sirguessalot

cm wrote: i just wanted to say, that i think this is spot on. because it is built into us to care, as another aspect of the overall self. which requires us to somehow, some way, find ways to feel what another feels, see what another sees, hear what another hears, etc...And, as it pertains to biblical scriptural tradition, i see a strong association with that ole notion of "fire baptism" discussed in another thread. because this art of being one with other, or feeling what they feel, seeing what they see, is often one of the most painful things we can do. to step outside of our sense of self is a form of dying. the effort might even evoke an actual physical sensation of pain in the heart. some might not like the pain, but that pain is an important sign of something being burned away. there is a practice i have learned along these lines, which is something i believe akin to the things our favorite holy kid taught about pnuema hagion. it deals most directly with matters of our own heart, and serves to literally open us up. it has been called "tonglen" in other traditions. basically, it goes like this... ...breathe out, and make your intent to shine forth as light, in whatever shape or form you can imagine. big or small. simply imagining light radiating from you as you exhale will stimulate change in your own soul. clean, clear, cool light-filled breeze. ...inhale, accepting whatever pain, darkness, trouble, anguish you are faced with. take it in and consume it upon the fires of your heart, as if it was as star. you can picture it as thick, hot smoky tar. or whatever. but the point is to inhale the darkness and transmute it to light on the next exhale. its pretty simple. like a recipe for cookies, or something. to practice switching between these two intents every time you breathe, is a simple way of being that will change you from the inside out. and if you honestly practice this, and play at it, developing your own ways to open up evermore, you will not be able to stop the change that comes from within. so be warned. your love will grow, your compassion will grow. you will most likely never be the same again. and there is little to nothing stopping anyone from trying it right now. next time someone ticks you off on TV, or your child is suffering, or someone's beliefs rub you raw...exhale good intentions for them (just try it), and inhale the darkness as it is. feel the darkness of your enemy's ignorance, perhaps. along with the darkness of your own inability not to hate them, or be saddened by them. whatever. then on the exhale, simply pretend that your very own natural breath fills both yourself and them with light and goodness. no, its not magic, or complicated. nor is it owned by any tradition or religion (though some may have done a better job at developing it). more or less, it is a gift of simple human feeling and function, inherent in our very makeup...indeed, we are beautifully and wonderfully made. beyond our wildest dreams. also, what we often naturally do when we breathe our intent is the very opposite of this. we want to inhale the good, and exhale the bad. when we seethe, it is an exhale of negative will. when we are desperate or lonely, our deep sigh is often one of gulping as much light and goodness as we can for mostly our own sense of self. this where the biblical notion of repentence may apply. as there comes a time to turn it all around. or inside out. upside down. stand it on its head. reverse the flow. reverse the will. just stop and do the opposite of what you have known of self, and how you can simply be as a manifestation of love itself, rather than a mere recipient. "love your enemy," the kid said and do it for real anyway, thanks cm. this is one of the most direct living-level practical ways i have ever found to expand and open our perspective at the heart level, and i thought some here might want to know of it. as to what all this has to do with WET weekend...nothing really. but another vital aspect of the overall self being exercised and stirred...that inward lover perhaps? or a way to give birth to our sense of "big heart."

would it be a good idea to question our understanding of God if we have come to think of God as an object? or some thing somewhere else in the universe? the moment we say to ourselves or someone else... "God is here, or God is there" "God is NOT here, or God is NOT there" have we not just made God into a mysterious object? something that can be lost? something that can be found? something with an opposite? if God is not an object is not then the very word "God" a figure of speech? and not a literal truth at all? what does the ultimate holy Subject look like, if not an object? would it not be the purest clarity and freedom to be found? like the eye of all eyes, clearer than glass? and would not this widest of open spaces be called ultimate Love? being open, and that which allows Everything to be in it? that which simply and choicelessly allows all to be? in its infinite embrace? like the greatest foundation that all else grows in? and so where can the Ultimate subject be found? how far away is "it," if it is not a thing that is? after all, foolishness, God is called. a paradox to the carnal mind and a mystery to trip up the author of death (who is also liar, btw) and all his illusions and so also, God being holy spirit... is the Holy Spirit an actual object? like taught in churches everywhere? something we must get put inside of us? or perhaps another blessed figure of speech to baffle the devil inside everywhere? (sorry if that is too much for anyone)

