However to only express this mystical connection as something personal, as something private, is to disrespect it in a totally different way, which is to do it a disservice in a totally different way: by limiting it, by confining it. I'd like to expand on this.
The idea of a mystical connection connotes my Self in a profound state of connectedness ie in a profound state of union with your Self. And that definition of a mystical connection is good enough for jazz almost always in most conversations ... almost always, except in this conversation it lacks rigor.
Where this definition of a mystical connection breaks down is in its naïve conceptualization. The very idea of my Self as separate and different than your Self is revealed, after rigorous examination, to be patently false. There's only one Self ... which completely defiles the notion of a mystical connection being either personal or private.
While the way it shows up for me is indeed both personal and private (and the way it may show up for others may also be both personal and private), in truth it's neither.
So I'd like to recontextualize (I love that word) our mystical connection like this: my mystical connection with you is also my mystical connection with everyone - that is to say, it's also my mystical connection with the one Self everyone really is. But it's more than that really. It's our mystical connection is also your mystical connection with everyone ie it's your mystical connection with the one Self everyone really is. But it's even more than that. It's our mystical connection is also everyone's mystical connection with you. And it's also everyone's mystical connection with everyone.
To express the idea of a mystical connection in any other way is to be totally unclear on the concept. And here's the thing (if I may add): it's your brilliance and your generosity and your genius and your relentlessness and your unflinching integrity which enables the idea of what a mystical connection really is, and renders it totally and unambiguously and unmistakably clear and openly available for everyone. I love you for that.
"someone who attempts to be united with
..." is not the same order of things as "someone who
is united with
...". In the
there's only "Be united with
or "Don't be united with
There's no "Attempt to be united with
(as Yoda the Jedi
may have said).
Furthermore, "someone who attempts to be united ..." naïvely
reinforces the notion of separateness, as well as the notion of
there's more than one - but there's only
one (as the Highlander may have said).
stated "someone who is united ..." instead of "someone
who attempts to be united ...", merely "being united" falls short
of being united and also generating united-ness
like a possibility.
I do. Really. That said, "... united with
..." is simply too fraught with
association, interpretation, meaning, and significance to be useful
- and all I mean by that is it's difficult to listen "... united
..." newly and freshly ie with
in your universe (yes?) so I'd prefer to refer to you explicitly
|5)||For my concerns about "... prayer ...", see my point #4. However prayer is really a kind of conversation (yes?) so I'd prefer to refer to it explicitly this way.|
|old||:||someone who attempts to be united with God through prayer||--- Cambridge International Dictionary|
|new||:||someone who sources who we really are as conversation||--- The Laurence Platt Dictionary|
|Communication Promise||E-Mail | Home|
|© Laurence Platt - 2013 through 2017||Permission|