Lately what I've been trying to focus on is what can be *experienced*. The truth can be described in thousands of words but really it is an experience. We're really talking about you getting to the point where you can experience happiness, experience love, experience peace, experience God. God is an experience.

So what this means is looking at what you are experiencing NOW, and looking at what tools you can practically USE to actaully shift your experience to a happier, fuller, more truthful/authentic one.

And this has nothing really to do with what you are thinking about what you're experiencing or what's going on around it or what you should be experiencing, but the actual direct immediate experience - your feelings, your psychological reactions, your perception of reality, your union with God. What is reality to you right now, in honesty and not trying to 'please' Jesus?

This isn't done on a mental level or in terms of theory or discussion. What you really need is practical tools that WORK that bring about a real TRANSFORMATION of what you are experiencing. You are meant to LIVE the truth, not just talk about it. You're meant to actually feel God's love, live in God's love and be God's love.

What I've been seeing also is that when you try to be or attain a goal or theoretical truth that is too far beyond what you can actually EXPERIENCE, all of your energies start to flow into the intellect because they aren't grounded or rooted in what is real to you. You try to grasp at it and affirm it and think about it and make it seem like you understand it but you're not actually *experiencing* it because it's outside your envelope. It's very easy to conceptualize 'oneness' but, are you actually fully omnipresent and experience absolute unlimited psychological access to every part of existence? Nope.

I can testify that I went to great lengths in my mind and intellect in understanding the Course and the metaphysics and the high-level statements of truth and how it all fits together and all that. I was looking for some kind of a way to experience truth by having the biggest or best thought about it, or the widest grasp of where it fits, or the most abstract or subtle aspects of what Jesus has taught about the truth.

But even when I thought I really really really was getting it and understanding it, mentally, it was NOT followed by a result of experiencing love, or experiencing God. It did not bring peace. And it was like getting to the end of a path that you thought would lead you to the truth or to God only to find out that it does NOT lead there.

It doesn't lead there because its a journey in thinking and intellectualizing rather than the much more real, direct EXPERIENCING of truth. So I had to learn this, the hard way, that it can't be all about the talk or all about the theory or all about the metaphysics. It IS okay to seek for understanding (ACIM says understanding is appreciation of the truth), but you can't EXPERIENCE it on a purely theoretical level.

When we're not actually dealing with what we are experiencing - the immediate interaction of you vs what's in front of your face right now and how your mind is having a RELATIONSHIP with it - then it moves away from here-and-now and becomes removed and distant, turning into just a theory or concept.

Your head, your intellect, is quite capable of handling concepts and theories and thoughts about them, but its as though the intellect is an artificial ego device to be separated from reality, from the here and now. I would find myself tending to even intellectualize my feelings, transferring emotional energy into my head and trying to process it there through thought. Instead of feeling. Instead of experiencing.

I've also seen people get caught up in what they 'should' be doing or are supposed to be believing, launching into 'trying' really hard to force yourself to be those things, without ACTUALLY being able to do so. It creates the spiritualized ego. And when asked questions about what they are experiencing now or what they are really feeling, they are disconnected from it.

They will respond about what they think of it or what it means or what they think they're supposed to say or what lofty course idea they're meant to believe, but they don't REALLY believe it. They don't REALLY mean it. And they're out of touch with where they're really at, cut off from FEELING. Feeling is much closer to being than intellectualizing. But people don't want to feel. They don't want the immediate experience of reality, preferring to be buffered against it by all of these intellectual walls of thought and guilt and shame and force and pressure and ... using the wrong tool for the job.

What you may find as I have, as well, is that what I can experience has certain boundaries that prevent me from experiencing anything too far outside my 'comfort zone'. My mind won't stretch that far. If there's a suggestion to be or do something that I'm just not ready for, there's no way I'm going to be ABLE to do it yet alone willing to do it.

You can be willing enough to take small steps from where you actually are to where you want to get to next, but giant leaps are next to impossible. And when you try to make giant leaps before you're really ready, you will BYPASS, which means you're in denial about what you're really believing and experiencing and are pretending to be further along than you want to admit to. It's the ego that tries to throw you into 'advanced spirituality' before you are really ready or willing or able to actually BE it, because it wants the prowess of 'mastery' without ACTUALLY letting go of enough ego to experience it truly.

So you need to stop, go within, and look much closer to home, much closer to where you are realistically at right now. What are you experiencing right now. What are you feeling. And this is where you have to be really honest. Do you REALLY believe what the course is saying? Probably not. What do you believe instead? You have to work through this stuff. You can't pretend not to have blocks to awareness, you have to ACTUALLY look for them and acknowledge that they're there and then work on transforming your beliefs/viewpoints/attitudes so that you can ACTUALLY be free of these blocks.

They don't go away by sweeping them under the carpet, or by using denial, or by shutting them out, or making yourself unconscious, or bypassing to a level of advancement you're not ready for. There is nothing to be ashamed of in admitting that you are NOT the advanced spiritual successor to Jesus just yet. If you don't acknowledge what you're actually experiencing then you aren't going to be able to change your experience. And I think that's what this is all about - transforming what you are experiencing so that you can experience something better. And this means dealing with the 'reality' of your situation, not some ACIM-driven fairytale about how spiritual you are or how lofty the concepts are or what you are 'supposed' to be like.