so curious...are you saying that God is an object again?if so, what might that do to the rest of your statement in that post? Yeah. that is a good one. And so, again, is God ever an object? or any one of these steps of creation? (even the first step would be an object with form, no?) Are both father and Father objects? Is this Love that laid the foundation some sort of object? (sorry if this is annoying, and i know we can probably do this all day, but i would hope that any claimants of representing God (or even some any sort of anti-God) would be highly interested (if not highly skilled) in answering these kinds of questions, especially in light of all the usual fingerpointing regarding idolatry, self-deception, or other general notions of godlessness)

it would seem, huh? and so what does that leave you with?

are you saying that these minds are then pointless? or that useless mental excercises are not some actual objects in reality? but without such an exercise, would you have ever been able to come to that conclusion? (btw - i hope you know Bob, not picking at you with all these quotes and questions. nor do i expcet anyone to answer them all or anything. i really do appreciate you playing along like this) :)--> :)--> :)-->

lol. Bob. yeah, occasionally. maybe think back through earth history, if you will, and ask yourself, does such "hell" really only come to town "occasionally?" or is it pretty much one of the most natural conditions on earth? if so, this too, it would seem, would jibe pretty well with scriptural stories of this place called hell ya know, i forgot who said it first, but it is strange how someone dies and its a tragedy, but if millions die, its a statistic. or some such thing...

to add... yeah. there may be a place that is actually somehow worse than all the examples. I mean, imagine what joy a simply physical birth might bring, if some fragment of sentience was in some tormenting hellish state of being, and did not understand a thing about why (let alone the passage of time). or if after a Hitlerish type dies, part of himself finds himself even less satisfied, but just as hungry, yet has no body, and has forgetten his name, or who he was, or what a human is, and is just these lingering ugly desires that can no longer carry out their will (having no one to boss around or kill?)? or a cow, stricken with disease, being torn apart by hyenas? must there always be yet another special magical otherwordly place for such pain to play out?

Here and Here are some things Einsteinish and Theology that might interest folks of just about any persuasion

true dat...my scenarios are not nearly the same as the mythic translations, although word-for-word, if you strip the mere written-of and spoken-of dogmas and myths, wouldn't most of those archaic translations still apply in the experiential situations i mentioned? and like i said, do we need a "real" place called hell that is worse than the examples? would not the madman be a "prince in and of Hell?" what could be worse being that burnt babe? for even a minute? and ok, nirvana, or heaven...sameish thingish, i imagine if a woman gives birth to the most beautiful child in the world, or a grandfather holds his grandchild for the first time (for that moment, looking in each others' eyes as if the one and selfsame single being), would that not be an experience of joy and peace that is outside of time? Some sort of radical unity that is beyond words (as "heaven" is often described) if a world-class surfer hits the most gnarly curls ever, or a downhill skier is zipping along at breakneck speed, breaking world records, would they not be in this state of mind that is out of time...a seemingly endless moment of blissful, dreamy "reality?" now imagine a world where everyone is taken care of, and living healthy, exciting, peaceful lives...could this not be a state of heaven manifest outwardly into the physical earth, pretty much as scripture describes, without all the magic and unicorns (yet more "magical" than even that?)? or imagine a person describing such a peaceful and transforming interior experience that they describe as blindingly and wonderfully inexplainable, that they actually, in reality give away all their earthly possessions and for the rest of their life, do nothing but selfless good deeds without being asked? Even to the point of reshaping thought in an entire corner of the world? One might not able to prove what they experienced, but their life sure speaks for itself. I mean, who on earth can simply rationally decide to do such an insane thing without having experienced some "actual" state of "reality" that seems to have made them "snap." :)--> ok, but do we actually see anything that we might consider a "soul" or "spirit" die as well? or did we just see the body rot? now, i know that the "proof of soul or spirit" is always questionable (as it should be), but that kinda gets back to my questions of objectivity, i think when you look at your living body, is it the object or subject? if an object, what or who is the subject?

