Re: I don't want to be mixed
Hi Edge,
The thing that came to me last night when I was thinking about this was from my own experience -- that sometimes when we are something that doesn't have a name or any shared comprehensibility from sources outside of ourselves (and thus language [based on shared meanings] is inadequate to express ourselves), what we tend to do is latch onto ideas that express one or a few parts of what we feel ourselves to be. Then we can live that fully, but what our bodies and minds tend to return to tells us that these ideas are only fragmentary parts of ourselves, and not the whole as-it-is.
A major difficulty I've had is the desire to express all of myself at once, but I'm uncertain that this is possible, apart from doing some ("vibratory") energy work so that I feel like I am all of myself at once. This is a goal I haven't yet attained, but which could be interesting to pursue. (Kind of coming across as my own version of white light -- containing all [of myself, at least...but the definition of "myself" gets into philosophy]* -- instead of blue or yellow, or chartreuse, or magenta, etc. Or coming across as white noise instead of distinct frequencies or notes or a series of notes. Having the ability to be all of oneself also seems as though it would either grant and/or require that one be able to be anything else on the spectrum as well [not to say that actually physically enacting all of these abilities is necessarily a good idea, as inhabiting some choices cuts off the ability to inhabit others {for instance, if one went to jail}].)
A secondary difficulty I've been encountering, is trying to be something I only partially am because that "part" has a name and a role and a place, whereas the whole of me is much more complicated than that one part.
The other thing that came to me when I was thinking about this last night, is that it's possible that when one can't find a stable place within a given model of reality, chances are that one is encountering cracks in the foundation of that model. That is, the model itself is artificial -- a tool to the hopeful end of understanding -- and may not adequately explain everyone, even if it desires to. What it's important to remember is that the model is just a tool that people have created to try and understand reality; it isn't reality itself.
What I've found, which really seems to help, is that if I allow myself (within reason) to be whoever or whatever I am in the moment, it's a lot more satisfying to me than it is to try and restrict myself because of a preconceived notion of who "I" am, or who "I" think "I" should be. In my own case I have a number of ground rules that I rarely if ever cross (like the ones which stand against my perpetrating violence in absence of necessity or realistic threat), and that's just to keep myself and those around me, safe. But there is a lot of variation to who "I" can be. There's a lot of wiggle room. And I think that this is a good thing, not a bad one. It does get difficult, though, when we want to live one life to the exclusion of the others, and we cannot! I definitely sympathize with you there.
*As for this definition of "myself," I hypothesize that if I did have the experiences that other beings have lived through, I would in effect be those other beings and react and feel the same way they do. "If you were me, you'd understand," has kind of been a motto for me since I was young. Apply that motto equally to all living beings and you have the basis for radical compassion, as well as a view into the nature of spirit and soul (and also, should one accept the definition, into the basis of Deity as that which inhabits all).
|