Is absolute intimacy shared between two beings a foreshadow

[joeecho]

Is absolute intimacy shared between two beings a foreshadow of absolute intimacy that could be shared by all beings with all beings?

Absolute intimacy shared between two effective acts as one but if it is still separate from the rest. It is thus still operating as separate/ alien to another one, two as one or multiples as one......and then, has anything really changed? Perhaps their (two as one) love has become greater but is it really greater then all the others? It is still separate from other loves, so how much greater can it be?

Could absolute intimacy (no exceptions) be achieved and what would it look like?

Would it be indescribable since there would be nothing to compare it with?

Would it be compared to absolute chaos and thus equal but opposite there of?

If there is intimacy AND chaos (alien to intimacy) then wouldn't that prove that absolute intimacy is unobtainable because there would still be an exception in said chaos?

Is chaos's infinite lines that which will always prevent achievement of absolute intimacy? Could it be that all that can be hoped for is the carving out of a paradise in hell/ heaven on earth?

[Abhaya]

Sounds like u are bouncing around in your head. Love knows no reason.


Also no offense intended. Coming from a recovering head ping ponger

[joeecho]

Posted by Abhaya (here)
Sounds like u are bouncing around in your head. Love knows no reason.


Also no offense intended. Coming from a recovering head ping ponger

It would be impossible to take offense to a such an incomplete assessment.

Nevertheless, I do appreciate the feedback.

[Shezbeth]

Just what IS absolute intimacy? Is there such a thing in the first place? Why do you assert chaos is alien to intimacy?

You appear to be trying to deal in extremes that cannot be defined, at last not outside a theoretical basis. In that absolute intimacy between two is an unmanifestable idea, it would seem that absolute intimacy between all beings would be likewise unmanifestable. Could you rephrase without dealing in absolutes (and thereby theories)?

Given the definition of the word intimacy, the only way to have absolute intimacy would be for all beings to have a shared consciousness and perception. In doing so, there is no 'others' for 'one' to be intimate with, eliminating the possibility of adhering to the idea of intimacy. I cannot be 'intimate with myself' without stepping outside the definition of the term intimacy.

I am not following your intent by this/these question/s. One could as easily ask "If two cars became people, does that indicate how all cars could become people?"

If cars could become people, then perhaps yes. I know that is not an exact parallel, but I think it adequately illustrates my point.

Posted by joeecho (here)
Is absolute intimacy shared between two beings a foreshadow of absolute intimacy that could be shared by all beings with all beings?

Absolute intimacy shared between two effective acts as one but if it is still separate from the rest. It is thus still operating as separate/ alien to another one, two as one or multiples as one......and then, has anything really changed? Perhaps their (two as one) love has become greater but is it really greater then all the others? It is still separate from other loves, so how much greater can it be?

Could absolute intimacy (no exceptions) be achieved and what would it look like?

Would it be indescribable since there would be nothing to compare it with?

Would it be compared to absolute chaos and thus equal but opposite there of?

If there is intimacy AND chaos (alien to intimacy) then wouldn't that prove that absolute intimacy is unobtainable because there would still be an exception in said chaos?

Is chaos's infinite lines that which will always prevent achievement of absolute intimacy? Could it be that all that can be hoped for is the carving out of a paradise in hell/ heaven on earth?

[joeecho]

Posted by Shezbeth (here)
Could you rephrase without dealing in absolutes (and thereby theories)?

Are you serious?

Really?

No one is possibly dealing with theories on this forum? Are you saying that with a straight face? Am I missing that endearing wink of yours somewhere?

And you have what that is different then I? Truths? Certainties? Irrefutable facts? Educated dogma?

If someone cannot deal with a question, idea, or questionable idea, that is one thing. To dismiss the post 'as is' is symptomatic of a person with their mind already made up is another thing entirely.

[joeecho]

Posted by Shezbeth (here)
Just what IS absolute intimacy? Is there such a thing in the first place? Why do you assert chaos is alien to intimacy?

You appear to be trying to deal in extremes that cannot be defined, at last not outside a theoretical basis. In that absolute intimacy between two is an unmanifestable idea, it would seem that absolute intimacy between all beings would be likewise unmanifestable. Could you rephrase without dealing in absolutes (and thereby theories)?