lol. good question, irisheyes "What kind of question is this anyway, a trick?" yeah, in a playful sense. but i assure you, and maybe other's can vouch for me, my intentions are also good. its more like a game, i think. or a mystery. imo, a wise saying usually does not always have to end with a period. does it? lol Jesus answered questions with questions, too, if i recall. stuff he made up on the spot, "outta da blue," or "outta nowhere," it seemed to seem. Paul taught Christ in a mystery i am beginning to think this might have had to do with the good ole fashioned thrill of a whodunnit and that is a really good point you made about God being the "object" of our affection. offhand, it seems like some sort of old figure of speech to me. too, i like how you suggested that God might be the thing strange, indeed. strange like God, maybe

Here is something interesting about the study of light in the human body i like the part about how oil effects this. makes me wonder how light might be "moved" in a good ole massage, or what might happen if a bucket of hottish mineral oil were to be poured long and slow over someone's forehead makes me think of how the ancients who did these kinds of things may not have had the modern rational evidence to prove or measure what was happening, or the language to hold such evidence, but they had some form of demonstrable proof, even if they had to make up a story or song to explain it thank god the map is never the territory

hi, Bob wow. very interesting statement ok, and so i wonder a few things about the object of proof... if you are saying "hell" has no proof, for example what would you say to a village of women and children and old people covered in burns? or a heroin addict, alone in a gutter at the bottom end of a detox? or a one-time passionate dreamer, now bored, depressed, alone, uninterested in much, trapped in a dead end job? or a genius madman, sitting atop an empire, so full of hatred, they would actually stimulate an organized genocide? must there be an even worse place in human experience than these in order for any notion of hell to be "real?" or beyond mere theory? I mean, imagine ("Behold!"), if you will, that while in the throes of it, how one might not even be aware of the end of their torment. Would time matter at all? Might it seem to drag on forever, like some eternal place? Some other view of a world you or I may not even understand? Of course, I know this is not the usual application of the H-word these days And the same probably goes for the other things I mentioned, too And so what of death? (and I assume you are speaking of the death of a person, as opposed to the death of a fashion trend, or cultural era, or tree, or something) Are you say you have proven the reality of death? Or that other people have? (and have somehow come back to tell us about it...lol) :)-->

Something interesting worth noting, I think (and not as it applies personally to George's response, but as it reflects a typical reaction from what is more or less a sort of belief system, or otherwise codified perspective, as self-styled skeptics themselves often explain). ok, compare (bold is mine) and to The skeptical self might also then demand the use of laws of physics to prove the absolute reliability of these two vague methods of sniffing and feeling truth, before they are allowed to be pandered as valid. And sometimes, it seems, the label of an obvious "NO!" is applied to a thing when it is not so obvious. It all kinda reminds me of the following short conversations we (a) can have with our rational skeptical self (b). a: "do you love ____?" b: "yes" a: "ok, prove it" The skeptical aspect of our overall self may have no choice but admit that it doubts love for _____. In fact, it will probably have to doubt the reality of the feeling of love altogether, or call it something else entirely (not that a skeptic is unloving...true love is inescapable, imo. Like how it is often described as a "falling", or even a "rising" impulse). Likewise, the skeptical "Iago" aspect of our self must always doubt the widest range of useful things, like possibility, the future, the past...even the reality of consciousness itself (Although i must add, not even the most diehard of skeptics are really 100% skeptical all the time (life requires that we do things without doubting, or we would not live through the day, i would think), but that it has been chosen as the leader of the overall self, or some other sense of most important value). Which is why I think it helps to see that the skeptical mind is but a tool in a kit of humans being. To the depth and degree we reject skepticism, we can't doubt things (and imo, ALL things must be doubted to death, at least once). And to the depth and degree we (personally or collectively) are stuck in the skeptical voice...faith is shipwreck, hope is lost, and impossibilities seem to mount. Which is why I think it is valuable to doubt skepticism itself, in order for it to become self-aware and allow the overall self to shift into "higher gears." There are notions that every state of mind has a shadow side (or dual nature), which is why all states of mind work (and play) best together. To use a very common metaphor, I think of this like "lighting all candles in the temple" in order to see the whole "throneroom," where we meet Christ, who is the image of God...yada yada yada. How else can we be considered to be whole (sozo,saved) in the full spectrum of body, soul and spirit? No new good "thing" needs to be added, per se (like vpw and ilk often say of holy spirit) And no evil things need to be removed, per se (like vpw and ilk often say of devil spirits) But all good things are already there, and simply need to be unfolded, unpacked, unwrapped Like cracking open some everpresent and eternal seed Already equipped with an untold and unfinished story of many many chapters

