SevahreM

Instagram

[awaywithwords82-blog]

Ants in a machine

We’re ants inside a cosmic machine, slaves to a reality much greater than ourselves. Nothing we do, say, or act upon will matter. Time will consume us in the end. We busy our dumbed-down senses with television and food and sex and rules of engagement for all of the above, completely oblivious to what we are, and to what we are not. Thoughts, actions, words will all eventually fade. Nothing we achieve or do not achieve will matter. All sense of ownership of being a catalyst for change will become buried within a compost of bodies upon bodies. Our spirit will vanish out into the ether at the end, the consumption of our mortal forms into earth. If my desires now are meaningless, the only thing to do is make friends with time. And wait, like an ant in a machine, for the cycles of illusion to come to a close.

[awaywithwords82-blog]

| On Sin | On Purity |

You were not *born* a sinner. You were born pure & innocent. You *accumulate* sin by exposure to the world & subsequent loss of innocence. Or you inherit sin from a previous generation and it falls upon your shoulders.

Sinfulness can be determined not by the result of the act but by the intention behind it. Therefore a baby or toddler cannot understand the repercussions of their actions. You truly begin sinning when you know the results of your actions - driven by intention. Sinfulness appears to be inherent in our nature solely because of our very involvement in the environment where it is already prevalent and active. Also judgement, perception, and decisions that affect others make the nature of a person appear sinful even if they are sinless (this is the early childhood spiritual self).

If you understand the true nature of your inherent soul condition to be one of purity, not sinfulness, your choices will become different.  So does your mind, providing you, finally, with the opportunity to self cleanse by weeding out detritus.

Jesus's claim to cleansing of ones spiritual self after being 'born again' metaphorically may have alluded to self renewal within the same lifetime, but carries a strong allusion towards reincarnation within that same statement- that is what the early Church taught and believed before their passages were edited. By reincarnating, one is given due to leave the corruption behind and start fresh again, with less anchors on their soul.

But know the difference that you do *not* take birth as a sinner - if you did, that relegates you to a position of: 

A) spiritual lazyness whereby you are no longer responsible for your actions B) defeatism 

C) lack of respect for the lives, choices and intentions of others, whose actions are pureYou already know this. Do you look at others and think 'sinner'? Or do you look at others as being affected by sin?

God does not look down upon us, and determine that we are a pitiful, failed creation. God exists within every corner and precipice and guides the formation of life towards perfection; life that degrades with time, entropy and naturally - due to a desire for ultimate self renewal and improvement. What is once created to perfection degrades over time. 

Our life is a means by which we can discard the corruption we accumulate during it - our goal is to return to the original state. If you are 'born a sinner' the assumption is you always were one, always will be one. So you decide to name the avenue of release 'grace'. Grace is a word describing a condition. It never was a verb.  If, say, you were not granted grace, you would be utterly doomed. That is the romantic and illusory fallacy that has been painted which forces you to remain stuck on the hook, which the Church catches you on its line like a fish. They can now sell you 'faith' as a requirement as doctrine instead of a natural and willing states. 'Faith' a non-questioning condition of total and unrepentant blindness that does not think, does not question, does not pursue truth. As opposed to willingly encompass a spiritual value system into ones' life, which would be more profound and liberating, rather than toilsome and doubt-filling. 

A pure nature encourages and enforces that you can achieve a higher level; that your thoughts, intentions, actions, faith, devotion and prayer can be more pure and more fruitful. This is not the same as 'work'. 'Work' is when you believe you get something for doing something. But if that is the logic then being born a sinner creates a parallel condition where by doing something (ie. blind faith) gets something (ie. liberation from bodily or spiritual death in the afterlife). Neither should ever really be sold as 'work', because no human performs a spiritual act without an intention to interface with God. That desire alone, is enough to begin a process of self cleansing, and that action alone should not be marginalised as inferior.

Our society has become heavily set upon the concept of rules, laws and regulations that are to be abided by, as opposed to free, nourishing and nurturing growth for the individuals in society because of the lack of respect for the spiritual condition of the self. You can trace back many ideologies prevalent in our society; ideologies concerning 'right' and 'wrong', painted in black and white ways, that are so unnatural yet accepted as the status quo, that ultimately layer upon layer of more written regulation and law must surround it, or more societal complexity must be involved in it. People are no longer free to love, or free to be, because they are mired in the wickedness of societal expectation that has a low standard of entry. 

Removing a low standard, to set a higher standard, commences with your concept of your soul. Perception is reality, so seek with your own unhinged and burning insight into who and what you truly are - or at least were - from birth. 

[awaywithwords82-blog]

Broken Societal Notion of Trust

Relationship ideals around trust appear to be held at ransom by society. It turns out, apparently, that there is no love without trust. 