Given the definition of the word intimacy, the only way to have absolute intimacy would be for all beings to have a shared consciousness and perception. In doing so, there is no 'others' for 'one' to be intimate with, eliminating the possibility of adhering to the idea of intimacy. I cannot be 'intimate with myself' without stepping outside the definition of the term intimacy.

I am not following your intent by this/these question/s. One could as easily ask "If two cars became people, does that indicate how all cars could become people?"

If cars could become people, then perhaps yes. I know that is not an exact parallel, but I think it adequately illustrates my point.

Posted by joeecho (here)
Is absolute intimacy shared between two beings a foreshadow of absolute intimacy that could be shared by all beings with all beings?

Absolute intimacy shared between two effective acts as one but if it is still separate from the rest. It is thus still operating as separate/ alien to another one, two as one or multiples as one......and then, has anything really changed? Perhaps their (two as one) love has become greater but is it really greater then all the others? It is still separate from other loves, so how much greater can it be?

Could absolute intimacy (no exceptions) be achieved and what would it look like?

Would it be indescribable since there would be nothing to compare it with?

Would it be compared to absolute chaos and thus equal but opposite there of?

If there is intimacy AND chaos (alien to intimacy) then wouldn't that prove that absolute intimacy is unobtainable because there would still be an exception in said chaos?

Is chaos's infinite lines that which will always prevent achievement of absolute intimacy? Could it be that all that can be hoped for is the carving out of a paradise in hell/ heaven on earth?

After thinking about your post a little longer.....


The biggest question I had for myself is why was I even a little surprised by your response (I really had that question)? Not YOUR response per say....but THE response you gave.

THE response really was a summation of what I said in my first post in this thread and I thank you for your feedback.

One of the most entertaining things in this world is when you get answers in unexpected ways.

Peace and Respect,

Joe

P.s. There is no 'other' in intimacy. However there is 'other' in the intimate process but that all falls away upon intimacy. In that moment there is no U, no I and there is no agenda. It would be like they never really existed. And reason for that is easy.....because they never did and never will. In that moment of intimacy the veil is lifted....if only for a moment.

[Shezbeth]

Posted by joeecho (here)
P.s. There is no 'other' in intimacy. However there is 'other' in the intimate process but that all falls away upon intimacy. In that moment there is no U, no I and there is no agenda. It would be like they never really existed. And reason for that is easy.....because they never did and never will. In that moment of intimacy the veil is lifted....if only for a moment.

This statement flies in the face of the meaning behind the words intimate and intimacy. It is essential that there be two (or more) parties to qualify an experience or action as being intimate. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with operating on a theoretical basis, I am saying that what you are describing is not possible as you have described it. I admitted, if there were a smaller impossibility then yes, it would be a foreshadowing of a larger impossibility in scale and ratio, but to what end?

It seems you are intuiting from my post a spirit that is inconsistent with the expressed intent. Additionally, I notice you neglect to respond to very simple requests for further information, from which I might more effectively answer your questions in particular, and the overall query in general.

Additionally, the second paragraph of your OP includes several assertions which are either incomprehensible or unsupportable. There are many 'yes or no' questions that I can only answer 'what?' to.

I'm asking for elaboration, I'm not attempting to balk or dismiss anything. Still, I will admit that given your two responses to mine I am unconvinced that anything constructive will result of my participation in this discussion no matter how I might try to indicate that I simply need more information in order to address the ideas you are presenting.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/intimacy?s=t
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/intimate

[joeecho]

Posted by Shezbeth (here)

Posted by joeecho (here)
P.s. There is no 'other' in intimacy. However there is 'other' in the intimate process but that all falls away upon intimacy. In that moment there is no U, no I and there is no agenda. It would be like they never really existed. And reason for that is easy.....because they never did and never will. In that moment of intimacy the veil is lifted....if only for a moment.

This statement flies in the face of the meaning behind the words intimate and intimacy. It is essential that there be two (or more) parties to qualify an experience or action as being intimate. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with operating on a theoretical basis, I am saying that what you are describing is not possible as you have described it. I admitted, if there were a smaller impossibility then yes, it would be a foreshadowing of a larger impossibility in scale and ratio, but to what end?