also, this not meant to be a quiz, really more like a primer or stir stick or a wind that blows on the embers of our soul "play," perhaps, is most apt

Doctrinally? Practically? A simple question, really to which other questions might arise such as: What kind of object is He? or...what is God then, if He is not an object? or...is spirit an object? or... Is heaven an object? Is hell an object? Is death an object? Is an idol an object? Is the devil an object? Is our faith (personal or collective) an object? ...that kind of thing ok, and if so, what substance are these objects? and where are they located (in that truest sense of truth)?

and i want to make it clear (to clear up any of the sloppier impressions that may have been left) the folks who put on the WET weekend do not make claims contrary to the laws of physics nor do they fully subscribe to the "paranormal" stuff in the strawmanish way geo set them up

fair enough, geo and no, not anathema to me, honestly just a travesty, i guess truth is, some share and ambrace your purely physical worldview but do not allow themselves to be limited to it alone

garth, my point was, that when kinds and categories of things are so consistently poo-pood (or misrepresented) in a public forum (because geo or you are uncomfortable with them), some "weaker" (or less invested) folks will naturally be inclined to stop exploring the subject, in spite of the poo-pooers neutralish intentions. i said that it often unknowingly serves to suppress...cuz i really dont think it is geo's intention to do so (most of the time). and please dont tell me that you think geo (or you) are always informed enough about everything you "critique." like i said before, i dont think smartass knee-jerk reactions (as fun as they may be to the jerker) necessarily qualify as a valid critique, as opposed to disinformation and intimidation...by sheer volume and persistance, if nothing else.