How do you feel? Where are you at? What is honestly true for you right now? Have the courage to look at it, feel it, experience it, be with it. Acknowledge how fucked up you are. Then re-interpret your evaluation of yourself and transform your experience of yourself into a genuinely higher version of yourself.

Authenticity.

I had a stream of realizations and insights and healing this morning, into how I used someone else abusing me as a way to deny God's love. It has to do with the "key to salvation" - which is that I "did this to myself". I'm skipping way ahead to the conclusion so I'll explain how I got there.

Years ago I was abused by someone close to me on more than one occasion and it hurt a lot. Emotionally I felt hurt, rejected, abandoned, unloved. I was angry at them and could not forgive them, nor did I want to. I thought it was all about them and what they did to me.

The past week or so I've been having intensified emotional releases (cries) really tapping into the core of these feelings. I wasn't in any way ready to forgive this. Sometimes you just have to feel the feelings fully first because the intense 'energy' really pulls your awareness away from any kind of clarity or willingness. And especially resisting releasing hurt feelings blocks any kind of desire to have insights. So I felt.

This then gave way to some readiness to take a closer looks so I invited Holy Spirit to help me to look at it. I looked at what the person did and how that made me feel. I saw that it made me feel unloved and unworthy, just feeling bad about myself like I wasn't good enough to be loved. Guilty. Sinful. But I knew that somehow I must've had a hand in these beliefs - that I must've gone along with them somehow. I was willing to admit that I believed and agreed to these views of myself. Since the other person was withholding love, it must've meant to me that they didn't believe I was loveable so I went along with that and saw myself that way.

But what I then saw was that this belief in unworthiness/unloveability wasn't just some kind of description of myself, but that it had BECOME myself. I believed it was WHAT I was - as though I was somehow made from unlove. I still at this point couldn't see how the other person being abusive could in any way be helpful to me spiritually, but I was willing to let Holy Spirit continue to guide me toward that awareness.

As I saw myself agreeing to the suggestion that I was unworthy - the 'proof' that I was unworthy - I began to realize this couldn't be true because, at least in theory, I am worthy of God's love. So I started to then go over some of the things I believed, but in a context of it being not true. So for example, it's not true that I don't deserve love, it's not true that I am made from unworthiness, it's not true that I am abandoned or rejected, it's not true that I don't deserve to be happy. A few things came out of this including the belief that I didn't deserve happiness, didn't deserve to express myself, wasn't allowed to be myself, should be afraid of expressing myself or being free in case it happens again, being afraid of punishment, etc. So I added these to the list of what is not true.

It was then that it started to dawn on me. I knew that in theory God wasn't the one who rejected me, and that it was me who had been denying God. Suddenly it was clear - this supposed belief in unworthiness, and the supposed scenario of it being put in place by someone else's abuse, was in fact a COVER UP. I actually wanted to believe I was unworthy. I wanted to believe I was not loveable. I somehow did not WANT God to love me. I saw that I'd chosen to believe I was not 'made of' loveable material so that I could demonstrate that what I was wasn't loveable by God. I was trying to prove that God couldn't love 'this' by portraying myself AS unworthiness, AS unloveable-ness.

And with this it became clear also, that I HIRED and USED the abusive person to not just do stuff 'to me' but to do it to me FOR ME - on my behalf. At some point I organized events so that this person would come along and be abusive because I wanted to have a way to JUSTIFY and explain and rationalize WHY I am not loveable. I hired them to act the part and play the role. And I had been blaming THEM for being the perpetrator when, all along, it was me that had ASKED them to do this. This was the key to unlocking the illusion that I'd been *unfairly* treated, victimized, or attacked against my will. Clearly if I wanted this person to be an attacker and to reject and hurt me, it would ALLOW me to position myself as not worth the love of God - so that I could fulfill my hidden agenda of denying God's will and being separate. Jeez.

So now it was possible to simply acknowledge/recognize the innocence of that person - to overlook seeing them as sinful or guilty (forgiveness) - that they had not done this to me against my will. And this is where the next thing came to me. If the attacking person is not guilty because I hired them to do this on purpose, because I wanted to be able to justify why I should be separate from God, and if God also was not involved because He remains unconditionally loving at all times... then... who is there left to pin this on? Who is responsible for this? I AM. When there is nobody to blame and I can see the choice I made... it was ME. I did it.

I saw myself as 100% totally responsible for having chosen this, having organized it, produced it, made it happen - in effect, as having requested it, WANTED it, and chose it. I did it to myself on purpose! I wanted to be unloveable so that I could be what God does not want so that I could have an ego life. The whole purpose of my conspiracy was to scapegoat the attacker so that I could cover up the fact that I 100% chose this. I can't very well keep blaming anyone else when I can see clearly that I asked for it, literally. So what did this leave me with?

