The 3 levels of knowledge are:
# 1st level: Knowledge based on Belief
# 2nd level: Knowledge based on Logic/Deduction
# 3rd level: Knowledge based on Direct Experience
Knowledge based on belief interestingly is often reasonably well backed.
The belief is generally not totally blind.
For instance, we may place our faith on various qualifications, accreditations, positions, institutions, brands, and so on,
Because they have worked well for us and our friends/relatives so far,
And show no reason to suspect anything.
Here, there is a good reliance on statistics, public opinion, popularity etc.
Knowledge based on Logic/Deduction is a deeper kind of knowledge,
Where we investigate the ideas/concepts/laws for ourselves,
And gain an understanding of all of it by ourselves by objective experimentation.
This is generally the realm of science.
The third level is knowledge based on direct experience.
This is the deepest form of knowledge.
Fields like spirituality, meditation, yoga, mysticism etc. come under this.
Here, you know directly by being/union-ing/becoming whatever it is you desire to know.
This is usually where it starts to sound esoteric and mystical.
Generally, we possess all these 3 types of knowledge to varying degrees.
However we may prize one more than the other.
# A person may feel satisfied relying on trusted and proven authorities,
Who have say also received many great testimonials from relatives and friends.
This would be the 1st level of knowledge.
# A scientific person may prize the 2nd level knowledge the highest,
Where he feels satisfied only after he has grokked the concepts fully by himself.
# Then lastly, there are some people who will not be satisfied until they directly experience something. This is the 3rd level of knowledge.
The initiation into the 3rd level of knowledge, is knowing that you do not know anything.
Then the deeper seeking begins at the 3rd level.
So capability being one thing,
The other difference between these 3 types of people,
Is regarding what level they feel satisfied with.
It is to that degree, that they pursue,
Through the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd level of knowledge.
Each of these levels use different languages,
And they are often dimensionally apart from each other.
# The language of belief based knowledge relies on testimonials, statistics, numbers, reputation, fan following, popularity, general level of crowd-validation and so on.
# The language of logical deduction based knowledge involves: scientific notations, equations, mathematics, labeling of different components, logical symbols, flow charts, relationship diagrams, modeling etc.
# The language of direct experience is like the language used in esoteric, mystical, and spiritual texts. Direct experience is indescribable, so the descriptions that come closest to that belong in this category.
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.
Spectrum:
…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.
There is no real “reason” for anything
There is no real “reason” for anything,
The reason for anything is everything (everything, the way it is).
How can an “infinite multi-dimensional inter-connected oceanic happening” fit into a “single thread of reasoning”?Â
The reasoning is just that, one thread of logic.
It is one among billions of threads, and threads of all sizes.
So the mind is more of an elucidator, expounder, expresser, and reflector.
There is only commentary/expression/reflection/study/understanding.
So there isn’t any clear ‘why’, ‘reason’, ’cause’ for anything.
There are no hard conclusions, only soft ones,
And no absolute causality because causality comes from threads of reason, and there are infinite such threads running forwards and backwards and criss-cross.
The whole moves the whole.
It is all one gigantic absurdity or wonder.
The dream is simply dreamed as an expression of infinite-possibility.
All is but an appearance in consciousness/field.
Infinity is not a quantity but a quality
There is a dimensional gap between quantity and quality.
Because quality is immeasurable, analog, and infinite.
Any amount of quantity will still be “infinitely less” than infinity.
Experience by nature is qualitative.
Like consider a dream.
What is the nature of it? Is is measurable in any sense in space or time?
How large was it? How much time did it contain?
Even now, every scene you see is infinite,
But you can snap a 12MP digital photo of that using your camera.
The sound that you hear from your guitar is infinite,
But you can record a 128kbps Mp3 using a sound recorder.
The digitization process converts the pure infinite analog into bits to approximate the quality of it.
But the resolution of this captured information can never equal the infinite resolution/information present in the actual reality of creation.
Similarly our minds are like the digitized versions of what reality actually is.
The real “terrain” though is infinite.
Our minds are like captured maps from this terrain,
Like a combination of photos and illustrations.
The real nature of existence is unfathomable and beyond all logic.
The Schizoid/Split vs Depressive/Ambivalent position
Schizoid/Paranoid/Split —vs— Depressive/Ambivalent.
# Good and Bad objects are separate —–vs—– Good and bad objects are one.
# There is god and the devil —-vs—- There is only god who is both the angel and devil.
# There is a white paper with black dots to be eliminated —vs— There is white paper with black dots OR a black paper with white dots.