ok. here goes btw - if im selling anything its water by the river...lol do you think it is possible that not all of them are blindly accepting, but that some are more or less obligated to process some actual experiences of "reality" that you may have never had yourself? Yer right. I usually dont appreciate your input very much. And not due to the smartass part (a common ground between us, perhaps? lol), but because i know you are often uninformed (and seemingly willingly) about things you respond to as being so adamantly against. Which often serves to suppress free and open thought and dialogue (something you yourself might claim to value). Smartass can be light and useful, but it can also lead to dumb-foot real quick when it opens up to mocking, scorn, derision, ridicule, etc... Though some also easily justify indulging in these kinds of behaviours, too. Out of some unconscious dissatisfation with life in general (which i can also relate to at times) Ironic, too, how you write "I tend towards the smartass end of the spectrum," and in the very next statement write: "But don't you ever get tired of chasing rainbows?" I assume you mean chasing ever-elusive illusionary things (and not chasing "actual" rainbows, though i have chased them, too. Supernumeraries are my favorite kind). I will also assume that since you mentioned how you tend towards an "end of the spectrum," you believe there actually is a spectrum to tend towards? (though whether your tendency is the end of it, or somewhere in the middle, is a simple semantic oversight, im sure. and you simply might not be aware of the fuller bandwidth) Throughout the history of human thought and experience and science and whatnot, there are these perrenial notions and increasing evidence of an actual spectrum of human awareness, or some sort of "chain of being". and how human consciousness and understanding actually does exist and unfold in a rather stratified way, and how a variety of generic structures of consciousness serve as building blocks for evolutionary development, which eventually leads to more emergent structures. particularly in the last half century, the rational scientific approaches have been applied along these lines, and in a wide variety of fields of cross-study, producing gobs of amazing data and valid questions of conventional thought. but sadly, there is also a growing pathological tendency to flat out deny the existance of any such stages or notions of hierarchy in human experience, in spite of the mounting evidence (this tendency is most common in old-fashioned boomers, these days, it seems). how this plays out in "reality" is in memetic structures of values and behavior. and of the more recent contributions to this study of spectrum of experiences, a valuable one, is the notion that we are most healthy (alone and together) if all value memes are considered valid and vital aspects of this spectrum of being (though they may be experiencing shadows or some other exclusivity) a quick point is, i guess, no matter what color of values you favor in this spectrum, one would do good to realize that there are more notes than one (or even two) on the ole anthropological flute. And most likely extending above you as well as below you. again, i can assume you have already answered this in your head, but i will tell you that my life (like most anyone else's) has been and continues to be an adventure of both improvements and failures and new discoveries and re-discoveries and change. I consider my perspectives to be the most valuable (and quite tangible) changes of them all. Also, keep in mind that many of my "mind-expanding" experiences are about more than simple mind-expansion. just as importantly, it seems, is heart-expanding experiences, and capability-expanding experiences. so many things learned and experienced, in fact, that someday i intend to write a detailed biography of my journeys, which is going to be a helluva project. But i think it wise to wait til i am old and wise like you, geo, before i go translating all these experiences prematurely. I consider myself nowhere near being done with it all yet. i wonder, will you also deny the value or validity of even this approach to experience? Would my book be of value to you, or society? if so, i would say that you have cut more than one note out of your own potential for translating "reality." I am not going to deny your self-imposed limits on what intrigues you, or the way you apply the word "reality" to definitions that only exist in your own mind. i will assume that something being merely "half-baked" is contrary to your values (though it might only be my limited ability to explain something that is half-baked, not the actual fields of study i like to gab about). Its kinda like condemning sin for being a state of incompleteness. or a fetus for being unborn. and i guess i can probably assume that "spiritualization" is likewise something invalid to your experience and understanding. To which i can partially agree, especially how you so loosely applied the term. the S-word (without the suffixes) has over a dozen useages in english alone "spiritualized explanations," as i think you mean by it, simply are what they are. which are often vital parts beyond (or even below) your favorite note on the spectrum. both pre-rational and post-rational structures and ways of being have been proven to be necessary to our overall sanity, basically. like storytelling, or visionary logic, theory, science-fiction writing, and other such useless things. again, as much as it might seem to suck, your personal level of comfort (or not) with a thing is NOT the same as "reality," except to you, perhaps. but i think you know this. the "laws of physics," such as they are, are one of the most relevent contributions to human thought and understanding. yet, in their infancy, they are also clumsily (and perhaps innocently) suppressing other members of the overall "bandwidth" of human experience. also, just because Jungian notions of synchronicity and are garbled to you, does not mean they are also not understood by millions of rational-minded and