Perception, Perspective, and Presumption…
It never ceases to amaze me how much perception can channel reality into an altogether opposite frame of existence. Take a base situation and imprint your feelings upon it without sharing any aspect of it with others. Anything will do - watering plants, dusting, lying prostrate on the couch and vegetating to your favorite television show - anything. Here in this thought pattern, both the situation, and the associated feelings you have chosen are an illustration of absolute causality. This situation exists purely in your mind, and is as pleasant or uncomfortable as you perceive it to be. Were you to experience this situation (without any outside influence) that experience would be exactly the way you have perceived it in your mind.
The nature of our mutual co-existence with other causal beings, is that they influence their causality upon the reality which we weave (and vise versa). The perception, perspective, and presumption of others parsing your experience directly correlate to a dilution of pure causal intent. Unfortunately, there is an apparent lack of balance when imprinting on another’s reality. The opinion of another somehow carries more weight than our own when it comes to exacting causality upon a personal real. That is not to say the quantifiable outcome of parsing a particular thread will necessarily be different than the previous uninfluenced outcome (although it is quite possible). Rather, the journey, the experience itself is what has been irreparably altered.
In sharing our views (indeed in having any views at all) we instantaneously change a personal real into a communal one. The imbalance of influence when dealing with external causation upon one’s base thread can often be construed as a tug-of-war between realities. In my summation the cascading dominance of causation is exacted in what appears to be a last-in last-out frame work (the most recent being the most dominant). Consider the aforementioned example. Here we have a base thread that has not been infringed upon by external forces. For the purposes of this illustration let us assume that the feelings associated with this thread were those of happiness and contentment. Now another’s opinion of the very same experience is shared with our initial donor, only this opinion contains feelings of inadequacy and sadness. The experience is the same, but the feelings associated with it are discordant. Since the last thread applied resonated low energy the initial donor now feels the burden of low energy interwoven with the high energy that flowed uninhibited while the thread was completely their own. Sadly, only another party with high opinions of the situation can swing the scales back towards a more positive outlook since the initial donor has already contributed and would only apply redundancy to the framework built by this interaction.
What’s worse is that once the threads of shared causality reach a point of discord, there will never be a point when the purity of what was once a completely positive concept can be experienced. The negative has irreversibly tainted all resonance of that specific experience. No matter how many positive threads are woven around a single negative, its existence will always be felt.
Because of this, a single binary choice must be made by causal beings for every thread they choose to parse. Will they affect high or low energy upon this thread? Often times the donor does not make this a conscious choice. Instead, blinded by their own base reality and a hunger to exact proof of their existence, they rush into interaction feeling the righteousness of their standpoint simply because they have one.
It is postulated here that the lack of reverence for this simple choice is responsible for much of the low energy that is propagated throughout a communal reality.
What do you think? ;)
Until next time,
-M
The nature of our mutual co-existence with other causal beings, is that they influence their causality upon the reality which we weave (and vise versa). The perception, perspective, and presumption of others parsing your experience directly correlate to a dilution of pure causal intent. Unfortunately, there is an apparent lack of balance when imprinting on another’s reality. The opinion of another somehow carries more weight than our own when it comes to exacting causality upon a personal real. That is not to say the quantifiable outcome of parsing a particular thread will necessarily be different than the previous uninfluenced outcome (although it is quite possible). Rather, the journey, the experience itself is what has been irreparably altered.
In sharing our views (indeed in having any views at all) we instantaneously change a personal real into a communal one. The imbalance of influence when dealing with external causation upon one’s base thread can often be construed as a tug-of-war between realities. In my summation the cascading dominance of causation is exacted in what appears to be a last-in last-out frame work (the most recent being the most dominant). Consider the aforementioned example. Here we have a base thread that has not been infringed upon by external forces. For the purposes of this illustration let us assume that the feelings associated with this thread were those of happiness and contentment. Now another’s opinion of the very same experience is shared with our initial donor, only this opinion contains feelings of inadequacy and sadness. The experience is the same, but the feelings associated with it are discordant. Since the last thread applied resonated low energy the initial donor now feels the burden of low energy interwoven with the high energy that flowed uninhibited while the thread was completely their own. Sadly, only another party with high opinions of the situation can swing the scales back towards a more positive outlook since the initial donor has already contributed and would only apply redundancy to the framework built by this interaction.
What’s worse is that once the threads of shared causality reach a point of discord, there will never be a point when the purity of what was once a completely positive concept can be experienced. The negative has irreversibly tainted all resonance of that specific experience. No matter how many positive threads are woven around a single negative, its existence will always be felt.
Because of this, a single binary choice must be made by causal beings for every thread they choose to parse. Will they affect high or low energy upon this thread? Often times the donor does not make this a conscious choice. Instead, blinded by their own base reality and a hunger to exact proof of their existence, they rush into interaction feeling the righteousness of their standpoint simply because they have one.
It is postulated here that the lack of reverence for this simple choice is responsible for much of the low energy that is propagated throughout a communal reality.
What do you think? ;)
Until next time,
-M