Rod to Piet, Heloisa and Maria

Piet, Maria, Heloisa

Welcome aboard, Maria. Your first post was right on target to continue our discussion. I think we're coming to a consensus as we talk our way around the working hypothesis that Piet first proposed.

First, we seem to agree that although language is needed to point ourselves toward shared concepts, the words we use will always fall short of our intended meanings. We've emphasized the importance of viewing language as a system of shared metaphors rather than a system of fixed definitions, and I think we're doing a good job in maintaining that perspective.

Second, we seem to agree that we're delving into the realm of paradox, which is probably inevitable when one tries to obviate a dichotomy. Time - Timeless. Self - No-self. Seeking - Letting go. All these dichotomies, and others, are continually tripping us up as we try to not try.

Third, we seem to agree that what the working hypothesis proposes is nothing other than what is already there, and that the trick is how to fully realize that profound fact in our daily lives. We've all reported brief encounters with our own "here & now" reality, yet find that it slips away as soon as we try to hold on to it.

I'll mention a fourth aspect that I don't think we've explored deeply enough: What do we "expect" IT to be like? The range of possibilities extends from an ecstatic & blinding enlightenment to a realization that nothing at all has changed. Likewise, can we "have" IT all the time, or just in a few exceptional moments? I think that we all might benefit from a greater expressed awareness of what we think IT really is. For me, I liken IT to the clarity I experience when I see an image waiting for me to photograph, or when I see a concept waiting for me to express in words.

Rod