To be more accurate, the sentiment is if you do not trust, there is no love. On whose part, exactly? This isn’t clear. But supposedly, the vulnerable party (let’s call them that for the moment) has the onus to trust, blindly. 

My feeling towards this overly used sentiment around the concept of  how 'trust' works is that it's a fallacy. The other person must give you a reason to trust them. It is their responsibility more than It is yours - to develop trust. I feel like our society places the onus of trust - and therefore the responsibility - on the vulnerable party. This comes off as very odd to me. I think it's a by product of how much our society idolises 'choice', 'freedom', desire and dissatisfaction. They want to say these things are okay to engage in, independently, whilst within a relationship. But a relationship requires two people and therefore the above freedoms need to be curtailed. 

Because of this faulty notion, society places a heavy burden of trust on the vulnerable individual/party, and lets the less vulnerable / less invested party roam free because they'd rather not correct their ethical sentiments. It is easier to banish to apparent ‘weaker’ than it is to realign the ‘strong’. Society views pairings it seems, in terms of winners and losers. The fault becomes the burden of the person who actually shouldn't have trusted - not the burden of the one destroying the trust. 

So, I have issues with statements/sentiments that echo this ideal of trust where the responsibility is hazy. I think our society has many holes in its concepts around relationships,  and it pursues faulty concepts doggedly through mass media, which people consume on a daily basis.

Trust requires transparency. Without transparency, there will never be the reason to trust.

[awaywithwords82-blog]

[awaywithwords82-blog]

| Take What You Will | Discard

There are so many things I've discovered about life... what is real, what is fake.

People of so called status speak so many things, there are so many sentiments floating in the air, most of it is meaningless vibration.

The only thing that's real and valid is what resides in your self; you intention and what you will enact irrespective of someone else’s pessimism or optimism or view about you and what you are. You can rely on motivating enablers to get you through life, or you can start to toss them aside and find out what your own motivation is.

To that affect, the degree to which you are capable of (internal) change has many contributing factors....

The truth about you, yourself, your place in life, your purpose in life (or lack thereof) becomes revealed when those contributing factors are removed. And to reach that state, the views that are optimistic, pessimistic, need to be removed and replaced with what is reality. Most people won't reach this state. Reality is too harsh and people do not want to tread on fire to reach something that they don’t regard as a prize. 

You have to have NOTHING to know MORE. To see past the veneer of what TRULY IS, you need to discard what is FAKE.You have to be able to lean on nothing and rely on no-one. It is a frightening place to be.

Imagine being left alone to survive out in the wilderness. Sentiments and views mean nothing there, all paradigms need to be switched off and immediately replaced by something else that has relevance. 

Your mind’s structure needs to turn from the comfort and state of self appeasement, to that raw state where the reality of what is, is revealed to your mind’s eye. 

In that state, you will recognise that much of what you surround yourself within is utterly devoid of meaning and ultimately fake. You have milked this environment dry, trying to obtain perpetual entertainment from its apparently endless source of gratification. The cycle just keeps going on, a switch that continues to turn your eyes and mind to the ‘off’ position....

Every waking day, you will be given an option, and every day, you will persist with allowing the predetermined answer override your own choice. Do you want to be awake or asleep? Make enemies with comfort. Turn on the light.

[awaywithwords82-blog]

| Your Pleasure | My Noose

How (or why) do many people assume that they’re in on&off / casual relationships when the other person believes they are exclusive?

Has there been some kind of social development somewhere along the way where people entering relationships have suddenly, as if they were dropped on their heads as babies, act surprised that the other person wanted exclusivity?

What results from this is embarrassment, psychological trauma, devastation for the opposite (serious) party, whereas the party playing games by and large is defended, often vehemently for their choice to ‘do what they want’. Perhaps such individuals derive power from such acts, in a sociopathic way.

Doing what you want is not a relationship, nor does it express that one is ‘healthy’ due to a proclivity towards ‘independence’ over supposed ‘codependence’.

Doing what you want is what you do when you’re single.

When you enter into a verbal contract - so to speak - to join another person in a relationship, there shouldn’t be any confusion over the matter that you stay exclusive unless for whatever reason (eg. you think the other human being isn’t worth the time to grow and develop with and just want casual ****ing) - in which case it must be expressed. Ideally, if you’re THAT undeveloped that you must 'test drive' one or many people, chances are you won’t end any time soon and since there are no laws to stop you, you are morally unregulated.

And very unaware of the damage you cause.

You’d be surprised how many issues would be avoided if the fickle party were simply honest, instead of being an energy vampire. But such a thing requires a backbone and integrity.

Our society though chooses strange things. It surprises and disappoints me at the rapid pace at which people use and discard others, engage in creating bonds only to destroy them like a piece of rubbish. Well, we live in a plastic society.

To me, these are indicators of fear, inability to know oneself, and a marked lack of respect for life. An inability to know, experience, learn from suffering.

