[Elspeth Crawford]

It seems impossible to reply without getting in to long answers.

I wrote a post here https://transitionalspace.wordpress.com/2021/05/07/to-value-uncertainty-in-being/ which is long, and contains some of my thinking about that contronym word “duality”. When you say non-duality it appears to mean a logical opposite to Descartes type of duality, while the contronym use of “duality” refers to an entity that contains two qualities. This has nothing to do with separation and split. This thinking follows David Bohm and his concept of implicate order – and Bohm’s dialogues seem to speak to Jungians like Geigerich who bring a “universal soul” forever dynamically coming into BEING [like your being?] in which our wee individual souls – or the elephant’s soul or that of the wasp all play a part. Such thoughts do change the way I am and the ways I interact – in living being.

Verbal doesn’t work, unless the person hearing already knows something of the grace and gratitude of this experience. Then we all try so hard to pass it on!

from the post referred to above:

What if we truly could feel ourselves as nodes that have emerged in the field of being, consciously aware of the perspective we choose to see, consciously aware that making the choice limits us?

Why limits? Following the quantum uncertainty principle: a
node that has emerged in the field of being is either aware of itself
and its position, but cannot at the same time be aware of its direction
for action. The nature of the observation affects that which is
observed.

It seems to me that many dislike the thought of being limited and veer away from this soul’s truth.

[Elspeth Crawford]

Thanks Don, Isn’t this one of many ways of “practice” ? I will look for answers from others too. My only problem is with the possibility that without an other to stay with oneself, various practices can create more individualism and then its even worse result, entitlement. How do you counter separateness? I realise as I write that I am sounding unbelieving and critical when in fact I want to enhance and encourage what you aim for – being in the whole meaning of that word. McG uses a word “presencing” in various places – he ascribes it to RH which to me is less important than what is being described as happening. eg TMWT

p. 1112 … internalism is a mistake, and that consciousness is located not inside us, but in a non-spatial ‘betweeness’ created by our attention and the object of our attention. It is, therefore, always a partial revelation – and partly, also, a creation of the act of experiencing – but our part in it does not negate its reality: that is reality. Reality is always coming into being. A true presencing of something, not just a re-presentation.

[my italics]

I like, in ordinary world,, things like “active listening” or “having an observer self”, both of which are starters to push on the door where a mind might start shifting its mode of attention, and enable “presencing”.

All of this goes with a philosophy of NOT being individual – more a fairly stable pattern in the energy flows we are all in taking parts of them in me and me may enter into them. [a whole other reply would mention indigenous belief that the mountains trees animal insect etc are similarly in the flowing]

Elspeth