates towards freedom of some kind

I feel like every person finds their niche,
Where they seek their freedom from.

Some like the freedom of having plenty of money,
And all of the potential/possibility that brings.

Some like the freedom of enrolling into the institution of marriage.
This frees them from the prior insecurity of relationship,
And now they have a safe space to build a bond with the other person.
Then once you have a stable bond, you can have the additional joy of having children,
And having the joy of sharing a profound relationship with a few beings/souls.
Then there is also the social dimension which approves of this and gives you the freedom of social connection (camaraderie/rapport) with all of the others who are similarly married and having children.
And so on.

Some like the freedom of being a nomad and traveling and exploring different parts of the world.

Some like the freedom that the latest technology brings.
Like having the most powerful computer or smartphone or camera etc.
These uber level tools help them access many kinds of potential experiences.

Some like the freedom of buying their own land and house,
And making whatever they want and however they want in that space.

Some like the freedom they get when working for a stable job in an MNC.
Because this frees them from job and social insecurity.
It provides a common frame (a shared environ) for many people to collude with and connect to.
Now they have a safe container to thrive in and explore all its possibilities.
Every company premise nowadays is like a small township right? (before 2020)

Some like the freedom of sexual conquest.
That is, working to making themselves as desirable as possible,
So that they can have the greatest freedom to choose mates and explore that aspect of human nature.

Some like the freedom of the internet in terms of acquiring all kinds of knowledge they are interested in.
The internet is like an unlimited library of knowledge giving immense possibilities for learning any kind of thing.

The list is endless.
As of me, where I find my freedom from, is in the niche of creative self expression.
I get it from expressing/translating/conceptualizing/depicting/articulating/symbolizing and sharing the flow of visions/insights/ideas appearing in my inner space.

Desire and Perception

Is desire/interest because of perception?
Or Does perception itself come because there is desire/interest?
Or Do they both go together (arise together and pass together)?

In other words,
Do you see because you want to see?
Or Do you want because you see?
Or Do the seeing and the wanting go together?

Is desire the cause of perception?
Or perception the cause of desire?

For instance, for a child who has never tasted sugar,
There is no perception (of that thing) yet, therefore no desire.
But once there is perception of sugar (the thing), the desire for it is awakened.
This would be the case of ‘perception causing desire for that thing’.
It is the case of: “I never knew I wanted this, but now that I see it, I want it more than ever”.

‘Desire causing perception’ is “You see what you want to see (those things)”.
For instance, you are walking on the road and you want to catch a cab.
What do you see, just cabs and cabs right.

Generally causation implies separation in time.
But here, I would say both are simultaneous.
Like the burning fire being desire,
And the light emanating from it being perception.
The burning fire and the light emitted from it are simultaneous.

However, in my examples, those were cases of:
Desire for specific things and perception of those specific things.
Now this is what happens/plays out in time.
And you could find the causal relations between the 2.

Another related aspect to this is ‘desire and memory’.
Memory creates desire (for that memory)
Desire (for that memory) then seeks for more such memories.
Which came first? The memory or desire?
There is a kind of cycling between the 2.
Like hunger/desire and food/memories to satiate it.

What is health?

Health = ease, happiness, fascination, passion, wonder, focus, curiosity, joy, vigor, vitality, hope, independence, strength, power, capability, usefulness, freedom, lightness, robustness, stability, clarity, fearlessness.

The opposite of health = disease, sadness, weakness/infirmity, depression, lethargy, dullness, scattering, dependence, tiredness/fatigue, hopelessness, despair, futility, powerlessness, incapability, imprisonment, burden, vulnerability, instability, confusion, anxiety/fear.

The 2 kinds of relationships I’ve experienced

I’ve seen 2 kinds of relationships in my life:
# Connections through resonance
# Connections through projection/role-play

Connecting through resonance:
Two minds understand each other when they are attuned/honed to each other,
That is, when both the minds are operating at a similar frequency, they see similar views.

