The purpose after full comprehension of itself?

[Soul_of_Shu]

PS: Sorry Shu. Keep counting. This one has staying power.

Whatever staying power it may have, I doubt that by now the vast majority here, if they're paying attention at all, have not already watched the video, and so posting it repeatedly doesn't mean that anyone is watching it repeatedly. At this point you might as well be continuously posting replays of the Our Father prayer for all the clicks it's going to get.

[Lou Gold]

PS: Sorry Shu. Keep counting. This one has staying power.

Whatever staying power it may have, I doubt that by now the vast majority here, if they're paying attention at all, have not already watched the video, and so posting it repeatedly doesn't mean that anyone is watching it repeatedly. At this point you might as well be continuously posting replays of the Our Father prayer for all the clicks it's going to get.

Ain't about clicks bro. It's about easy reference. Those last couple lines tell the story. However, when it comes to prayer the ritual intention is to repeat them endlessly. Choice is a good thing.

[Cleric K]

Ain't about clicks bro. It's about easy reference. Those last couple lines tell the story. However, when it comes to prayer the ritual intention is to repeat them endlessly. Choice is a good thing.

Finding the place of choiceful-choice already?

[Cleric K]

Thank you Lou, for your story and your beautiful painting,
I'm genuinely happy for the way your life events have unfolded!

[Soul_of_Shu]

It's about easy reference. Those last couple lines tell the story.

Might as well make it your signature ... even easier.

[Lou Gold]

It's about easy reference. Those last couple lines tell the story.

Might as well make it your signature ... even easier.

That would make it seem as a preferred prayer when all are good.

[Soul_of_Shu]

That would make it seem as a preferred prayer when all are good.

In that case thanks for not posting them all, as sometimes less is more

[SanteriSatama]

Everything should be a symbol for meditative experience.

I assume we agree that symbol is not just any sign, but a part standing for whole?

The abstract terms must be read.

Can symbol-part have self?

we must find what they are handles for

Doors?

Can self be a gliding grade?

In any line of mathematical reasoning we experience a progression of states of being that follow one another like domino pieces.

How about In plane of mathematical reasoning?

[Cleric K]

I assume we agree that symbol is not just any sign, but a part standing for whole?

Well... it could be any sign but it's simply more convenient if it is in some way related to the experience we describe.
The heard sound 'pain' stands for the inner experience of pain. There's nothing painful in the auditory sensation of the word. So it is with any picture of inner experience. Here's what I mean by picture. Edward de Bonno uses this often. If we imagine a landscape that is being overflown with waters, gradually some places will erode more than others, gravity draws water more to deeper, more eroded places and little by little canyons with rivers form. We can use this picture for inner experience. In the course of our life we begin with our waters going in many different directions - especially in childhood. As we grow up, the waters form their canyons (which would correspond to the most often used patterns of spiritual activity). Gradually, on one hand it becomes more effortless for us to think, because everything is channeled by conditioned pathways but on the other, we sink deeper in the canyons and lose sight of the more general panorama of possible paths that the waters of spiritual activity could take. Now this is a picture in the spiritual scientific sense. Clearly, there are no waters, rocks and canyons in our inner experience - all these are borrowed from the spectrum of sensory life. But nevertheless, for anyone who is capable to encompass their inner life in the above way, this picture makes sense, they know what's being talked about. They don't confuse the inner experience for a sensory canyon, just as we don't confuse felt pain for the auditory perception of 'pain'.

The word 'state' points to concrete concept but it's difficult to grasp it in isolation. When I baby shuffles the toys in front of it, we have different states, different configurations of the toys. The concept of 'state' points at any specific configuration of sense perceptible toys. A state of being points to specific configuration of sense perceptions, inner bodily perceptions, feelings, thoughts, will, but also includes the sub/unconscious context of being, even if this context is usually not perceived.
Now there's a problem. A state of toys is easy to grasp because, as long as the baby is not touching them, we have a static configuration. But if the baby keeps playing, there's constant change. So it is with the the state of being - it is in constant change. The frozen snapshots are only idealizations in thought. As long as we don't forget this, we can use them safely. These are the 'handles'.

We can't speak of sound in a frozen instant of time. We need to encompass at least some number of oscillations (in the audible range) in order for them to be experienced as monolithic tone. It is similar with the states of being. We can speak only abstractly of them as some zero-time-length slices of experience. They are more like slices of change. Both zero-length-slice and slice-of-change are only helping constructions in thinking. As long as we use them as means to point towards real experiences, we can use anything that works.

Can symbol-part have self?

The self is where there's affinity between the outgoing and incoming wave. There's a self when willed becoming (change) resonates with perception of change.

How about In plane of mathematical reasoning?

Yes, this would correspond to higher perception of the math canyons - something like the black and white trees of theorems. Now the metamorphosis of this higher perception is still a stream of becoming.

[Lou Gold]

The dialogues in this thread suggest an aphorism:

Holding our contradictions
with love
accomplishes more than
trying to resolve them.

Metaphysically, this suggests how "holding with love" (conscious acceptance) can sometimes generate more effective action than "trying to resolve them" (materialist resolution).

If it boils down to Jungian "individuation" versus Marxian "synthesis", I would bet on some of both.

Bridges require two sides. Duality and nonduality need each other. Masculine and feminine. Seed and plant. Potential and manifest. Construction and deconstruction. Materialist tech does both. Consciousness inspires and limits. Always both/and. It's called love.