post-rational minded human beings that share your air and rolling dirt ball. that ole "i do not understand X, therefore X must be crazy" has ...well, quite a flavor of "crazy" all its own, to put it bluntly. geo, who any of us "are" is not so cut and dry anymore(though not willy nilly anything goes either, just not so cut and dried). Our image of self has been proven to be more or less a mere construct of our own making. The boundaries of "self" and "no-self" and "other" cannot be so simply stated, except as a translation of our experience. this might seem garbled to you, but if you take the time to google around a bit on both modern and post-modern studies regarding this kind of thing, even stubborn ole "you" might never be the same to "you" again. :P--> Again, just because they are vague to you, or you cant tell the often subtle differences between pseudo-science and the more cutting-edge and emerging sciences (that might be out of your reach), i can understand the lack of allure for you. especially considering the growing mountains of BS so-called science and fear-mongering myths in the world. if i was more stubborn than even you, perhaps, might throw in the towel in this regard too. also, "feelings" are proving to be a highly complex sense of awareness and vital part of overall human perception, but one that is really taking a hit in the public and social eye, due to so many loud (and usually uninformed) objections to its inherent value (which, of course, is often also grossly overstated by those who favor that color of the spectrum). Most of this rejection of feeling seems to be coming from that camp that sits in the deathgrip of the classic existential nightmare. Like wailing banshees (and often cognitive geniuses), disconnected from inward "reality" due to the devaluation of "feelings" and the other softer things. Preservation of the flesh (and usually one's own) is highest priority. "Cold hard reality is God. And God is absolutely dead" or "softer is weaker" (though one might ask, does not the wind laugh at metal when cut at with a sword?) again, much proof is often readily available for many things that are rejected by extreme skepticism, but quite off-limits to those who will neither investigate, nor perform the injunctions. and ironic, to say that hypothesis is a foolish endeavour regarding things not yet proven...and you call yourself rational... :o--> can you imagine what you might have to be doing to survive right now if this was held as true? yikes often enough, the ways to prove a thing (especially via the more time-tested traditions), is really as simple as drinking a cup of tea. as simple as that, and yet it can be a million miles away whew. I agree. But there are ways of actually practicing intersubjectivity, as a science, or art form, or social experiment, however you feel comfortable looking at it. Any extreme and sustained stances on our own little world-views is most liklely to result in this often bleak lack of common ground between value memes. Whether our worldview is self-centered, ethnocentric, system-centric, or flatland plurality, if we have drawn our own lines, chosen our own compartment of consciousness to dwell in. "I dont understand why those people are doing X. And it bothers me." this has been described as the unending "war of the memes." until one can reach a value structure which allows one to transcend and include all previous value structures, all other value structures are naturally considered "insane" to us. Our value program, if you will, will not allow us to see things otherwise. I mean, look around...the majority of human population is at war with itself, mostly over simple values and perceptions and misunderstandings (which are based on pictures and expections and fantasies that live mostly in our heads). According to quite a few psychological studies, most of us are pretty crazy this way, though we have also come a relatively long long way in evolution of consciousness (though things can also devolve quickly, if conditions present themselves) I cant tell whether you think this of me, or of people in general, when they "let down their guard," "go out on a limb," that sort of thing. so i will address both, i guess I personally have few disappointments in life, and all the crazy crap ive touched. Not because i have justified my bad experiences, but because i have seen most of them through to the end. This involves a wide mix of personal and social practices i have learned in my "walk." Yes, practices, like art forms for the soul. they exist, some are old, some are old old, some are new, some are new new, but they often help many more people than reported, without turning them into culties, or fools. Lives have improved, and gobs of books have been written on the subject. Also, my doubter works fine. But like i have said before, i prefer to carry it in my pocket, not in my hand. Also, i do not forgo critical thinking when something sounds good. Though, just because something sounds good, i am not going to reject it, simply because i have been wrong about what is good or bad so many times before. Point is, i know that your statement does not apply to me, though i freely admit having the kahoonas to try new things. I was raised quite the wild child, in a sense. And this has proven to give me more diversity of experience than most people i meet. To put it plainly, i typically have more data. yeah, seems quite obvious. (ok, are you selling water by the river now?) :P--> a suggestion for those who share your view: unless you always want to play the same role in this stage of life do everyone a favor and maybe learn a few more notes on that flute after all, we are all in "this" together, no? all it takes is practice, really maybe some more knowledge and a will to go for it peace, geo p.s. i'll stick around with all this if you havent lost interest yet you can go point by point, if you like or just give some overall responses im open to whatever btw-please forgive if i take an assumption too far or project my own vista where it may not apply cyber forums are a shallow connection feel free to correct me

