Society as a giant

The whole human organization is:
Giants standing on top of shoulders of giants, standing on top of shoulders of giants…and so on.
Differences are obvious —- Similarities/connection/unity are non-obvious.
The process of “enculturation/socialization” is the programming that initiates a child into the mega-giant of society/culture.
All the smaller giants stand on the shoulder of this giant, and the fractal goes on getting more and more refined.

There is a difference between:
INTERNALIZATION/IDENTIFICATION —and—– CONFORMITY
They both may look the same from the outside in actions/behavior.
But they are coming from vastly different places.
Identity is the passport to get into anything in society.
There are doors and doors everywhere.
You are let in, if you conform.

But without identification/internalization = there is no actual deep investment.
All investment in society then is only out of “VESTED-INTEREST”.
And it is difficult then to take on too much.
Because heart of hearts you would want to return to your identification.
Society in such a case, is not perceived as a HOME w/ BELONGING,
Rather it is perceived as a place you have to conform to get certain needs met for your real identity which lies elsewhere.

There is a difference between:
INSECURE SOCIETIES —and—- SECURE SOCIETIES.
When insecure, societies impose that all its denizens cooperate. It is forced to a much higher degree.
While secure, societies include people who do their own thing also, as long as they do not disturb the working of the societal machine much.

In the light of all this:
Deep mental illness is an ALIENATION of COLOSSAL PROPORTIONS,
Because you are literally disconnected from the largest giant itself (that of
Humanity),
And are dehumanized and sent to the mental asylums,
And other such quarantine-institutions etc.

Masculine and Feminine attraction

The more masculine is attracted to the more feminine.
Because gender identity is as the name suggests identity/identification.
So it the favoring of one pole over the other.
And this makes us seek the other pole in the world.
So like all polarity, the stronger one is to the extreme, they will seek the opposite extreme.
Whereas the balanced folk (very close to equal masculine and feminine) will seek other balanced/hybrid partners.
All polarity is a game of finding the missing piece in the world.
So the souls that choose extreme feminine or masculine identities, are playing a great adventure game.
And the souls that are balanced are playing some other game, where this is not the central focus, a different life stream, a different adventure, a different endeavor.

Love and Positive Vision are the same thing

To really see something is to see the “source inspiration and beauty” behind that which is seen.
It is to see its place in a larger context, in a larger framework of meaning.
Otherwise, it is only surface/superficial seeing.
Seeing/Vision is a lot more about context than the content of the sensory-appearance of what is seen.
The following concepts are closely related to each other = the concept of seeing/vision, value, and beauty.
When you see something from love, you see the creation as the creator would see it.
There is no upper ceiling to perceiving source inspiration/love/positive vision/value/beauty.
The deeper your positive seeing, the more your capacity for the above qualities.

Please refer to my earlier blog post to learn about what I mean by positive vs. negative vision:
https://perceptionflow.com/2018/10/16/the-concept-of-negative-vision/

The connection between IDENTIFICATION and LOVE:
******************************************************
This is an extremely deep topic, but I’ll try to give a few pointer examples.
* For example, say, you look at your personal laptop that has all your life’s work = personal photos, videos, files, documents, music, playlists etc.
All that gamut of context is tied into your seeing of the laptop.
So seeing = both context and content.
Its not possible to quantify, but to give an idea, the content is just 1% or less while 99% or more is context.
The sensory impression is only a pointer to the tree of knowledge that resides in the mind.

Let’s say, you have a dog, and that dog too sees your laptop.
How would he see it? The 99% of context, memories, attachment, associations, information you connect with the laptop would not be present for the dog.
So he would see it as just “content” mostly.
* It is like looking at a stranger’s smartphone of an unknown make/model (so very little associative connections as such).
Imagine how different would that be from seeing your own smartphone.
* Imagine the difference between looking at your children vs. looking at a random person’s children.

When an artist creates a work from source inspiration, he is seeing from positive vision.
He sees the value/worth/significance/importance/beauty of his work, because it came forth from his channeling of source inspiration itself.
If he puts it up in an exhibition, and if various art critics come and start critiquing it, then the critics are seeing from negative vision here.
They are not seeing it the way the artist sees his own work which is from positive vision.
Both positive and negative vision are kinds of vision.
The distinction is that, positive vision connects what is seen to the source of creation (which is the potential/love/inspiration), while negative vision does not do that.
Negative vision does not see what the art piece is, rather it sees what it is not by comparing it to something else that is loved.
That is the fundamental difference.
Positive vision is to see from the point of view of the creator.

