Law of Confusion Exemplified

Confederation Philosophy
1

I find this observation from NOV 18, 1990 a very helpful explanation of why people so often have difficulty communicating, why there is so much confusion amongst us all. On the one hand it’s quite obvious that what a person sees is inflected by their experiences an so forth. But for me this quote heightens my understanding that our perception is a direct function of our tuning (and tuning has little to do with behavior). Just like our ocular apparatus is tuned for what we call “visible light,” so the inner choices we guide ourselves by (and the degree to which we do or not magnetize ourself to spirit as we know it) determines the “visible spectrum” we can use when gazing at the outer world or when looking within. It’s no surprise that we’re all different. What startles me is how much this is affected by our tuning.

I often see this play out on this website. People come here expecting to find unity with those of like mind, but more often we find separation due to the very different perceptual wavelengths we are able to operate with. So, how can we not be confused together?

Or, possibly, this is just about me?!?

We would ask you to move one step backward with us, for it is not your behavior, but your being, your consciousness, your inner choices, that dictate with a ruthless certainty that which you shall perceive and notice, as you are not within the density you enjoy aware that the illusion is so complete it is easy to identify consciousness with behaviors, and gaze at the behaviors instead of finding the root of those behaviors.

4 Likes
2

Interesting, thank you for posting. My wife and I just had a conversation this morning about how our thoughts tend to create our reality (what I am taking away from this is now my behavior is influenced by the reality I created with my thought).

Love & Light,

PJ

3

Exactly. Kinda funny, in a way. For those who pay attention and are commited to such things, this can be quite useful. Keep looking up.

4

Great find, @mirror!

As I see it – this is just my opinion – third density is this sort of transition state between second density and fourth. In second density our emotions and thoughts were dominated by survival and reproduction issues, and so regulating behavior that way was the order of the day, a kind of outward-facing sense of self. In third density with the advent of the spirit complex we are learning how to decouple behavior (read: triggers) from emotions, to appreciate emotions and thinking as capable of abstraction and higher, more imperishable ideals. This means that instead of governing our behavior per se as the gold standard, we are learning how to cultivate attitudes, temperaments, and balances within that allow us to open up to the incoming love and light of the Creator. Our behavior won’t necessarily conform to any concrete pattern of stimulus-response; instead, we are learning how to use self-awareness as a way to “step down” intelligent infinity into the appropriate expenditures of intelligent energy, with the intellect as a tool but not as some sort of new governor.

Just some thoughts I’ve had over the last few years that seemed relevant, I’m not married to them.

2 Likes
5

So, you’re not going to defend the territory of your ideation like a lizard doing pushups? I’ll probably pass up that opportunity as well, I suppose, but we’ll see what happens…

I understand the progression you are noting. My own studies have led me to paddle my canoe in exploration of slightly different archipelagos of modeling, you might say.

I view the transition thusly. In 2D, each entity is what it is to the fullest possible extent. There is no holding back. There is no constriction of the forces of Nature and there are no apologies for being. To these creatures, self-pity is unknown, self-doubt is rare. They cannot re-create the past nor imagine a future, nor can they ignore the present moment, for they live only in the present moment. Things get sticky (or, if you like, “complex”) when the the self-aware mind first comes on the scene, but let’s skip over that for now.

Once the self-aware mind works out the initial technical challenges thus allowing most or all of the energy of Nature to flow through it inimpeded, then it regains the vitality of the 2D beast, except that rather than unflinchingly expressing its biological programming (plus whatever it may be that fuels that upward spiraling of conscious evolution), what is unflinchingly expressed is a personalized version of unconditional love or, let’s say, the hallmark of the Creator.

So, all this stuff about spiritual seeking and clearing out trauma and bias, blah, blah, blah, is but a passing phase of inconvenience.

Okay, I’m framing it this way for dramatic effect, but if you stand back and view it this way, it does seem like it could be something akin to a few discombobulated years of adolescence, then we begin to engage our deepest being with our outward life to the fullest possible extent.

And, best of all, We All Live Happily Ever After!

