䷀
You have to be what the other "thinks" you are or you don't exist to them as an individual. Whatta drag, man. Pretending to be what the other expects as a price for their consideration is hard on the soul. I'd just soon not, thank you very much. There's nothing like a good ol' fashioned heartache to change my mind about sharing.
Being taught to share as a child could meand that sharing is a unnatural cultural proclivity that is also hard on the soul/sole. It certainly cannot be done with the innocence of a child, because a child doesn't want to share, and in general, is ready to fight about it in a New York minute.
There has to be something a body don't have to share with anybody at all for either love or money or life just ain't worth living. This somethingness required may be nothing at all. This nothingness appears to be what must be denied as something or it's like blaspheming the docetic spirit which IS the soul.
Making something into nothing is a little different than making nothing outta something, but both efforts are mutually concerned with the extemporaneous creation of a ground or not for Being. It is what it ain't, and it ain't what it is... simultaneously.
To find so-me-thing within a pearl's son (person's) individual control requires an atoned One to take on as much as they throw away all at the sa-me ti-me.
That's tossed word salad at my very best. Serendipitously writing down "pearl's son" as a misnomer for person is a thrill that's illogical as hell, but expresses a certain sort of truth momentarily as if it really could matter within the correct framework.
I write about experiencing in my remembering vision having the appearance of an oyster pearl because the soft luminescence of a pearl is the closest physical object in appearance to a no-thing the pearl actually is because in truth, it has no substance. It just looks sort of like a pearl, but it has attributes of curiosity, volition, and memory.
It uses these attributes to use matter as building blocks to imitate the world it finds around it. What it makes itself into via imitation and me-mi-cry could easily be nay-me-d as it's son. It (the pearl) reproduces itself as so-me-thing its not really, but irreducibly IS. The son or image it creates as it's representative in the sensory dimension can only ex-IS-t via the denial of itself as it's father as God. That's probably sacrilege AND blasphemy in so-me scenarios, but they can only kill the son and not the father.
䷁
I do not attempt to tell the God's own truth here because I don't know what the truth is or hardly ever. I try to capture the drifting thoughts that randomly appear in my imagination for reasons I may not understand. I don't know if the content I capture with these words is true or false. The Comments settings are turned off to prevent me from having to defend what amounts to little more than fanciful, sometime crude speculation. Great moments in our lives never return.