For instance, say you are floating on a hot air balloon.
If you spoke to someone on the ground, his view would be entirely different from yours.
You may be able to talk a little about his surroundings, because you know where he is standing,
Similarly, he might see your balloon and ask you a few questions about that.
But overall, there would not be much to share or connect about.
But suppose you spoke to another person in another hot air balloon at the same height,
Then so much of the view is shared, and thereby you both can easily connect, right?

Two minds can connect if they share the same level of subtleness of perception.
I call this the “LOC” – The level of consciousness of the subtle body.
Generally, things like world view, concerns, ideas, perceptions, thoughts, feelings can be easily shared with another being at the same LOC level.

There is ‘what you are seeing’, and ‘from where you are seeing’.
The LOC is about ‘from where you are seeing’.
If the ‘from where you are seeing’ is common,
Then understanding each other would be very effortless.

Connecting to another being who shares your LOC level,
I call ‘connecting via. resonance’.

Whatever you say to them will be understood fairly easily.
Actually you both already see from the same place.
The talking is more a celebration of the connection already active.
It is a sort of mutual enrichment.
Often there is instant recognition here.
This kind of relationship does not need much time,
And feels comfortable and deep at the start itself.

The other kind of relationship I have had is via. projection/role-play.
These kinds of relationships are mostly from external situations (sharing the same environment, context etc.)

What are called ‘situational relationships’ would come under this.
# Like the roles of being a colleague/coworker/college lab partner/project partner/college friend in the same class, neighbor next door etc.

# I would also include specific interest group connections under here.
Because interest group connections are also somewhat goal based – Check this out, What do you think of this? etc.
They are fairly circumscribed and specific to a certain frame and scope.

# Also, any work related relationships would come in this category.
Like even the relationship you may have with people standing in the same queue as you to buy movie tickets.

# Even healing group members are not necessarily at the same LOC level.
For instance, Two people might connect with each other from their unresolved anger issues, or through their common addiction to something, but their LOCs could be vastly different.

# Even relations with family members, relatives etc. could fall here.
Because they too are certain frames of role-play.

# Even romantic relations are often projection/fantasy/role-play based.
If it does not have enough of resonance elements, then the relationship would fizzle out quickly, i.e. after the ‘enjoyment of the novelty/projection/role-play/fantasy/specific-quality-admiration based interaction’ is completed.

Sadism and Masochism: Complementary strategies arising from the same root

Both sadism and masochism are based on attacking vulnerabilities.
A sadist is identified with the vulnerability in themselves,
While the masochist is identified with the strength in themselves.

The interesting thing here is that, “identification is always unconsciousness”.
You are unconscious of what you identify with.
So the masochist is unconscious of their strength/power, but sees it projected outside themselves.
While the sadist is unconscious of their weakness/vulnerability, but sees it projected outside themselves.

The masochist thinks, if only I could end all of my weakness, needs, and vulnerability,
Then I could be fully free to be myself (which is strength in this case).
The sadist thinks, if only I could get rid of all the threats in my environment,
If only I could weaken all the stronger people around me who could be potential threats,
Then I can be fully free to be myself (which is vulnerability in this case).

Accordingly, 2 strategies are used by the sadist and masochist to end the threat to their identification.
For the sadist, the strategy is: 
To preemptively attack the other’s vulnerabilities, or prepare for doing that,
So that the other is prevented or disabled from attacking yours.
It is a combination of weakness inside, strength display outside.

For the masochist, the strategy is:
To preemptively take on oneself the task of attacking one’s own vulnerabilities,
To try to put an end to them and remove all traces of them.
This is a combination of strength inside, weakness display outside.

But the root for both the cases here is:
The idea of “EXPECTING” the same things to happen – i.e. rejection/attack/abuse.
What unites the sadist and masochist is = The deep expectation to be attacked/rejected/abused etc.,
And this is coming from the deep memories of the same inflicted on them from the past.

The responses to these similar kind of memories are complementary because of opposite identifications.
The masochist is identified with strength, and therefore works to remove his vulnerability – in preparation or in reaction.
The sadist is identified with vulnerability, and therefore works to fight all threats off – in preparation or in reaction.