If I'm 100% responsible for trying to deny God on purpose, and for arranging attackers to give me reasons to PROVE why I am separate from God, so that I can JUSTIFY my failure to forgive, then that means... I'm the one left holding the baby. I'm the one who made the choice. I'm the one who DID THIS TO MYSELF. And with nowhere else to go, and nobody else to scapegoat, and no way to blame it on God, being able to see I did this to myself made it immediately obvious what the next step would be. It was ridiculous to keep doing this. It was stupid to have done this in the first place. I simply had no choice but to ADMIT I made a mistaken choice, to STOP making this painful fruitless choice that I no longer wanted, and to LET IT GO. I could not let it go if I still wanted it, and nobody was forcing me to do so for any reason - I had to be willing to choose again, to decide, to surrender this choice I'd made on my own and let Holy Spirit choose for me.

The truth was I had been trying to deny and reject God with my secret plan and that I did not want to be worthy of love. I had always thought I had umpteen reasons why I wasn't worthy enough because of other people or wasn't able to be myself freely in case someone abuses me or whatever... And all along it was really secretly me making EXCUSES for why *I* didn't want to be loved anyway. It was all because of what I was doing to myself. It was all a smokescreen to cover up my decision to not be loveable. So. .. To let that go.... FREES ME, not because I'm somehow freed from other people's tyranny, and not because God suddenly changed his mind, but because there really WAS no one else making me be unloveable other than my DECISION to be that way.

I can choose again. I can choose to stop doing this to myself, this silly game, since it is FUTILE, and I DO NOT LIKE IT, so I can just drop it like a hot potato. And what's the result of that.... Accepting and admitting that I AM LOVEABLE and WORTHWHILE and perfectly accepted already by love. It was never about me not being actually loveable, it was always about ME DENYING the love. Denying God. Pretending there was a reason to not be loved. It's bullshit. I admit it.

So freeing - to set yourself free - to realize you were free all along. To reclaim love and be free to be who you really are. Game over.

This also interestingly parallels the discussion about the fact that we choose death - that all death is suicide. The truth was that my unloveability was MY DELIBERATE CHOICE because I WANTED to deny God. Everything else was a coverup job. This is the death wish. The decision to be beyond love's reach - beyond life's reach. And the reversal of this wish for death is a choice to BE ALIVE. This is a reclaiming of and a step towards accepting immortality. Immortality is already the truth, it's just a matter now of removing all of the denial and deliberate choices made against it.

You may not realize it, but almost everyone in the world has adopted a very unnatural way of thinking. It is based entirely on separation. And this thinking massively distorts A Course in Miracles.

It starts with very simple logic. That "EITHER" this is true, "OR" that is true, but "NOT BOTH". Another way to put this is "this is NOT that", "they are not the same".

This is what we call EXCLUSIVE logic. This thing excludes that thing. One thing is not another thing. Two things are kept apart, excluded from each other. The whole ego thought system runs on exclusive logic, because it was the attempt to EXCLUDE (deny, separate, shut out).

Another way of putting this is the idea that "nothing is shared", as if everything has to be kept in separate isolated boxes, like prisons. What is one thing, must be kept apart from another thing. And this produces what we call "duality".

So then we think along the lines of, "either this is true or that is true, but they can't both be true." Or that "I can choose this or that but not both."

We use this pattern of thinking all over the place. It maps very well to the physical world. Physical objects are a projection of the ego idea of separation, that all things are separate and everything is different. This is really the logical idea of "GOD IS NOT" .. the negation of heaven's reality - opposite to "GOD IS".

For example, I can turn left or right, but not both. A banana is not blue. My body is not your body. I can move up or down. A car is not a house. I can park in the first space or the second space. I will eat the red apple or the green apple. I choose between a vacation in Florida or California. An apple is not an orange. A dog is not a cat.

This seems to work fine in this world. The world itself is a system of exclusion and separation, because it is a projection of the idea of separation. It has produced a world where everything is different. And where it seems that one thing is not another thing. This is the illusion of form. The problem is that we now use this way of thinking about EVERYTHING. Even when thinking about things which are NOT part of the separation, such as God's reality.

The really big problem is that heaven, God's Kingdom, the Sonship, DOES NOT comply with an "either/or" kind of system. Heaven is about INCLUSION, not exclusion. It is about sharing, not isolation. It is a system which runs on a VERY different logical basis.

Heaven operates on a "BOTH/AND" kind of structure. Where BOTH are true. Where the truth applies to one thing AND another. Where two things can SHARE everything. This even means that one thing can be two things simultaneously, and two things can be one thing simultaneously. Nothing is required to "stay in a box by itself."

The notion of separate boxes does not apply to the Kingdom. It is not divided up by SPACE, because there is no space or time. Things in heaven are not limited, or required to exclude each other. They are not isolated to separate prisons, kept apart, or separated off.

EVERYTHING in reality abides by an entirely different system of logic. This system of logic is part of the thought system of God. It is how God himself thinks and creates. It is totally opposite to the idea of "either this or that". It TRANSCENDS boundaries.