wow. thanks for putting it out there like that George and for being so clear about your view of life and reality and who you think you are one question, i guess: do you really want me to respond to it all in detail, point by point? cuz i will try, if you are game (but i will try and answer these more direct questions though) yes and yesthough after what you've just written, i feel it safe to assume you are simply not interested and see little or no value in my experiences, anyway (though i kinda hope i'm wrong on this, and not just because i think you make for a pretty decent foil :P-->)

hi Xena I have not been to one of these workshops, though i am planning on attending one soon. I will try and post a review here. I've only watched video of a Big Mind session, and its such an easy thing to grasp, that once you've tasted it, its not that hard to practice wherever you are. If you play along, there is definately some palpable inward shifts that take place. I've also been to a 2-day "Jungian Shadow Workshop" with my wife, though not quite the same as the 3-2-1 process of Integral Institute. It was a smaller more private group session, run by a sweet old gal (a real "grandma Yoda") in Arizona whose been facilitating such things for decades, integrating it with things like tai chi, collaborative art projects, native rituals, etc.... From the reviews i've read of the wet weekends, i guess the aesthetics and arrangement of the event is something to behold. Minimalist, yet vast and elegent. The facilitators are very human. And the social atmosphere and oodles of new connections with individuals from all over the world is almost worth the price of admission. Also, i can imagine what it must be like to kick it off with Big Mind...because all the states of mind and the states of minds that hold them are fresh and linger throughout the event. I think it is more like swimming in the nakedness of our collective soul. The processes and environment invites a more radical openness, and draws out our buried gifts and deepest truths. Not only does the whole thing very potently stimulate an experience of the inward self, but of the collective interior world. there is a sense of swimming in the stuff of "we" i hope that helps :)-->

hi Roy i always enjoy doodling in your sand with you, friend something to think about...i wonder...have you ever considered how your (and anyone's) scriptural toy models might not only potentially apply to the collective outer world, but apply equally (in a parallel sense) to each and every individual as well? and then also able to be applied to both the inner and outer views of both individual and collective? i think they can be. which is a highly useful but more or less neutral mindset, and already always available (though it might take a bit of practice to get one's footing). because it allows us a basic four primary perspectives with which to view things in general. even as it pertains to the mysteries and metaphors and patterns of old scriptures and wisdom traditions. A more aperspectival cardinal orientation, if you will, marked by the number four in myth and metaphor. maybe take into account how "above and below the firmament" of Genesis has been described as that primary wall between inner and outer perspectives (rather than a planetary earth versus outer space thing) and how Christ seemed to speak of an actual unity (in body and soul and spirit) about as much as he spoke of a sense of God-given precious individual freedom and responsibility (also, in body and soul and spirit) and how that rainbowish template/logos of Christ might not only be the template of wholeness for individual body, soul and spirit...but could also be the same rainbowish template/logos for our collective wholeness as well (as a greater template, being massively made up of ALL those individual Christs within, so that it also grows through the very same stages, only much much slower over anthropological time) also, how some traditions may describe the same division of body soul spirit in other words, but further describe them as sheaths within sheaths within sheathes we must learn to shed (like putting off old garments) and renew (putting on new garments) i also think of this in terms of spiritual birth (like "shedding" of the womb, or placenta) or spiritual circumcision, or any layers of things in life meant to be destroyed so we can be reborn into something new (which is the nature of Christ as offspring...newness) and then add, how this unfolding might happen both above and below "the firmament," and in each of our individual lives, in the same manner as it does in the overall one body of Christ - individual physical body in outer world - individual soul/spirit in inner world - collective inner soul/spirit world - collective physical world of course, of all of them, it seems the inner world is the most overlooked, especially the nature and reality of a subtler collective interior. I mean, if this place "exists," can you imagine what it might look like? Like a glittering organic temple of many many many pillars and mansions, or some such thing. Historically, it seems that quite a few monastic types have described actually seeing such a vast place. They use different language, but the "drawings" are the same. And often times it hangs from above (being the opposite of earth, which grows upward from below), which is akin to that new Jerusalem John finally saw in the end of the book of rev anyway, and i know its quite a complex structure to visualize but i thought you might appreciate it maybe chew slowly, i guess doodle it out in the sand a bit see if you recognize anything familiar

sorry. not trying to drop you from the rafters or anything nice dodge, though, especially for a night owl in the Pacific Time Zone :P--> and quite ha ha funny, too, how you wrote "That verse IS very interesting to me, but I don't know of any apparent contradiction that clouds it." (italics mine)

oh, i'm sure yer smart enough to spot it :P--> also ironic how it ended up verse 111 and there are 3 heavens used in it quite a blinker, imo

thinking of acts 1:11 Bullinger seems to have missed it, too i suspect mostly another common mistake of historic cultural idiom regarding the word "heaven"