Since this expectation seeks to prove/validate itself again and again,
It seeks/attracts the same circumstances/people to confirm and justify itself again and again.
So it creates a vicious loop that has a strong gravity of its own,
Which keeps these patterns constantly spinning and repeating in one’s experience.

The sadist and masochist both attract each other,
Because each believes the other is helping them towards attaining their aim.

But the full reality of this is weirder.
The sadist can never destroy the strength of others by attacking their vulnerability.
Often it counter-intuitively makes them even stronger and thereby even more threatening.
Similarly, the masochist in one’s attempt to end all vulnerability,
Feels powerless to do so, because it is impossible to fully rid themselves of it.

So acting out the sadistic or masochistic impulses,
Make one feel even more powerless.

Ultimately the root/source of all of these patterns is in the memories of abuse coming from the deep past (even ancestral/lineage/genetic).
Because it is these memories that create the expectancies.
Then these expectations are projected on others,
And thus these patterns play themselves out again and again.

Impermanence and Cyclicity

# Impermanence – removes the notion of ownership/possession.
# Cyclicity of the nature of time – removes the notion of progress/gain
So, it seems like both ownership and progress are temporary phenomena.

The greatest civilizations rose into order/glory and later fell into chaos/oblivion.
The pain and suffering in life I feel is caused by – Trying to maintain the permanency of our illusions while also trying to make them endlessly progress.

The forward moving tides initially greatly assist us in building whatever we want,
Then the same tides reverse their direction and oppose us until everything is brought to a halt.

Our so called free will seems to be at the mercy of these cyclic larger forces.
We can only have anything or dance according to the terms dictated by these forces.
Generally we try to oppose these forces tooth and nail,
But nature eventually wins and swallows us back into itself at death.
We can prolong our life by various clever strategies,
But eventually, some day, we are forced to yield to death.
And death acts in the same way to all.

Our life as an individual with freedom,
Seems to be a kind of gift or privilege,
Bestowed to us as a possibility by these larger forces.
But whatever is given is also taken away.

The only way out of this I see,
Is to voluntarily merge with the deeper reality,
And gradually transform our individual self in alignment to that.

Every gain is a loss, and every loss is a gain, depending on how you look at it.
‘Psychological meaning making’ is sort of an art.
We are then like artists,
Shaping our experience through every moment,
From wherever we are.

The cycling between the 2 ends of qualities.

Every quality seems to perpetuate itself,
Cycling between the 2 ends of its spectrum,
To create all of the experiences of itself.

It’s like every quality is its own dimension/flavor of experience.
Where the 2 opposites within that quality,
Create the experience spectrum of that quality itself.
Like: Sour ———— Sweet.
Those are the 2 ends of the spectrum of that ‘flavor dimension’.

Other instances:
# The therapist for others, later receives therapy for themselves.
# The one who save lives, later has their own life saved by others.
# The one who bullies, gets bullied later.
# The one who protects others, get protected.
# The one who hurts others, get hurt themselves.
# The one who cheats others, gets cheated over by others.
# The oppressed become the oppressor, then once again the oppressed, and so on.
# The loved one becomes the lover, and then consequently the loved again, and so on.
# The server becomes the served.
# The caretaker becomes the one cared for.
# The one who was subjected to tyranny, then becomes the tyrannizer.
# The one who wonders, makes wonderful things, and that leads to more wonder, and so on.
# The student eventually becomes the teacher.
# The disciple becomes the master.
# The helpful becomes the helpless who is helped.
# The powerful eventually become the powerless.
# The dutiful person, gets others to do their duty towards them too.

All of these things look to be cyclic.
There are these interminable causal cycling chains running from the past,
And thereby causing the current reality.

In general language, we treat the 2 opposites are 2 distinct things.
But actually in reality they are mutually creating each other,
Like how in a tapestry, the same thread runs up and down.
For example, take sadness/despair and joy/hope.
They are both mutually creating each other.
If you fully live through your sadness, you open the way to much more joy.
If you fully work through all of your pain, you pave the way to greater pleasure.

The current life seems like suddenly watching Season 5 Episode 3 of a Drama,
Without having seen any of the previous seasons and episodes.
However the general flavors of the serial can be perceived through any episode.