It seems you are intuiting from my post a spirit that is inconsistent with the expressed intent. Additionally, I notice you neglect to respond to very simple requests for further information, from which I might more effectively answer your questions in particular, and the overall query in general.

Additionally, the second paragraph of your OP includes several assertions which are either incomprehensible or unsupportable. There are many 'yes or no' questions that I can only answer 'what?' to.

I'm asking for elaboration, I'm not attempting to balk or dismiss anything. Still, I will admit that given your two responses to mine I am unconvinced that anything constructive will result of my participation in this discussion no matter how I might try to indicate that I simply need more information in order to address the ideas you are presenting.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/intimacy?s=t
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/intimate

Cool. Stick with that answer then.

You'll be right all the time as long as you have your trusty pet Dogma by your side. The only problem is, you will not be able to bring your pets in the end. But....

Whatever.....

[Shezbeth]

Since you have my attention for the moment, is/was there some other manner in which I can be of assistance? You seem disinclined to clarify your meaning as requested, and disappointed (bordering on petulant) in regard to my responses. I have difficulty in perceiving what sort of outcome you might have been expected, and regret that I could not respond to your liking.

I suggest that chaos is what makes intimacy so significant. Two (or more) dissimilar entities (re: origin, disposition, agenda, direction, etc.) who through a series of 'circumstances' align in whatever capacity. Intimacy can combinative or oppositional. An argument or disagreement can be as intimate as an assent or agreement; any type of exchange or interaction can be intimate.

So to further address the question of "could absolute intimacy be achieved" I must still say no, in observance that even the most extreme experience/expression of intimacy would at most be as finite as the individuals participating. Given your choice of wording, absolute intimacy would require two infinite participants. As for what that would look like, I cannot say; I only know of one thing that is infinite.

[Milneman]

Could you provide me with a clear, concise definition of what you mean by intimacy, chaos, and how these terms change with the inclusion of the word absolute? Because if I take your meaning to be what I think it is, I experience absolute intimacy every day.

[NancyV]

When I think of a definition for "absolute intimacy" I think of merging. When merging with another being or plant, tree, animal, whatever....you become one with it. I can relate to this from my own experiences of merging while in body and while out of body with other beings and while in body also merging with trees, the earth, animals, etc. But we do need a definition for "absolute intimacy" in order to know what we're talking about.

As far as merging with other beings completely while in body, it is a state in which I cannot function well physically in the world, so I definitely would not want to be in the experience of merging with others often or with many. In the times when I merged with different people consciously while awake neither of us could do anything but sit there (or make love if it happened during sex) while experiencing being two beings at once with all memories and emotions of each. Perhaps with more practice one could learn to function better in this state. I did find that I could function while I experienced merging with other living things such as trees and animals and the earth. But being in a state of bliss like that and still continuing to function has some major challenges, not the least of which is looking like you're very high on LSD or some other psychedelic love drug.

I prefer merging with or having "absolute intimacy" with other beings while out of body. I have total control when out of body as the "light body" or higher self body is easy to control with your will power, unlike the physical body. I once was in a dimension where we ALL were connected/merged and just slightly separated as glowing balls of light/energy. There was no time and we were pretty much ONE, but I still retained the will power to extract myself from that place and go elsewhere.

I don't think having absolute intimacy in this world is easily attained nor desirable on an ongoing basis. This is a world of separation and duality which does not easily lend itself to merging. Yes, we can all DO it, but I don't think it is natural to this dimension whereas it is completely natural in the astral and higher dimensions. Being in absolute intimacy includes telepathy. I definitely do NOT want to be telepathically connected to all the people here. We humans have way too many conflicted, fearful, petty, ignorant, warped and sometimes evil emotions, thoughts and desires to make it comfortable knowing what others are thinking.

Of course I can only look at this from my own perspective and there are probably very advanced beings who can live in a state of bliss and still function in the world. But I would guess that most of them retreat to caves or some hiding place in order to live far away from most people. I've lived in a state of bliss for several days or weeks at a time...it ain't easy!

[TargeT]

Posted by NancyV (here)
I don't think having absolute intimacy in this world is easily attained nor desirable on an ongoing basis.