Shame that children are supposed to grow in this society; and us adults will, along the way, justify all kinds of attitudes and perceptions that very much cause the entropy of innocence as we proceed to enjoy ourselves to no end.

[awaywithwords82-blog]

Stop Thinking

Our mind does not contain thought, ie. thought is not a base construct of the mind. The mind *does* contain intuition, instinct and feeling. Intuition and feeling arise in the mind, and take on the form of emotions. They *then* take on the form of *thoughts*. Thoughts are not exactly what you 'perceive' or observe them to be, they are a refinement of a conceptual and subtle form. 

If you never learned a language, you would be left with rudimentary impressions in your conscience with which to outwardly express, perhaps without a fixed construct. Language is a construct that you've learned. Without it, you might be gesticulating or perhaps communicating at some subtle or gross telepathic level. (Imagine a race of people whose language was to remain mute and simply use touch?). Maybe you’d have developed some form of verbal communication, but there is no guarantee that its constituents would be as defined and developed as what we have today.

Your natural state and inclinations are fluid, not fixed because they are not given the scalpel of language to define and focus particular concepts. Some languages use particular words that have several meanings or innuendos. But some thoughts & mental conceptualisations based on intuition, instinct or feeling have a more profound meanings than a fixed form would allow.

The same goes with your spirit. The spirit is heart and intuition based. Language, writing, visuals and speech cannot dictate what is correct and what is not correct. Reality exists between the grey area between extremes of thought and action, or the grea area between experience and observation.

Your spirit does not form such focused beliefs, forms or opinions until it is taught to. You know the right way to walk, because that is natural. But you need to be taught manners. In the same way, you know the right way to intuit, think and feel, because that is natural. But you need to be taught language. 

Take away the ‘language’ of the spirit; writing, and preconceived data. Form your own experience and intuitive based understanding of all things on this. Let nobody dictate what your interpretation (based on facts, research and spiritual understanding) are - but with reflection upon the base nature of your inner self. This is meditation, and this is the spiritual experience where all people are the same without race, or creed, all life has meaning, even animal and plant life. It also removes all preconceptions you have gathered around what YOU are at your inner level. It is very important to do.

[awaywithwords82-blog]

The ‘Who Created God?’ Question

We always return to the circular argument of Who Created God. 

 We never seem to ask how/what or why is there a mechanic that grants life and intelligence and order to every physical construct from atoms to black holes. Everything is working in a clockwork manner, building, destroying, recreating in a cycle which shows it is structural, sentient, and responds to will. You can't say there is no intelligence behind it. We label it God because we can't understand it, but that's a good enough word. Even physisists reach a point where they are able to explain their observations of an phenomenon but cannot explain why it carries that behaviour. It just does. I do not believe we are intelligent enough to know, we don't have the capacity to reach those kinds of levels of understanding. 

We are to the universe what a colony of ants are to entire technologically advanced civilisations. At best. We don't see or know everything, are limited in our capacity to reach answers and are only good at theorising. We're kidding ourselves if we think we can or should be able to answer the existence or lack thereof, of God. 

But, this is what I think personally, and this isn’t an insult to anyone, just that I’m trying to ‘think’ about a topic that rationale has no answer for. 

Time only exists when a material artefact moves slower than the speed of light. Time will not exist, if an artefact moves as fast as the speed of light. Time, like gravity or thermodynamics is a natural, physical law. You could safely surmise that 'God is beyond all' such laws because God is not subject to the laws. The laws are subject to God. God is not sitting on our plane of existence and isn’t affected by them. God, like thought, is not even physical, but pure will. If God is existent as a form of natural will, then God has no beginning and no end. TimeLESS. It is the presence that existed prior to, and remains unaffected by the requirements of the creation, ie the laws of physics. 

To me, God is basically sentient willpower that acts as the driver, constructor, motivator of everything, and places it into an order, gives it reason and motion. It is the magnetic force between magnets, the reason that two quarks bond together, the desire for gravity to pull. That 'thing' is basically, total natural pure willpower with an urge to create. 

You could say, it is a dormant form of super-conscience that uses the universe as a host body for its organs and us for its senses. 

So this is just my opinion. 

But if you remove ‘God’ and say, well the electrons explain this and dark matter explains that... well you are only theorising and using observations of phenomenon as reasoning - without explaining HOW or WHY the phenomenon works at all. You’re still not sure why there is time, or why evolution magically has chosen, intelligently mind you, to construct a better form of life. 

[awaywithwords82-blog]

| Follow | Do not follow |

In this society, it seems harder & harder to be an individual. To think for oneself, have your own convictions, likes & dislikes, morals/ethics. 

Those who think and act differently, based upon their spiritual, political, personal motivations, are weeded out, misunderstood & crushed.

We have to think if this sacrifice is worth it... it is difficult to progress from the state of being an automaton, a number or a societal unit - to being truly personally sovereign?