6

There is nothing to defend. That would be persuasion, not the free offering of what I have at hand for one to take or leave.

I find nothing to quibble with in your framing, and find both of our writeups compatible. This exchange rather illustrates a great way to use the reductive nature of explanatory writing to flesh out an idea discursively rather than expecting one person to be able to capture it all elegantly and comprehensively.

1 Like
7

I came across this quote from Aaron (Aaron/Q’uo Dialogues, March 1, 1991) which goes to the heart of some of this. Well, actually, it speaks about the initial coupling.

One sees the ways that fear has enhanced the sense of separation. The self, which then perceives itself to be separate, feels a need to protect and allows the arising of anger or greed as its protection: “What if my needs are not met? What if I’m harmed?”

But this can only come from a sense of self and other self. Where there is no separation, there can be no anger. Can you begin to see how fear leads to that sense of separation which leads to the first distortion of self-awareness? This distortion provokes one not yet fully immersed in separation but experiencing a distinction between self and other self to cultivate that distortion which first allows fears. Observing, you can begin to understand how this process works in yourself. Then as fear or separation arise, you can gently lift that strand of anger from where it blocks the light, look at it, and ask yourself, “Do I still need this or am I able now to put it aside?” Always do this with gentleness and never with force, never asking the self to be what it is not ready to be, but accepting the self as it is so that the being will always be challenged, but always simultaneously accepted and loved. In this way the emotional body is not something with which one fights, but is part of your integral, harmonious self.

1 Like
8

This got me thinking, I used to fear my anger. Then, I used to think so long as I don’t hurt anyone, its okay (that’s not true; outbursts can be just as bad as physical violence). THEN, I got to learn that often, anger is depression turned outward instead of inward (talk about really getting to think; you’re telling me I’m depressed, I thought I was angry?).

And now I’m reminded of something I learned relating to fear, that courage is not the opposite of fear. I think bravado is the word (I had to look it up), its kind of like a false sense of courage. Or putting on a show, as it were. Basically, the concept (and this all stemmed from Greek philosophy, I believe) of courage (and many other virtues) being a balance between the two extremes.

Kinda like polarity in way (to my thinking, that is). I don’t know, its morning and I’m not done with coffee yet.

1 Like
9

Here’s a tiny bit more to contemplate when you’re slurping away. From SEPT 2, 2001.

The situation, as you have described it, is one which has many, many facets, being rooted first in the concept of separation. What is the first separation? Self from self. As each individual entity views portions of itself as needing punishment, as being less than valuable, as being unworthy, then is born the concept of the separation of self from others as well.

It’s a taken a long time, but for me now, mainly when I feel pain or see someone else’s (like when my neighbor went off on me yesterday), I see it as infantile feelings of separation form the Edenic land of the womb. Viewing things in these terms has been very helpful in that it makes compassion much easier (even with my jackass neighbor yesterday). It gives a sense of proportion when I feel, say, a vague sadness, I tune in to see if it is this pining for acceptance, love and my every need being taken care of instantly. If so, then–when I remember about it–I shift to my heart and things get better. I no longer feel deprived, scared or whatever…much of the time.

10

So true. Indeed, one of the things I’m grateful for learning even before I heard about LoO is that if there is something/someone I don’t like, chances are its something about myself I do not like. Now, I am applying that knowledge with this, and I have found the results most rewarding.

Instead of getting irked (once I put in the required work to exam why I was irked, of course), I start to empathize as I now recognize its me I am upset with.

1 Like
11

I’ve found that something that I don’t like or that bothers me from the words or actions of someone else almost always ends up being a reflection of something within myself that I need to work on. I think that’s just another aspect of the reality of us all being connected. Our interactions with other people are an excellent opportunity to grow and learn. So anytime someone pisses me off now my first thought is to ask why am I angry in the first place? And over time I became less and less angry and instead more and more grateful for the experiences in the first place. Now if someone manages to piss me off my very next thought is to thank them and extend love and gratitude to them for helping to remind me I’ve still got work to do.

2 Likes