Being in the Immediate

The transcendent is most likely ascending and descending through first, second, third, and fourth person.The sensation of something new is without immediate recall or recognition. Therefore the impact of something new or foreign upon the transcendent is one of immediate and unreasoned response. Here I disagree with Sartre (Nihilism), the reaction itself is not to existence exactly but to the nihilation of nothingness and birth or creation (physics we do not understand) of existence (somethingness) where nothing before was acknowledged or differentiated(Subconscious Phenomena: Janet, Pierre). The moment we identify existence (eternal) as occurrence (temporal), the idea of existence has been reduced (analyze) corrupting the whole meaning of it. The actual nihilation (nihilate) is not intentional but is an inadvertent result of transcending through persons (plural) but only barely having a grasp of the reality (that we are more thane one). That demagogue maintains a lie that one is only "I" and transcending through singular: as a demagogue or supported by common prejudice, not as a plurality which in reality can never achieve "mine" but only "our" (the primitive value we sacrificed to destroy temple). Now we teach schools of children because it is neither obvious or real; relative, does not honor the truth, no wisdom, 0.0 integrity. At the level of plurality ("we") the singularity goes insane (mass insanity) and inflates (ego/titans). We can only assume that existence can be sensed but be perceived as nothing having no apparent causality and, therefore, zero (0.0) mass (thought-form). How can we think if the thought-form has mass? Consequently, reality is not in the observing of objects with mass but in the developing and proper use of language (symbols) which is the role of Pythia and it is Pythia atop temple that raises to the philosopher and school of thought, not teacher and schools of children; educating is a destruction of previous developments, not a development of temple from primitive values (natural). Recall what Robert Graves told us, temple was primarily about protecting people, and the gods were very secondary. Schools formed around our children without an adequate level of dvelopment concerning the protecting of them. The Church fathers can say there was a danger of "over mothering" but in the study of extinction I would mark the more noticable problem, practically no dad at all and certainly not placing the child with any real sense of priority. Emotion is a transference of something (essential form) taking place between sense and feeling without apparent mass. Thought-form is something that can be felt but cannot come directly to mind. A transcendent remains isolated from be by the process of thought - myth, higher reasoning: a thing reduced into parts (Dualism/Zeus-Hera) is erroneous of existence as a whole (Monism/Hecate) concept. Existence just is and can't be reduced.

Thought-source is a vanishing point (birth/death). Instinct is the inherent capacity for the transcendent to respond in the occurring world where the thought-form is hidden behind emotion and without involving reason. Instinct may lean toward consciousness (sense=impression) but stems from the unconscious (being unaware) and comes into the transcendent as the propagation and prolongation of occurring where occurrence is presupposed as the beginning and the end of existence. Eternal has no beginning and end: temporal has beginning and end. The question then would revolve or orbit around the matter of how do eternal and temporal connect? Conversely, the more we reflect on emotion the less immediate (compulsion on career) and more enduring (reflect eternal) will be the activity with more profound results. Educating is a substandard substitute for deep-rooted. The artist, for example, reflects deeply upon the emotions and attempts to bring about an end with an apparent sense of being; personified, personal perspective, point of view. This, however, casts the artist apparently outside the survival instinct and is often referred to as starving. The transcendent interprets existence (zero mass) as occurrence (mass) thus suppressing any further sense of being (new, becoming) in the immediate. Thus the creative instinct (creation complex) is replaced instead by the aforementioned survival instinct inadvertently by falsely concluding without reason: the left hand knows not what the right hand is doing (Midrash). This latent will to destroy one's self is an instinctual response to the nihilation of existence (Sartre) but not to the false impression of zero; something came from nothing (relativity). Therefore, the attention one places onto becoming (permanent) appears futile in comparison to one's immediate struggle to survive (Kierkegaard). We throw everything into survival and nothing into development.