For example, what is true of God is true of the Son. The truth is the SAME for both of them. What is true of one son, is true of another. This forms the Golden Rule. There is ONE truth, which ALL things share. And sharing is a fundamental property of reality.

True sharing means, that the whole of something, transcends all separations and walls, and is fully present in ALL locations. It's not a matter of "is it this or that". It's more a matter of it being BOTH this AND that. BOTH/AND is the system of heaven, and "NOT BOTH" or "NEITHER" is the system of the separation.

For example in the course we're told that ideas can be shared and both the giver and the receiver can have the same idea, leading to an increase. That by sharing, or joining, two beings can both have everything. That by giving, you in fact receive, rather than lose.

In an either/or system, EITHER you can have something, OR the other person can have it. This is true of spacetime, but it is NOT true of heaven. In heaven, even if you give everything away, you KEEP it. This is how God was able to create you, by giving ALL of himself, and yet still retains all of himself. In ego terms, God should've ceased to exist if he truly gave all of himself.

The only way to understand how it is POSSIBLE, for both me AND you to have everything, is to think in terms of both/and. This is called paralogical reasoning - you can google it. If I give everything to you, we can BOTH have all of it. We now both share the entirety of it.

This obviously transcends boundaries because, the ego would reason that whatever I give away I lose. If I give you half my pizza, I only have half a pizza left. But in heaven, this does not apply. We can BOTH have the WHOLE pizza at the same time.

In A Course in Miracles, every subject and discussion related to the ego's realm of separation, can be thought of USING exclusive reasoning. Because it is a system of separation. However, as soon as you start to think about anything PRE-separation, about heaven or reality or God or the Sonship, or real relationships between created beings, you CANNOT USE IT.

If you do, you in fact will end up with two things happening. 1) You will project "required separations" where they do NOT exist. 2) You will fail to acknowledge separations where they DO exist. An either/or process of reasoning does NOT map to heaven, and is completely distorting of it and blind to its nature. They are INCOMPATIBLE.

This especially happens for example when people try to understand the idea of the "one son". There ARE indeed many statements that God has only one son. But, there ALSO are many statements that God directly created many sons. In reality, permanently, as brothers. This is the full scope of the course material. Jesus says BOTH things are true.

So then what happens is, people start to think WITH the ego about this. They start looking for separate boxes. They want to put things into one box, OR another box, but not both. So they'll think, ok, it seems more whole to say there is only ONE BOX, and so the "one son" statements must be true. And since TWO boxes seems to be "a separation", the idea of many sons must be false.

This is however a complete logical failure. Heaven is not structured by boxes or separations like this. One son, is in fact, another son. EACH individual being God created, is in fact, ALSO, the other beings.

"One brother is all brothers. Every mind contains all minds, for every mind is one. Such is the truth." (urtext W161L4)

So we see a lot of SEEMINGLY contradictory statements, which in a both/and system are NOT contradictions. Like this:

"God has but one Son, knowing them all as One." (urtext T9E3)

What is going to happen to this if someone uses either/or reasoning? You'll say, EITHER, God has one son, OR, God has many sons. And that they can't BOTH be true. You will likely side with the one son part, and relegate the "them all" to some other realm of separation, such as part of the ego or dream or split mind. This is an error.

It is in fact true, that God has one son, which IS MADE UP OF, many sons, which is the Sonship. And these many beings ARE many in number. BUT, they are not JUST many, like in duality. They are in fact SIMULTANEOUSLY ONE. EVERY son of God, is THE ONE son of God. EACH son of God, is Christ. They all SHARE themselves, so fully and completely, that they ARE each other, while STILL also being many individuals. THAT is what A Course in Miracles clearly states.

What you have to then do is recognize the limitations of how you think, and realize that you need to adopt a HUGELY different way of thinking, if you are to understand anything to do with reality. Any subject to do with pre or post separation, cannot be thought of in either/or terms. If you do, you will DISTORT IT.

This distortion has led to all manner of completely false conclusions. Such as, that the one son split into many parts in the separation. This is not true at all. God created many children BEFORE the separation even happened, and each of those children IS the rest. They all share each other. This sharing is their oneness and unity.

This has also led to the distorted conclusion that there is only one son at all, and therefore that this only child has dreamed of being separate. This is NOT TRUE. "Christ has never slept". The one son DID NOT go into the separation. Only some of the individual parts did - some of the sons of God. This is explicitly stated in the course.

The wrong kind of thought process also leads to the false conclusion that you, in this world, are the only son of God, and everyone else is just "you". As if they don't really exist as independent beings. This is FALSE. This is not what A Course in Miracles teaches. It seems to make sense to those who think with the ego. In truth, the dream of separation is a collaborative dream by many sons of God, who were brothers BEFORE this even happened. And other people DO have free will.

So you have to beware. Watch your thought process. Look at the kind of reasoning you're doing. ANY time that you are in the "either this or that" mode, you are prone to massive errors. Because it is an unnatural, separation-based way of thinking. You are in fact thinking WITH THE EGO when you do that. Thinking with the ego, about NON-EGO things, is going to totally destroy the true nature of those things.

