Why would you care?
Because you can't say things like that Merry. You can't say you created God.
I didn't.
Yes you did.
No, I said "I" created God.
And who does "I" refer to if not you?
"I" refers to "I", as in I AM.
You're saying "I AM" created God?
Yes, I created God.
But it sounds like you're claiming to be the one.
The one? We're all the one.
What do you mean?
There's only one One. The whole of humanity is of One... is One.
One what?
Not what. Simply. Just.
Just what?
Just One.
But what? One what?
Not what... not referring to anything or anyone. One is One.
So you claim to be able to speak for the One?
No. There's nothing to claim. As anyone may, I'm able to speak the truth - that which simply is, as opposed to what not.
What not?
That which is something or other, derivative. They're completely unrelated. Things are things whereas that which is, whatever is, simply is. Nothing whatsoever can alter or come close to this - the isness of be. Until or unless you accept the simple truth, that is Is, you know nothing.
Oh thanks a lot. Now you're saying I'm ignorant.
Precisely, in the literal meaning - you're ignoring what is - that which is - the isness of Be, choosing to focus instead on things that matter, or seem to, coz that's how your brain's been trained to work, thus ignorant.
Ignorant? Darn cheek.
Yes. It's upsetting isn't it? We don't like to be told truth. Our whole mind and personality are hitched to this seemingly-so bandwagon, this extraordinary conspiracy of matter - that matter actually matters, when in fact, by any simple observation we can see the opposite is true.
The opposite - what do you mean?
Not what... nor do I mean.
You don't mean?
No. To "mean" is to base your truth on mathematical what not.
On what?
Mathematical what not. To mean is to use the averaging process to find who most closely approximates to the truth, as opposed to simply accepting unconditionally what is.
Ok - so you don't mean - but that's just a figure of speech.
More what not.
What do you me... you know what I'm trying to say.
You mean what am I actually saying? There are no accidental or innocent figures of speech. Language, just like mathematics, has been enrolled and conscripted to subvert or en-thing that which is.
En-thing?
To convert not what into what not.
Jesus Merry, Give me a break.
To convert that which is, simply, into some thing or other, derivative, compound, complex.
Oh.
Oh indeed. So a figure of speech is where the pure energy of words, their natural "meaning" - their inner-sense, as in "innocence", is subverted and twisted into some thing or other, to serve the conspiracy of thing - of what not.
Ok, ok, thanks for the math and linguistic's lecture, but to get back to the point.
No point.
No point? You won't even allow me that turn of phrase.
No. "The point" refers to something altogether different.
Ok - just spare me the lecture. You said that contrary to what most people think, matter doesn't matter. Then why is it referred to as matter?
Matter is matter. It does not matter. There is no doing of matter. There is only doing of life and living beings.
A machine can do things. So can my hand, which is made of matter.
True.
So you're wrong.
No. Matter does not by definition/ by its very nature, matter. It does not. It matters not, or as Shakespeare put it "tis no matter."
Tis no matter?
Yes. It is - no matter. There is a gulf between that which is - whether I am or it is, and matter.
There is - you could have fooled me.
Only if you're ignorant.
Do you have to be personal.
No. I'm using the term literally, as you know. I could only fool you if you chose to ignore the truth - if you were in on the truth conspiracy - if you chose to be ignorant and thus a fool. It's a matter of choice.
Oh. So you're implying I or anyone else would choose to be a fool.
Absolutely.
Why? It makes no sense.
Oh but it does.
Go on then. Enlighten me.
0=1 it is I am. Does that mean anything to you?
Nothing whatsoever.
There you go.
What do you mean?
I don't mean. I state clearly, unequivocally the simple truth - the isness of Be.
Yes, yes, very magnanimous of you.
Very practical - as that's the only way we're going to lift off.
Lift off where?
Well, in case you hadn't noticed - this material plain of existence is currently in termination.
Is what?
