Even what we call stability or identity (e.g.: “I am me”) is really repetition, not permanence.
Change is just a different expression of the same underlying activity.
In both cases, there’s never true stillness – just different flavours of motion.
Even the past is an active construction, maintained by constant remembering and narrating.
Nature doesn’t distinguish between stability and change as opposites.
Both are expressions of process.
Maintenance is not stagnation.
It’s motion disguised as stillness.
Boundaries seem to be artifacts of system dynamics, not fundamental truths.
Take the analogy of an old CRT TV.
It is continuously and rapidly drawing and re-drawing all the images on the screen.
Even if you see the same frozen image, the CRT is actively drawing that same image again and again.
Just like the image persists via refresh, the identity persists via recursive maintenance.
The feeling of being a “continuous self” is actively upheld, like the CRT image.
It needs narrative, repetition, recognition.
Insights on Energy, Resonance, and Human Connection
— Energy is subjective: What feels like high or low energy is relative to one’s own lifetime experiences.
— Imagination as amplifier: It can intensify both joy and suffering by multiplying aspects of memory and emotion.
— Social interaction as catalyst: Without engagement with other beings, human or otherwise, a vital dimension of energetic activation remains dormant.
— Connection through commonality: Resonance arises most easily when there’s a shared “frequency”, a common denominator of experience, emotion, or intention.
— Alienation through uniqueness: When one’s energetic makeup is radically different from others, this can lead to a feeling of deep existential disconnection.
— Unconscious systems dominate: Most of what drives attraction, resonance, and energetic interplay operates beneath conscious awareness, within the “90%” of the unconscious system.
— Resonance ≠ alignment of intention: Two people may deeply resonate due to shared trauma or experience, yet be repelled if their responses to that experience diverge e.g., one seeks closure through compartmentalization and forward motion, while the other seeks total understanding and transcendence through full confrontation and deconstruction. Resonance alone does not ensure relational harmony.
Hatred and Love are about wanting change or no-change
Hatred is about trying to change something (push).
Love is about trying to preserve something (pull).
Hate and Love are for the ‘External world’ and the ‘Internalized world’.
– The ‘External world’ providing the good or bad experience
– The ‘Internalized world’ holding the good or bad experience
Conditioning is basically the ‘Internalized world’ derived from the ‘External world’.
It ties into craving (love) and aversion (hate).
Wanting to include –vs– Wanting to exclude.
Wanting to keep –vs– Wanting to remove.
Loved things torture you when they are gone.
Hated things torture you when they are there.
Hatred and Love are both responses to impermanence.
They are efforts to negotiate with the flow of change.
The only thing I am craving
In a way the only thing I am looking for is:
Intense/Immense/Profound meaning/voltage(PD)/current/movement/flow.
Be it additive, subtractive/dissolving, transforming.
Motivation is needed only when the reward is not intrinsic
Motivation is needed only when the reward is not intrinsic to the activity itself.
When aliveness itself is enjoyed, it penetrates everything.
It is like when the subatomic particles are singing, all matter is enjoying.
The only reason you feel attracted to an other
The only reason you feel attracted to an other,
Is if they make you feel better than you would feel by yourself alone.
Concentration is like sugar
Concentration is like sugar.
Mixed with anything, it adds pleasantness.
‘Reason’ as a crutch used for acceptance
I feel like ‘Reason’ is often used as a crutch for acceptance.
Is it possible to accept directly without it?
Without having a reason? Without making a reason?
I sometimes feel like the need to know/understand/reason is also a crutch.
We use all of that to make the acceptance more bearable.
The body of astral cords
This is a bit of a speculative post.
I am trying to visualize a model that captures my experience in the relational area of life.
The colossus of the astral relational body/tree = Astral cords connecting me to others.
Every enmity and ‘Runa’ there in the cords, can make me potentially suffer.
Every friendship and love there in the cords, can bring me potential joy.
The ‘Runa’ could be of ‘guilt and giving’ or ‘anger and taking’.
Most of these cords may be unconscious and only come to light when the person enters the conscious mind, at a particular time-space.
In a way, the tree of life connects everyone to everyone through cords.
Could it be every interaction with that person is ‘that astral cord’ brought to the conscious?
But the other end of the cord is another conscious entity too.
Both the entities on either side of the cord would ideally take mutual responsibility.
But if that does not happen, then the more mature one would have to take responsibility.
Life is also like Tetris,
Things/places/people also constantly change,
Very slowly, like a glacier at times, but they do change.
So I guess there are different time-spans to be spent with different people.
Maybe this was preordained even before birth?
That connection cord is revealed (brought into the conscious mind, tuned into) depending on who you are spending time with.
Whether they bring you joy or sorrow depends upon the nature of the relationship you have with that entity at that time-space condition.
So could all the pain and anger at the other could be the astral cord pain,
Like similar to spraining your ankle or pulling a muscle in the physical body?
I feel like any attempt to fight with the person is powerless against the cord itself.
I feel it is not possible to really sever connection with any being.
However if someone is really unworkable,
It is maybe not their time, and it’s maybe best to let them free.
They may again reconnect with you after an aeon.
What is the value you bring to others?
RULE: “We do onto others, what we do onto ourselves first.”
The way we treat/deal/work with ourselves is the way we treat/deal/work with others too.
One’s value then is basically what one does onto oneself.
That same doing just gets extended/projected to the other.
So in essence: We serve others the way we serve ourselves.
Journey to the Abstract 