This is the sole reason, in my opinion, why so many people are so confused about ACIM and its teaching. Everyone is assuming that heaven is an either/or state, like spacetime. That's its sort of a second spacetime, with the same reasoning and logic and thought process. It is NOTHING LIKE IT. It is totally alien to this world and how this world thinks.

The world simply thinks backwards and with the ego, and we have to learn another way to think. Human thinking is ALIEN TO the way God thinks, the way heaven is formed, the way the sons of God relate to each other, and how reality is structured. Using an ALIEN thought process to think about what is NATURAL, is going to show you thinks seeming to make sense which are totally nonsense. What makes sense to the ego is nonsense in truth. And the ego's truths about heaven are totally nonsense.

The course is trying to get you to think in a way that is TOTALLY OPPOSITE to how the world thinks.

"This IS the miraculous power of the Soul. The fact that each Soul has this power completely is a fact that is entirely alien to human thinking, in which if any ONE has everything, there is nothing LEFT." (urtext T3G15)

"This is not the way the world thinks, but you must learn that it is the way you think." (urtext W17L1)

"There is only one way out of the world's thinking, just as there was only one way INTO it. Understand totally by understanding TOTALITY." (urtext T7H12)

"This is the first idea we have had which is related to a major phase of the correction process; the reversal of the thinking of the world." (urtext W11L1)

"The resurrection is the denial of death, being the assertion of life. Thus is all the thinking of the world reversed entirely." (urtext M29A2)

"Yet it is the final lesson in which Unity is restored. It goes against all the thinking of the world, but so does Heaven." (urtext M15A3)

"Today's idea, completely alien to the ego and the thinking of the world, is crucial to the thought reversal which this course will bring about." (urtext W126L1)

"This has been emphasized throughout the text and the workbook, but it is perhaps more alien to the thinking of the world than many other ideas in our curriculum." (urtext M5H1)

"To give up all problems to one Answer is to reverse the thinking of the world entirely." (urtext M5J1)

"The world will end when its thought system has been completely reversed." (urtext M15A4)

In ACIM we're often talking about "the separation", or being separate. This is a way to describe a divide between two things. But another way is to refer to two "opposites". Heaven and hell, life and death, reality and illusions, etc. The separation was an act of opposition against God, producing an opposite state of mind.

When we're in a "separated state", we're in a state of opposition. This means we have an opponent, which we are totally un-like. And it also means we are at war. And because we are un-like our opposition, we do not "like" it. And this produces great tension.

When there seems to be opposition, there is tremendous temptation. The more extremely opposite two things are, the more they contradict each other and are in conflict. They can be in a state of extreme disagreement. In this disagreement, there is a maximal likelihood or temptation that conflict will arise, given how much the two seem to be at-odds with each other.

Tension arising from arguments, disagreements, conflicts, debates, righteousness, defensiveness, denial, protection of one's truth, opposition to or disbelief in the enemy's view, is all very likely to induce a form of war. There will be fighting and bickering and hatred and weapons being thrown and a taking of separate sides.

It's very difficult to "stay out of" such a conflict, when faced with extreme opposition. And the more they oppose you the higher the temptation is. If someone is digging in their heels and does not want a single shred of what you are offering, for example, there will be a stand-off, rejection, a communication breakdown, and a high chance of attack. They may want death, while you want life, but it won't stop them from trying to destroy you.

In this world, things which seem more alike or have something in common, seem to also experience an illusion of less conflict. I found this to be true when, for example, a person who was highly obnoxious and aggressive decided to walk a road with me one day. This person would take up a very opposing position of rebellion and anger, and this would produce a high likelihood of temptation and a flare-up of aggression. He was easily triggered due to his unhealed pain.

I decided on this occasion to pretend to be like him. So I sort of acted like him and agreed with him and spoke things he might speak, even though what I was agreeing to was not what I believed. And strangely this person started to see me as a friend or ally. I was actually doing this to try to protect myself at the time, but it showed me that it's really the distance or contrast between opposites that incites violent reactions, and so long as I did not "oppose" overtly, this person didn't target me at all.

There is similar temptation in ACIM circles, on any forum or discussion. When someone believes something opposite, particularly if it is wildly or deeply opposite, this produces a great temptation. Someone who is very patient, forgiving and calm, can perhaps resist the temptation. That takes some profound mastery. Someone who can't keep their cool in the face of intense conflict and contraryism, however, will likely lose it. How do you not be tempted by extreme evil? "One ring to rule them all"?

There is the most temptation or "tension" when something is completely opposite and contradictory. This is as if to say, someone is 180 degrees from you across the table and going head-to-head. There is also tension from misunderstanding, when someone is at 90 degrees, whereby the two do not look at anything from the same angle, like they are talking entirely different languages. They conflict more on a basis of not even understanding what each other is saying.

You'll perhaps notice that all the wars in the world are generally based on two parties very strongly disagreeing. They oppose each other. One tries to suppress the other to protect their own truth. They don't see it possible that they can live together in peace or accept each other's extremism. And just the mere existence of the other seems enough justification to destroy their heinous hedonism.