Terminating. Expiring. Kaput.
Oh my God.
Yes indeed. So that's why it's time to put an end to all this babble and revert to Is. Thus it's entirely reasonable and practical to state the simple truth - I created God.
No, no, and again NO! That's a heresy.
Yes, from within the conspiracy that you refer to as 3d reality, or the matrix, it might be a heresy - and normally I'd be shot or locked up for daring to utter it.
And might still be.
No. End Is - now.
But you can't, you couldn't create God. God is All. You can't create All. You're just a part.
Yes. We are, are we not, and yet... a little magical and inspired thought reveals that for us to know God, or to know our Self, or to simply know what Is, we'd have to be all these things already and, er, unconditionally so.
Unconditionally?
Fundamentally. Totally. Absolutely.
You do like extremes, don't you?
No. Not extremes. Innocence. Simplicity. The simple truth. The isness...
Yes, yes... of Be.
Thank you.
But that still doesn't explain how or why you'd create God.
Because God has to be a derivative of All that is.
Why?
Because if God was "All that is" you wouldn't be able to refer to him/ her/ them or it. God wouldn't matter. You wouldn't be able to conceptualise or get a handle on whatever God is.
And we can't. God is unknowable, ineffable.
And yet you claim to have a meaningful concept, term, name, thing, supreme being you refer to as God - therefore behind God who is there needs must be that which is unnamed, cannot be named or known - I
You what?
I... not what, therefore un-full-stopped
But that's...
Ungrammatical. Yes indeed. It's a grand dot dot dot
A what?
Not what - dot dot dot - leading back to the simple truth - the non-finite, never-ending, un-thinged isness of be.
Fine. Whatever. Er... but why I?
Because that's as far as there is. Beyond I is nought, and we cannot remove ourSelf from the equation.
What equation?
The simple one: it is - I am, otherwise referred to as 0=1.
Oh God, Merry, you're...
Yes, I AM... dot dot dot
Cuckoo la la
Because you can't say things like that Merry. You can't say you created God.
I didn't.
Yes you did.
No, I said "I" created God.
And who does "I" refer to if not you?
"I" refers to "I", as in I AM.
You're saying "I AM" created God?
Yes, I created God.
But it sounds like you're claiming to be the one.
The one? We're all the one.
What do you mean?
There's only one One. The whole of humanity is of One... is One.
One what?
Not what. Simply. Just.
Just what?
Just One.
But what? One what?
Not what... not referring to anything or anyone. One is One.
So you claim to be able to speak for the One?
No. There's nothing to claim. As anyone may, I'm able to speak the truth - that which simply is, as opposed to what not.
What not?
That which is something or other, derivative. They're completely unrelated. Things are things whereas that which is, whatever is, simply is. Nothing whatsoever can alter or come close to this - the isness of be. Until or unless you accept the simple truth, that is Is, you know nothing.
Oh thanks a lot. Now you're saying I'm ignorant.
Precisely, in the literal meaning - you're ignoring what is - that which is - the isness of Be, choosing to focus instead on things that matter, or seem to, coz that's how your brain's been trained to work, thus ignorant.
Ignorant? Darn cheek.
Yes. It's upsetting isn't it? We don't like to be told truth. Our whole mind and personality are hitched to this seemingly-so bandwagon, this extraordinary conspiracy of matter - that matter actually matters, when in fact, by any simple observation we can see the opposite is true.
The opposite - what do you mean?
Not what... nor do I mean.
You don't mean?
No. To "mean" is to base your truth on mathematical what not.
On what?
Mathematical what not. To mean is to use the averaging process to find who most closely approximates to the truth, as opposed to simply accepting unconditionally what is.
Ok - so you don't mean - but that's just a figure of speech.
More what not.
What do you me... you know what I'm trying to say.
You mean what am I actually saying? There are no accidental or innocent figures of speech. Language, just like mathematics, has been enrolled and conscripted to subvert or en-thing that which is.