# Mother as good or tyrant based on specific behaviors —-vs—- Mother as randomly good or bad without my understanding/control.
# ‘World as rules driven’ hard right/wrong conception —-vs—- ‘World as mad’ conception
# AvPD, Schizoid, Autistic —–vs—– Fearful avoidant, Disorganized attachment, ADHD.
# Tyrant mother = Tyrant world (Fight/Flight) —–vs—– Crazy mother = Crazy random world (Freeze/Fawn)
# Catastrophic thinking —–vs—— Fantasy thinking.
# The desired object and feared object are separate in time —-vs—- The desired object and the feared object are one (accelerator and brake emotions on at the same time causing friction/resistance/suffering, causing hesitation/shyness).
# Splitting of self and object into good and bad —-vs—- Union of self and object into good and bad.
# [loving, gratifying] object vs. [frustrating, persecutory, hating] object as 2 distinct things —-vs—- Both of those mixed randomly in the same person.
# Binary logic (it is either fully A or B) —-vs—- It’s A, it’s B, it’s both A and B, it’s neither A nor B.
Whose expectations determine our behavior and self?
Are others responding to what you expect from them? OR Are you responding to what others expect from you?
Are you conditioning others’ behavior? OR Are others conditioning your behavior?
Are we being the way we are because we are that way? OR as a response to what the other expects?
Are we ACTING or REACTING?
Do you expect to be treated a certain way? and that is why the other is simply fulfilling your own request? OR Are you simply behaving in accordance and taking on a role based on the other’s expectation?
These questions are like koans that lead you beyond.
Both sides are true.
Between the self and other, there is total mutual inter-relationship.
Deep psychoanalysis will at times tell you that if you are constantly abused then somewhere you are playing a 50% role of enabling it. You allow and attract such people and even allow their behavior because you want them to do that to you.
And the converse can also be explained. That if the other is a narcissistic bully he conditions your role i.e. to be a hostage for his rageaholic monologues etc.
So what is the truth?
Is your own expectation attracting such treatment? OR Is the bad other forcing you to behave that way to protect yourself?
Is our role and behavior in life conditioned by what others expect from us?
OR are others simply complying with what we expect from them?
Both are true and are simultaneous.
Since the mind can only grok one side at a time, we may bias ourselves to either seeing the self as responsible or other as responsible.
But in truth, both are happening simultaneously.
This simultaneity of occurrence cannot be grasped in one thought, it goes beyond the capacity of the linear mind to hold.
So we can examine only 1 at a time, but both are true.
From that higher level, we can see that there is only god.
The self, the other, their relationship, who is doing whom etc. is like the perspective puzzle of “Do you see 6 cubes or 7 cubes?”
The truth is – it is 6, it is 7, it is both, it is neither, all of the above, neither of the above, all of the above and beyond, neither of the above and beyond etc.
Are you conditioning others’ behavior? OR Are others conditioning your behavior?
Are we being the way we are because we are that way? OR as a response to what the other expects?
Are we ACTING or REACTING?
Do you expect to be treated a certain way? and that is why the other is simply fulfilling your own request? OR Are you simply behaving in accordance and taking on a role based on the other’s expectation?
These questions are like koans that lead you beyond.
Both sides are true.
Between the self and other, there is total mutual inter-relationship.
Deep psychoanalysis will at times tell you that if you are constantly abused then somewhere you are playing a 50% role of enabling it. You allow and attract such people and even allow their behavior because you want them to do that to you.
And the converse can also be explained. That if the other is a narcissistic bully he conditions your role i.e. to be a hostage for his rageaholic monologues etc.
So what is the truth?
Is your own expectation attracting such treatment? OR Is the bad other forcing you to behave that way to protect yourself?
Is our role and behavior in life conditioned by what others expect from us?
OR are others simply complying with what we expect from them?
Both are true and are simultaneous.
Since the mind can only grok one side at a time, we may bias ourselves to either seeing the self as responsible or other as responsible.
But in truth, both are happening simultaneously.
This simultaneity of occurrence cannot be grasped in one thought, it goes beyond the capacity of the linear mind to hold.
So we can examine only 1 at a time, but both are true.
From that higher level, we can see that there is only god.
The self, the other, their relationship, who is doing whom etc. is like the perspective puzzle of “Do you see 6 cubes or 7 cubes?”
The truth is – it is 6, it is 7, it is both, it is neither, all of the above, neither of the above, all of the above and beyond, neither of the above and beyond etc.
Journey to the Abstract 