"Tension" is that sensation of very strong discordant energy between two opposites, and as each party has a stand-off and doesn't want anything to do with each other, it intensifies the tension. It's as though they rip apart from each other and pull on the fabric of existence in an effort to put as much distance between them as possible. The sense of resistance and rejection of each other heightens the tension, until breaking point.

The opposite of that tension is peace and harmony. But this can only exist either when the two opposites are able to be totally at peace with other without trying to disagree with each other, or when there are no opposites. It should also be obvious that you can't really hold a position that disagrees with someone else and be at peace. Like "let's agree to disagree" is really just a standoff, not an agreement. Either you have to be inclusive or you will be exclusive. And the only way to truly agree is that both believe exactly the same thing.

This all seems to be the same basic temptation presented over and over again in many forms in this world. Groups of people disagreeing with other groups. Nemesis and enemies going at it all over again. People getting heated because they think their beliefs are under attack. The sense of offense and hurt from other people seeming to be against your ideals. Everyone trying to correct and destroy everyone else that is different to them. Conflicts based on different bodies and genders and so on. The whole world is riddled with such temptations.

"Everything the body sees is a form of conflict." - ACIM

Sometimes when there is less contrast between two things they seem to get along. ACIM refers to them as allies, where the two are still in subjective egotism, but because their egotism "matches" they become in a way blind to each other. Neither of them "stands out" in opposition so they seem to be in harmony. But it is an illusion of harmony between two equally insane individuals. And if one of them defects, the claws come out and they scream betrayal.

Atoms and molecules conflict with each other, just by being different. Difference IS disagreement. Bodies conflict with each other just by being different. The first law of chaos is that the truth is different for everyone, and everywhere, and for everything. Every single particle of matter is different to, therefore in conflict with, every other. Everywhere you look, everything the body sees, mountains and forests and oceans and cities, it is all conflicting in its form. To be unalike is to be discordant and at war.

"The world was made as an attack on God."

"For this world is the symbol of punishment, and all the laws which seem to govern it are the laws of death."

And so where there is conflict or difference of opposition, there is temptation, because there is extreme disagreement. Difference IS attack. And if you buy into the opposition or give it any power whatsoever, you set it up as an enemy in your mind. And then you will feel attacked by it, and will be attacking yourself, and will retaliate defensively, trying to preserve your sense of truth.

All special relationships demonstrate this. They're all founded on an illusion of peace, brought about by two conflicted individuals, who are at war with the world, finding an escape from the conflict seemingly with each other by having something in common. They hide from a mutual enemy together in the confines of an exclusive relationship prison.

"When two INDIVIDUALS seek to become ONE, they are trying to DECREASE their magnitude. Each would DENY his power, for the SEPARATE union EXCLUDES THE UNIVERSE. Far more is LEFT OUTSIDE than would be taken in."

So you've got a world of differences which tempts war, and two people who are at war with the world, who "take sides" together because they see an absence of war in each other, because they both are warring in the same way. They both hate the same stuff, they both exclude the same stuff, and so they are narrow and closed off in a similar way. And this produces an illusion of love. The same happens when siding with political parties or sports teams or segments of society or religions.

But this love is very volatile and unstable and riddled with conditions and contradictions. And if any of those conditions are not met, it quickly devolves into the special hate that it's based on. If one person even decides to be more unconditionally loving, the other conditional person may see this as proof of defection, and that the other is against them and unwilling to hate with them. And then it's bye bye relationship.

I think its probably true of most people that we tend to avoid conflict and try to create an illusion of peace in life. A safe house to live in. A way to avoid sickness. An avoidance of bad people. Trying to eat the right food. Staying away from known threats and dangers. All to try to pretend that the world is not a world of conflict, to make a nice comfortable corner in the desert where you can hang out with a false sense of security. Until shit comes knocking.

True peace can only come from a transcendence of opposition. But it has to also come from "taking sides with God". That doesn't mean being against anything because in God there is no opposition. God is all encompassing and love has no opposite. It is really only the opposition to God that believes in opposites. This is why the ego attacks and hates the Holy Spirit but the Holy Spirit completely ignores it. He doesn't attack the ego at all, He just shows you that it is invalid.

To take sides with God is to be vigilant for his truth and his Kingdom. It means to believe only what God believes, if God had beliefs. To know what God knows. To be under no laws but his. To recognize that opposition is truly fiction and there is only one real world, one reality, one truth. This light then shines and shines away the darkness of rebellion and of sin and war. And in the final recognition that there is no opposite to love, conflict disappears forever.

We often talk about the versions of the course, the editing, whether all the facts are included etc. And then on top of that we try to understand its metaphysical model, its concepts and ideas, and argue over which model is the right one.

But what we should perhaps really be more concerned with is whether true information has been lost. ie whether we have the whole truth represented in word form, or whether key detail has been lost.Information is ... the minimum amount of detail that is needed to represent something with perfect logical accuracy.

In its simplest form, for example, let's say there are two squares next to each other. One is black and one is white. You can distinguish that there are two, because they contrast to each other. This contrast is information. If you were to, for example, color both squares white, you cannot tell whether its one square or two squares. Information has been lost.