En-thing?
To convert not what into what not.
Jesus Merry, Give me a break.
To convert that which is, simply, into some thing or other, derivative, compound, complex.
Oh.
Oh indeed. So a figure of speech is where the pure energy of words, their natural "meaning" - their inner-sense, as in "innocence", is subverted and twisted into some thing or other, to serve the conspiracy of thing - of what not.
Ok, ok, thanks for the math and linguistic's lecture, but to get back to the point.
No point.
No point? You won't even allow me that turn of phrase.
No. "The point" refers to something altogether different.
Ok - just spare me the lecture. You said that contrary to what most people think, matter doesn't matter. Then why is it referred to as matter?
Matter is matter. It does not matter. There is no doing of matter. There is only doing of life and living beings.
A machine can do things. So can my hand, which is made of matter.
True.
So you're wrong.
No. Matter does not by definition/ by its very nature, matter. It does not. It matters not, or as Shakespeare put it "tis no matter."
Tis no matter?
Yes. It is - no matter. There is a gulf between that which is - whether I am or it is, and matter.
There is - you could have fooled me.
Only if you're ignorant.
Do you have to be personal.
No. I'm using the term literally, as you know. I could only fool you if you chose to ignore the truth - if you were in on the truth conspiracy - if you chose to be ignorant and thus a fool. It's a matter of choice.
Oh. So you're implying I or anyone else would choose to be a fool.
Absolutely.
Why? It makes no sense.
Oh but it does.
Go on then. Enlighten me.
0=1 it is I am. Does that mean anything to you?
Nothing whatsoever.
There you go.
What do you mean?
I don't mean. I state clearly, unequivocally the simple truth - the isness of Be.
Yes, yes, very magnanimous of you.
Very practical - as that's the only way we're going to lift off.
Lift off where?
Well, in case you hadn't noticed - this material plain of existence is currently in termination.
Is what?
Terminating. Expiring. Kaput.
Oh my God.
Yes indeed. So that's why it's time to put an end to all this babble and revert to Is. Thus it's entirely reasonable and practical to state the simple truth - I created God.
No, no, and again NO! That's a heresy.
Yes, from within the conspiracy that you refer to as 3d reality, or the matrix, it might be a heresy - and normally I'd be shot or locked up for daring to utter it.
And might still be.
No. End Is - now.
But you can't, you couldn't create God. God is All. You can't create All. You're just a part.
Yes. We are, are we not, and yet... a little magical and inspired thought reveals that for us to know God, or to know our Self, or to simply know what Is, we'd have to be all these things already and, er, unconditionally so.
Unconditionally?
Fundamentally. Totally. Absolutely.
You do like extremes, don't you?
No. Not extremes. Innocence. Simplicity. The simple truth. The isness...
Yes, yes... of Be.
Thank you.
But that still doesn't explain how or why you'd create God.
Because God has to be a derivative of All that is.
Why?
Because if God was "All that is" you wouldn't be able to refer to him/ her/ them or it. God wouldn't matter. You wouldn't be able to conceptualise or get a handle on whatever God is.
And we can't. God is unknowable, ineffable.
And yet you claim to have a meaningful concept, term, name, thing, supreme being you refer to as God - therefore behind God who is there needs must be that which is unnamed, cannot be named or known - I
You what?
I... not what, therefore un-full-stopped
But that's...
Ungrammatical. Yes indeed. It's a grand dot dot dot
A what?
Not what - dot dot dot - leading back to the simple truth - the non-finite, never-ending, un-thinged isness of be.
Fine. Whatever. Er... but why I?
Because that's as far as there is. Beyond I is nought, and we cannot remove ourSelf from the equation.
What equation?
The simple one: it is - I am, otherwise referred to as 0=1.
Oh God, Merry, you're...
Yes, I AM... dot dot dot
Cuckoo la la
No comments:
Post a Comment