• This page is changing constantly: do not cache : instead reload
(if you should learn to do this will your toys of knowing, you will achieve a form of liberty more valuable than any other skill)

12.08.03

 

o:0:o

[ different dolls]

If you look closely at the toys humans play with, you will find that dolls are of an importance vastly beyond anything anyone has come close to saying about them. There was this one gentleman, Julian Jaynes, who had some rather interesting threads of question to pursue along these lines, but very few people paid much attention to what he was speculating about, and attempting to reveal in this regard.

The idea of putting dolls within dolls is interesting, but I am certain you can see that this idea did not originate with humans, but was instead a rather playful (and possibly often frightening) recapitulation of what they experienced with(in) and around them.

For example, if the Earth was ‘a doll’ she would be giving birth to billions of scales of other dolls — many of which would contain, for example, 200 trillion other dolls (like you), and so on. A sort of ball-doll covered with babies filled with babies. Assembling, dividing, and trying to make more of less, more or less.

But that’s getting a bit too complex. What I’d like to recommend is actually startlingly simple, and it has something to do with how things were with humans long ago.

Most dolls today — modern toys for example — do not contain other dolls.

What I mean here specifically applies to dolls of humans. In other words, a doll of a baby is a single doll — and this is considered ‘correct’ — the same way a doll of a soldier is ‘a single doll’.

Humans learn a lot more than might be imagined from their early relations with toys of this nature. I’d like to recommend something that sounds silly, but I am quite serious about — not as a dogma, but as a toy of understanding that — if activated heartfully and playfully — could bring great change and new understanding with merely a slight attenuation.

What I’d suggest is this: from now on, ‘most dolls’ would no longer be single dolls — in a special way.

In other words, if you want to change your world — to save your planet, and change what you understand about what it means to be and become human — it’s extremely important to examine your dollies. One way the dolls might change (there are many similar changes that could bring profound liberty) is thus:

Each doll of a human would contain two other dolls:

1. One doll inside the belly would rePresent (by common agreement, or tradition of explanation) ‘The living child of Earth’, and would contain ‘all of the beings alive before you and around you on Earth’, embodied uniquely — as you (in your bellyYou).

To look into the eyes of this doll would be to see all of the plants, animals, insects — all of the organisms of Earth (every moment and position of every one of them). And it would be ‘known as a child’ who is ‘also you’ (inside).

This doll knows ‘all of what earth knows’ — the way a child knows.

2. A second doll inside the head would rePresent ‘The living child of the Celestial Sources’. This child would be the expression of all that is vast and nonlocal — and eternal — a sovereign yet local incarnation of the unityBeing.

To look into its eyes would be to see into the identity and character of the Sun, and the ‘great celestial progenitors’ with(in) the ‘maiFamily’ or the ‘biggest source family’. This doll knows ‘all of what the cosmos knows’ and is ‘the child of the unityBeing’, and thus ‘best friends’ with the maiFamily. Its eyes lead ‘to the place outside of time and location entirely’.

Both the inner dolls exist in worlds that relate with time as though it were ‘already all here’ and thus form the metaphor of a ‘local instance’ of a transtemporal sentient hyperstructure — and one that is not mechanical, but instead a ‘family’.

This metaphor is crucial for all children to have direct experience with, and the opportunity to elaborate together. Because it is ‘more like what they’ (and you) are than the models you commonly empower, or enthrone over one another.

If ‘many different dolls’ all conserved such a feature...your children would become something your scientists would consider utterly impossible.

They would become like the dolls you gave them.

And then they’d start teaching you something that makes what you call ‘science’ look like blurry charcoal scratches on a rock.

o:O:o

With such dolls — even when the other two dolls were hidden away inside the ‘main doll — to look into the eyes of the ‘big’ doll — would be to see all of history, all of life — beyond time — into the Sun, and past all forms to their magical assemblies and characters.

And it would be the same as a toy of looking into the eyes of any living being.

Your toys tell you most of what you can believe about yourself. When you change the meaning of your toys, and their shape, and your agreements about them...everything else about you changes in unison with the character, momentum, and circumstance of your experience and relations with all other forms — but especially those forms with eyes, and more especially living eyes.

o:0:o

It is perhaps most important to consider this: the ‘separated dolls’ you make and learn yourselves with...also magically change your minds. The same way the magical dolls I suggested would — except in reverse.

Rather than granting you metaphors that allow you direct access to and support for the exploration of your birthrights — then encage you in a tiny sliver of your real connectivity.

And that connectivty is the only treasure — in any universe.

Think about the same questions — in relation to the language you use — and how you were taught to assemble it into ‘tokens of relation’ or ‘communicable knowledge’.

: home :