It's fun to try to "get there", but it's a rabbit hole nonetheless.
Bob said in the MUM he just posted (
MoM 31 - this is a doozy!! -
http://goo.gl/BR2FL)
that he asked iON if he (iON) could be referred to as electricity. iON said, yes.
Since iON has said that we don't even know what electricity is, the reference really
does nothing / goes nowhere.
I believe Bob (or someone engaging Bob) described the interaction / experience
of iON as analogous to one mirror facing another and reflecting itself ad infinitum.
Perhaps iON is the acoustic version of this visual experience.
He / she / it may simply be a reverberation of ourselves peering into the vastness
of ourselves and calling out, "echo".
There is no difference, and there is no identity.
Using terms for the sake of convenience, it is simply a peering into eternity and
seeing it reflected back.
iON is either a collection of symbols (the printed / written word), or an uttered
sound, which refers to an element of ourselves that exists outside / beyond cause
and effect.
It can be experienced, but it precedes / underlies / is beyond experience.
I'm curious as to whether or not iON is a cause, can create effects / affects, or
is an element outside of, and/ or pervading all things that is incapable of
causes or effects (certainly, which is unaffected by them), unless a vehicle for
iON (us) utilizes that energy to create.
One could argue that the drops are an "effect / affect" iON, well, effected, but
the agent was human / us. The mechanics were human.
Someone has already flipped iON's name around and observed that backwards,
iON is "NOi", or "NO" "i"; meaning, the single (chemical body image) self with
which one used to identify is no more.
This sort of precedes what is to come, which is our fully merging back with our
self / selves, and becoming ONE (with iON / our selves).
Not only will we become one, but the separations (created by language) will cease
to exist for us. This continual self-referencing will end.
As Bob has stated, we are returning to a primal condition / state, where there
won't be this literate parsing of every experience (followed by my painfully verbose,
written exegeses).
What we're uttering here will likely be the last time we utter it, as when we are
complete, there is only oneness.
There would be no need or desire to speak of separateness. It just wouldn't exist.
It (our whole self) is actually a larger, multiplicity, but this definition even falls
short, and will soon become obsolete.
iON has used the word "collective" before, but I would suggest wholeness could
also be called oneness.
On a recent MUM exchange, iON was speaking about tasting cocoa / chocolate.
iON's example was, if you're describing how chocolate tastes to someone who
hasn't tasted it before, it would be more fitting to describe "what chocolate tastes"
rather than "what chocolate tastes like".
So, given this explanation, it might be more fitting as a description of iON to describe
what iON feels.
For those who have experienced / engaged iON, the response might be: bliss, laughter,
joy, orgasm, irritability, headache (more an effect / affect of the drops), stomach ache
(more an effect / affect of the drops), a warm southern accent, a gruff, but
good-humored voice, trepidation, wonder, shock, warmth, vibration, and on and on.
It's like the blind men, who come across the elephant and one says it is flexible like the
trunk, the other it is like a tree (i.e., the legs), or sharp like the tusks, etc.
Talking about it is all well and good, but it's an ephemeral part of the journey down the
river...
In the end, it's best to avoid the rabbit holes and just enjoy the ride.
Login
FAQ
Search