I think this would be the anti-thesis to this "experience" (reality). I heard an awesome quote recently that really rings true:

Existence is the ecstasy of dichotomy.

so in our differences and separateness we experience exactly what we are here for, the wild emotional chaos of femininity paired with/against the decisive cold logic of masculinity; yin and yang etc... The joy in the experience of up and down.


Dichotomy helps support both paired sides even when one side is taken to excess, perception needs contrast to experience either of the pairs fully, this exactly why the "life satisfaction" of people is equal in the slums of India with the middle class of America.

Perspective, and the effect dichotomy has on it are why we are here, and very probably why it is said (or stated) that other entities are jealous of this opportunity we have which they do not.

Remember, it's just a ride....

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=iMUiwTubYu0

[NancyV]

Bill Hicks really got it! That's one of my favorite videos of him.

[joeecho]

Posted by Shezbeth (here)
Since you have my attention for the moment, is/was there some other manner in which I can be of assistance? You seem disinclined to clarify your meaning as requested, and disappointed (bordering on petulant) in regard to my responses. I have difficulty in perceiving what sort of outcome you might have been expected, and regret that I could not respond to your liking.

I suggest that chaos is what makes intimacy so significant. Two (or more) dissimilar entities (re: origin, disposition, agenda, direction, etc.) who through a series of 'circumstances' align in whatever capacity. Intimacy can combinative or oppositional. An argument or disagreement can be as intimate as an assent or agreement; any type of exchange or interaction can be intimate.

So to further address the question of "could absolute intimacy be achieved" I must still say no, in observance that even the most extreme experience/expression of intimacy would at most be as finite as the individuals participating. Given your choice of wording, absolute intimacy would require two infinite participants. As for what that would look like, I cannot say; I only know of one thing that is infinite.

I follow what you said in one manner of thought but I disagree entirely with you on another. You're using binary intelligence which has it's advantages and uses but also its trademark limitations.

You answered all of my questions by answering none of them and to me that has great value. Thanks.

[joeecho]

I cannot thank you enough NancyV and TargeT for taking the time to post..... what you posted really connected with me and just what I needed at this juncture.

[Shezbeth]

Posted by joeecho (here)
I follow what you said in one manner of thought but I disagree entirely with you on another. You're using binary intelligence which has it's advantages and uses but also its trademark limitations.

You answered all of my questions by answering none of them and to me that has great value.

While you may follow what I have said, I am still at a loss in ability to follow what you have; am I to assume you are disinclined to at least attempt to clarify your meaning? Perhaps this will clarify my confusion:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/absolute?s=t

Admittedly, perhaps this is one of those cases where no matter how effectively or accurately something is worded and expressed, its comprehension is ultimately dependent on the recipient's understanding and perception of the words and ideas in its 'decoding' (so to speak).

When using the term absolute - likewise with the term intimacy - in a non-specific manner there are a number of possible interpretations.
1. Absolute as opposed to relative; lasting and permanent
2. Absolute as opposed to limited; infinite in respective scope
3. Absolute as opposed to contested; unopposed

Regarding intimacy:
1. Intimacy as opposed to separation; physical merger (romantic/sexual intimacy)
2. Intimacy as opposed to difference; commonality of perception
3. Intimacy as opposed to formality; alluding to rapport and precedent

I could further expound on either term, while already I have produced 9 possible interpretations of the concept of 'absolute intimacy'. You state that I have already answered the question yet I feel I haven't yet begun to from inability, that I am capable of far more; would you consider doing me this courtesy? I would be happy to theorize if I were certain in which 'direction' I was to.

[joeecho]

From the help/ reminder I have received on this thread, I can summate an answer to my own question......

"Could absolute intimacy (no exceptions) be achieved and what would it look like?"

Absolute intimacy cannot be achieved because it was never lost to begin with. There is only the illusion that it had or is lost.

Humpty Dumpty never had a great fall.

And even a shorter answer...

It 'looks' this THIS! (what U and I both see)


I got lost in the woods, thanks friends for helping me get back to the House at Pooh Corner

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=vjIYTd_lJqs

[TargeT]

Posted by joeecho (here)
Absolute intimacy cannot be achieved because it was never lost to begin with. There is only the illusion that it had or is lost.

Exactly, and apparently it is a desired illusion... the whole point of being "here".

[joeecho]

Aye, my friend, aye!

Quite a 'place' this is...indeed.