In information theory, which is used for such things as data compression algorithms for example, and also in science, there is something called entropy. Entropy is a measure of the absolutely minimum possible size that the information can be, in order to fully and accurately represent something.

When you have files on your computer, or images for example, you can "compress" them. Usually this is based on representing larger repeated things with smaller symbols. You can get back exactly what you started with by "de-compressing" it based on the symbols. But this can only be done up to a point. There is a threshold at which you CANNOT compress the files any smaller, without losing information. All the "information" needed to fully describe the image must be retained in some form.

With images for example, the jpeg file format is not an accurate representation of the image. It LOSES ACCURACY as a trade-off for making the files smaller. The more accuracy it loses, the smaller the representation becomes, the blurrier the image is. It starts to develop artifacts which are visual errors. From that "overly reduced" data, you CANNOT get back the original full fidelity and quality of the original image. Key accuracy of information is LOST.

When we conceive of truth, when we try to describe reality, or talk about God and his creation etc, these lofty and rather abstract metaphysical ideas, the temptation is to make the representation of that truth, the symbol of that truth, be as SMALL AND SHORT as possible. We somehow think that less is always more, and that "simpler" must be more true. This is NOT true. TOO FEW words is INACCURATE.

When an accurate representation of something is reduced SO much, it has to in fact LOSE very important detail. The information becomes blurred, vague, generalized, overly abstract, and really does NOT contain the subtle nuances that are actual aspects of the whole truth. It may SEEM like it represents the whole of the truth but it doesn't. It's an APPROXIMATION, like a jpeg image, which is "sort of close" to being accurate and gives you some idea of it, but IS NOT accurate.

Examples of this happening include "reductionistic" statements like "Everything is God." Well now. For some reason that sounds all mystical and special and lofty. But, such a vague statement lacks enough detail to be accurate. You cannot GET BACK the full story when you BASE logical conclusions on this information. The reconstruction of the whole story is corrupted.

You could say for example, well, it seemed like the Son of God feel asleep and dreamed of death. But ... since ITS ALL GOD.... THIS MUST MEAN, logically, that God HIMSELF fell asleep and dreamed of death. That is absolutely what it implies. You can argue that "no it doesn't" but all you're doing is trying to pretend that it is accurate because the BS alarms are going off to indicate errors. The fact is that the information that's given is NOT ENOUGH, it DOES NOT accurately represent the whole truth, and it's too vague.

MORE WORDS IS BETTER! Or perhaps we can say, you want ideally the fewer number of words which FULLY AND ACCURATELY represent the whole truth. I you can be sure this is not going to be 3 words or even 20 words.

So yes, even in terms of thinking about abstract spiritual stuff, even in terms of oneness, god being all, everything is mind, son and father blending into each other, going beyond words and concepts... all this stuff.... when you are USING LANGUAGE and logical constructs to THINK about it..... and you strip SO much away that you start losing vital information, going BEYOND the entropy threshold, you are literally turning a detailed and nuanced truth into a blob of mush and mud and blurriness and meaninglessness. Because you think that is what spirituality is like .... this oneness thing... must mean, we only need to use one word. Not even close.

There IS an entropy limit beyond which you cannot go, in logical reasoning, in discussion, in theorizing, in metaphysics, in conceptualizing reality, where if you DO go beyond it, you have chopped out SO much information that you're not even really talking about the whole truth anymore. You're making a vague approximation which is NOT accurate enough. And it is therefore MISELADING. The more you push it towards eradicating as many words as possible, down to like "everything's God"... you have seriously censored significant major truths.

If for example I have a flower with 6 petals and I tell you that I have "a flower", but I don't tell you that it has 6 petals, in your mind you may envisage a flower with 8 petals. You are wrong. I did not give you enough information to represent the whole truth about what I have. There is information loss. I have been TOO VAGUE. I have reduced the accuracy of the representation of truth BEYOND the limit of information entropy, and have gone into the realm of a LACK OF TRUTH. A loss of precision.

It is funny then that when we talk about "its all one thing", we are actually LACKING truth, while pretending to talk about truth. We are not being accurate because we are not giving enough information. In fact we're trying to SPIRITUALIZE WORDS by having the fewest words possible. Less words is not more spiritual! In fact less words can be corrupting and destructive and a complete misrepresentation of the truth.

There are some people that go so far with their stripping away of any notion of anything informational - which usually means anything separate-sounding - any contrast or delineation or division or any notion of a "something" or two of anything.... that they enter a logical realm of total abstract bullshit. It devolves into meaningless drivel with specialness all over it. Ego loves to do this because it thinks a count of one is more spiritual than a count of two. It's concept of truth is flawed.

If for example it is true that God has at least one son. And if we say that this son IS God. And that is ALL that we tell you. If we tell you that is the WHOLE truth. Then someone is going to think ok.... the son IS God, so.... when the son fucks up and dreams of death and imagines murder, this must be God doing it right? Sure thing. God is now dreaming of death. We weren't specific enough or accurate enough.