Fear is a motivation for understanding occurrence (Kierkegaard): anxiety to think about existence/soul (Plato). According to Jung "fear is the very thing that prevents consciousness (the transcendent) from destroying itself" (Symbols of Transformation). The instinct to prolong life can be traced back to the fear of the "very real dangers" of "existing (occurring) in this world" (*note Jung also misconstrues Plato's term existence (Eleusinian Mysteries/eternal-Plato the Existence of the Soul). The dinosaur did not cease to exist, it merely ceased to occur permitting it to be thought and theorized about. Fear, therefore, is the anguish directed toward the end of existence (impossible/physics we don't understand) where existence remains undistinguished from occurrence (temporal). It is non-reflected anguish and propels (inflates) a survival mode of behavior: compulsion over career, job security. This is because educating has modeled temporal and has no model for developing into an eternal form, not a reproduction/likeness. Professor raises to career, but should raise to wisdom/sciens: Latin scientia of Greek skhizein "to split, divide, separate": or as Plato suggests, soul. Darwin says we "separate", "branch" to "evolve". This occurs primarily because the end is unknown (core mystery) but is sensed from the beginning (original complex). Anxiety is reflected anguish (conjecturing an end-Erdos) and one is prompted by sorrow (emotions) or torment (repressing/demonizing) to leap (temptation of Christ) which will result in either the termination of one's own life (end of occurring) or change the way one lives, thinks, and feels; adaptation, transformation, individuation. The more one alienates one's own being from existence (permanent/eternal) the more one's attention becomes narrowed to the concept of survival; becomes compulsion and taught/transferred. When this happens one reacts more to fear (immediate security) than to anxiety (permanent soul): more to being (persona/reputation) than becoming (evolving). It sets up the problem of artificial prioritizing, not natural order. Therefore, the becoming is reduced to a vanishing point (nothing/unconscious), not raised to a point of view (creation) instinctually portrayed as the destruction or "fall" of one's self . The instinct cannot progress beyond the self destruction to transform into a creative instinct (creation/evolution-creation complex). The destructive force comes into this world in the form of depression and inflation (convert, teach): instead of the creative/constructive force - "leap" (Halen/"secret chamber"-Jump).

The unknown leap is a great source of anxiety and as Jung constantly quotes Maier, "time of doom". The future of be appears as nonexistence (even zero exists) since death appears as the end of one's eternal (archetypal) nature and not as the end of what it actually is; temporal/temporary. I bet Monism/Hecate is real just as dualism, sun is male, moon is female (Zeus/Hera), is psychotic as hell. However Zeus/Hera over comes inflation (defeat Titans) where the feimine (Hera'heiros gamos-union) links back to Hecate (monism) and the prevailing conditions prior to a split and formation of dualism (polarizing forces). However, any notion of be beyond the end has grammatical implications; fui, esse "to be". The problem when dealing with instinct, however, is that it takes more then faith (natural selection) to achieve (conscious selection) an ends (God and Satan produce Job). A third person suggests integration, not teacher. Understanding is a point of view giving the impression of location (stand under) leaving the impression a subject (being) is standing under an object (is-ing); dualism. Understanding always alludes back to that which is being observed and is the basis for relativity; limited, nonreality. It (third person, trismegistus) would seek at third person to negotiation between two or more persons (first, second, third) which at third person would be he is/she is and would honor the truth (philosopher) not teach (educate). Being itself cannot be located in space. It (being) is neither outside the essential form (is) nor is the essential form outside of it. Third person is meant to resolve "be" in (contained by) an expanding universe (is/indefinite whole). They (dualism) both can be sensed as one thing (monism) only in ignorance (psychotic) as a totality (monism) cannot be differentiated; defined by parts. Existence is an entirely abstract form - 0.0 mass - because ignorance is persistent in the immediate (hyper-surface of present): ignorance as a thing-in-itself is not removed by the insight of something new as that can only result in a temporary situation. To assume that existence is fully apprehensible is to presume one can be all-knowing. In order to reflect on the nature of existence (laws of physics) one must trace backwards to a condition or state prior to analysis or reduction. One is forced to speculate on the senses. At some point all things are sensed as one (universe) but perceived as nothing (vanishing point) not because existence (eternal/permanent) is not there but because absolute ignorance is there. If one looks backwards one must now move forward in time (tic). That means sensing is not picking up impressions of mass (object) but rather forming images from impressions and are a though-source. This tells us the observer in relativity is not performing as instincts are demanding of reason. That is because being prior to third person (second person, not two or more objects) is not permitting presupposition (senses) which are not differentiated, they are not conscious so as to divide, and are collective in nature; pluralism (we us our). Jung said that "after two multiplicity begins" suggesting this "is reality" but what actually seems more plausible is that after first person (monism) comes second person (dualism) and an integration and transformation takes place at third person of which pluralism makes the most sense at this time; not just multiplicity. We say there is no room for bias, speculation, philosopher is dead, no room for god but all we do here is presume we are all knowing, which would be insane destroying thought-source (myth) or any notion of physics we don't understand; no appropriate justification (accountability) for our ignorance (patient) which is as surely real as existence itself. The most appropriate insight is when we speculate on what is being reflected upon and what is doing the reflecting ("am"); verb/process, not noun or pronoun (a personification of impersonal). ... Abby