Each of our lives is like the continuation of one long saga,
From the big bang till today, and still playing out.
Each of us, are riders of eternity.

It is love that makes one seek knowledge at all.
Without love, why would you bother to seek knowledge at all?
So even ignorance itself shows a lack of love.

The reject first pattern – active vs passive approach

The active approach (in second person narration):
Whenever you want, you create/resurrect the relation,
Whenever you want, you terminate it.
You want the power to control/direct/create/destroy/determine relationships.
So that you are never in that position again,
Where you land up with rejection from the other side,
Without any power to make them want or desire you,
Where you are fully open, yet abandoned, 
Like what happened in childhood.
Because you were perceived to be unlikeable/unlovable/ugly/unworthy/disappointing?
So that you are never abandoned again without your control,
You do the reject-first strategy and do the abandonment preemptively by yourself.
In a way, you inflict the same punishment onto the other (and to yourself) that you felt was inflicted on you.
The reasoning is:
“If I expect that you will reject me, I’d rather reject first,
So that what is anyways inevitable is something I perform consciously,
Rather than it coming and hitting me from behind unexpectedly and shockingly out of the blue.
If I consciously expect it, and preemptively inflict it on myself and the other,
Then I will not get hurt again like that, and it’ll therefore be much less painful.”

So the guiding force of this behavior is a certainty wrt. the expectation of rejection/abandonment.
That is, of people ultimately being disappointed/angry/frustrated with you and leaving/abandoning you.

All of the above is the active approach.
But there is also a passive approach.
There are 2 strategies to deal with rejection, forming a polarity:
Passive —– Active
The active one seeks to start and end relations as per their own whim – seduce/idealize then devalue/abandon.
The passive one lives alone in receptivity, and let what comes come, and let what goes go.
He does not seek what he needs/desires/wants, but lets everything come to him by the other’s seeking of their needs/desires/wants.

It is like:
# The Bee —–vs—– the Flower.
# Power —–vs—- Receptivity.
# Male (or rejected female) —–vs—– Female (or male with suppressed/inhibited will)
# Outward looking eyes —–vs—– Inward looking eyes
# Extroverted consciousness —-vs—– Introverted consciousness
# Things will come to you if you seek for it —-vs—- Things will come to you by what you are.
# Projection —-vs—- Introjection (of the same essential rejection theme)
# I will use everything (appearance of selfishness)  —-vs—- I will get used by everything (appearance of selflessness)
# I am perfect, others must change —-vs—- I must change, others are perfect.
# Change the environment to suit you —vs—- Change the self to suit the environment.
# Inner rigidity, Outer mobility —-vs—– Inner mobility, Outer rigidity
# Borderline —-vs—— Narcissist
# Unconscious of self, Conscious of others —-vs—– Conscious of self, Unconscious of others.
# Controlling others, leaving self uninhibited —-vs—- Controlling one’s own desires, self inhibited.

Both are narcissistic wounds in essence and reactions to the same root condition:
# I will be what I am, not change anything, and rather search for the one who will love me unconditionally —-vs—- I am not good enough, and must make myself worthy, so that then everyone will come to me.
Both of these are opposite polarizations of the same theme, and therefore will tend to get attracted to each other and play out the dance.
The attraction is because of the same root similarity and resonance of the theme of rejection. 
They are just the 2 opposing ways of dealing with the same dilemma,
From the same magnet with its 2 opposite poles.

Big and small is from relativity in a frame of reference

There is no absolute big or small,
Except in relativity,
That is set by a frame of reference.

Changing the frame can change what is big and small.
Big or small is a comparative and relative statement,
That is applicable only within a certain defined boundaried frame.

…Small ———– Big…
The dotted lines indicate infinity, towards that direction.
So its nature becomes fractal.
In a fractal, there is an unbounded frame of reference.
The higher truth transcends the usual logical rules we use.
For instance, in a circle of infinite radius, every point is its center.
So you are neither big nor small, and you are also the biggest and smallest.
You can be the same fish, but a big fish in a small pond or a small fish in a big pond.
It all depends on the perspective/frame of reference and the dimension being looked at.