Our identification is a hiding, origins of dissociation/depersonalization/depression

When you BE some-[thing], you merge into it
You make that [thing] your substance
Now that [thing] is invisible to you
Because YOU ARE IT

Why do we think we are unlovable, unlikeable, unworthy, ugly, bad, evil?
Because we identify with BEING that.
That is why when parents treat the child badly or neglect/abuse it, the first thing the child identifies with is “I MUST BE BAD”.
Because the ego/social-identity is basically the ‘reflection of ourselves in the other at the formative age’.
And secondly, let’s say the child had a choice, to believe it is good and it is the parents who are evil. This is unbearable for the child and it is much easier to identify with being BAD/UNWORTHY/UNLOVABLE.
So that is why I think we identify with the VERY NEGATIVE ASPECT so that WE CAN GO BLIND TO IT (Total identification with something makes us blind to it and removes it from our consciousness).
Because to not identify with it would mean to actually be conscious and witness that harming relationship which is unbearably painful and horrific.
So this is a way of going unconscious/blind to the negative relationship to make things bearable.
Such a person may become an abuser himself (fully identified with the abuser) if he feels pride in that.
But now if we add the super-ego/conscience in that judges this as contemptuous act.
Now there is a double-bind created, leading straight to depression (depression is essentially a double bind causing the freeze response).
That is why, when a person begins to come out of depression, the first thing to arise is SEVERE RAGE/HATRED/ANGER/ABUSIVE TENDENCIES.
Because this is releasing one of the facets of the double bind, making it ok to feel angry, feel hate, be abusive, be vengeful (all the previously projected qualities), and so on.

Depression is the punishment of oneself for being reprehensible/bad.
So:
1st there is an identification with being bad.
2nd there is a super-ego that imposes that being bad is horrible.
3rd Now you hate yourself and punish yourself for being bad.
4th You attract relationships that do the same to you, and so you can get a break from abusing yourself and let the external abuser do the job for you.

Even in the case of childhood abuse, often the child identifies with the abuser itself
He may directly become an abuser to others if he feels that being the abuser is the right thing.
OR there is a more complicated case that can arise in case he sees the abuser as terrible. He may also identify with the abuser, but because he also thinks that is terrible, he would project it outside to the other.
So now such a child is “other” identified, because he is identified with the abuser but cannot be that because being the abuser is terrible, so he projects this behavior to the other and LIVES VICARIOUSLY through the other.
Since he lives VICARIOUSLY through the other, it is a DISSOCIATED identification, and from THAT DISSOCIATED ABUSER point of view he views his own former self as an OBJECT/OTHER.
So his own self has become an other, and now he lives through the lens of an abusive other outside of his body.
Generally the interesting conundrum I always had was that, if one is totally dissociated from one’s self, seeing the entire self as an object of one’s awareness, then what is the real identification with? What is the one looking at the self as an object?
I figured the one which is looking at the self as object IS the [Hyper critical rejecting parent/abuser/unsupportive/hating force itself etc.]
So basically such a person is identified with an out of body abuser pov and continuously subjects himself to the same treatment that the abusers gave him.
So this causes DEPRESSION/DEPERSONALIZATION.
So such a person when alone would abuse themselves[self as object] and derive pleasure from this, or attract an external abuser and live co-dependently through them.
That is why, when in an abusive relationship which he would inevitably attract, he would FOCUS all his attention on the abusive partner who is being himself (his abusive self with pride), and hate the partner, but still stay absorbed in hating him and never having the WILL to leave the relationship.
The reason he never leaves is because of resonance with the abusive partner, who is actually his own identification, but disowned because it is seen as terrible to be that.
So compared to the child that directly identifies pridefully with being an abuser, in the latter case, it is further removed and thus the person lives in a weak victim state (because he is so far away from his power, doubly removed).

Chakric Realms and God frequency

1 – When physicality dominates – emotions are silenced.
2 – When emotion dominates – mind is silenced.
3 – When mind dominates – love is silenced.
4 – When love dominates – true expression (doing the right thing in accordance with divine principle) is silenced.
5 – When true expression dominates – perception is silenced.
6 – When perception dominates – the divine is silenced.
Ultimately the goal is harmony of the whole.
And this harmony is already present once ‘WE’ step out of the way and let the effortless/perfect unfolding happen.
Even the slightest personal doing on our part (in any of these realms) results in disruption of the smooth flow.
So our personal doing is the ignorance.
The “Person” is “IGNORANCE” itself.
In truth, there is no real/substantial person, beyond it being just one of the appearances.
YOU do not exist.
Illumination is to see there is no person.
Rather there is only divine light, and the person was just a form that was held onto, because of FALSE IDENTIFICATION.
So all holding on is false identification and ignorance.
Letting go, in all the chakric realms will free all your chakras.
Desire moves everything.
Desire/Longing for this transcendence and its movement is the upward movement of the being frequency itself.
It is the movement of “being” towards God frequency.
The God frequency is the highest frequency (tends to infinity).
When Being realizes it is the God frequency, then it allows everything and gives total freedom to all forms in the higher density realms, meaning total freedom, release and full understanding of all chakras.
The journey to God is a miraculous one/unimaginable one, you can never know how it will take shape.
If you know how it works, that means, that knowing is a dead structure, that needs to be made alive with divine light and freed.