It's a nice idea to imagine that God is this total 100% abstraction which is SO abstract that there is NO detail to it, no properties, no structure, no qualities, no characteristics, nothing. Just a nice blob of existence sitting there all by itself. That is NOT an accurate enough representation using words and symbols and language. It is a massive information loss. And God DOES in fact have properties, qualities, a "nature", a premise, law, mind, thought, causation, will, love, etc. The attempt to reduce truth to NOTHING, is an attempt by the ego to destroy the truth!

We HAVE to understand that God is for example infinite and absolute. We have to properly specify what God'e nature actually is before we can start basing conclusions on it. If you knew that God is causal and a creator, you would also know that God MUST have creations which MUST in turn have creations. The logic in this is utterly impeccable. But you can't see that or come to that conclusion is you DON'T specify that God is causal, or that his creations have to inherit through extension, or that he is a creator at all.

So when you become too vague, thinking it is spiritual, thinking you are representing truth more, thinking that "its oneness" is the most spiritual thing anyone has ever conceived of. ... it is not true. You CANNOT go that far into the loss of information and represent the whole truth using language and logic. But people are doing it all the time. "It's all God" ... well, sort of... but no. It's not. God has creations. "God is everything" .. well.. sort of, but no. God is not an illusion. Did you specify that? You need to.

So in terms of the editions of the course and the editing and the words in the book and the repetition of concepts and ideas and whether it contains ALL distinct information, fact, accuracy, precision and is "complete" informationally, you really need to think more in terms of ..... is there a full and accurate representation of the whole truth here. Is there ENOUGH words to represent the whole message. And that does NOT mean there should be too FEW words OR more than is needed. More words is not always an improvement either.

We might ask if something has been LOST, vital information, which is not repeated, which is missing, and that without it the picture is incomplete. It doesn't matter so much if the same ideas are presented many times, or if the concepts taught are built upon by others, etc. We need the whole accuracy and full scope of the truth, enough description to leave no loopholes, but we don't necessarily need 550,000 words to do that. But what matters is when you become SO reductionistic that you chop out VITAL information and disappear up your own arse.

So perhaps we can steer away from all these super-short ultra-vague trying-to-be-mystical statements of vagueness, and instead realize that you HAVE to use enough words in order to fully communicate an idea. You can't JUST say "God is" at this level and expect someone to understand that this DOESN'T imply that God is a piece of dog poop on the sidewalk. A more accurate, more detailed definition is needed, to close loopholes and stop logical errors from happening. This is why ACIM is presented as rather a lot of words, and not just one.

The course tries to represent a picture of the whole truth. It tries to talk about God and his nature. It doesn't do it in 2 words. It does it with a great many words because Jesus knows that you CANNOT represent the nuances of reality in such a small number of symbols. There is a certain level of entropy to this. You can't properly represent God, creation, kingdom, sonship, holy spirit, souls, your creations, eternal life, immortality, etc... in two words.

It has nothing to do with a person's inability to "grasp the truth of oneness" either. No one is grasping the truth of oneness by using the word oneness in a sentence. Oneness actually encapsulates rather a lot of details which you might not think are a part of it. Oneness doesn't forego God having a son. But it implies that there is no son at all. That is wrong. It is not an accurate representation and not enough information. The son is literally lost in that formulation.

Nor is someone being "all spiritual" just because they talk about God as if he's SO abstract that you can't say anything about him accurately at all. We might as well say that God is so beyond everything that you can't even say that God is beyond everything. What then? If you're GOING to use words, and language, and logical arguments, you CANNOT REDUCE IT beyond a certain point and expect to be accurately representing it.

God is ... much more than... just oneness.

The metaphysics of ACIM is not something that someone made up, it is not an interpretation, it is not subject to someone's opinion, and there is no room for questioning it. It is not one of many possible definitions of the truth. It is THE truth. Either you understand it as it is and accept it as logically true, or you are in denial and confusion.

Metaphysics are FACTS. The thought system of the Holy Spirit is completely logically consistent, as is the thought system of the ego. There is absolutely no room for interpretation. What is "true" can easily be determined by looking at the logical structure of what has happened and where things fit. If you master the metaphysics, you will be able to extrapolate the logical thought system to explain absolutely anything in its correct perspective.

What happens after the separation from God is completely 100% logical. Everything that happens after separation MUST happen, and it MUST happen in a very specific way. The effects of separation are not varied or one possibility among many. There is only one way to separate, there is only one scenario which comes about when separation seems to have happened, and there is only one outcome.

If you can learn the fundamental, completely logically consistent metaphysical structure of the separation, it gives you a framework in which everything else fits into place. A Course in Miracles is teaching this metaphysical structure, but it is not always very obvious. Its obscure nature tends to lead people to not even realize there is a solid "core" to the Course or that you can use this structure to perfectly explain everything the ego does, the meaning of death, and what MUST be true based on it.

For example, separation from God is not possible, because you cannot be somewhere that God is absent. God is everywhere. This immediately tells us that, logically, to believe that this IS possible is insanity. It also must tell us that to believe in such a separation is to believe in a DREAM, a fiction, something which is false or not true and not real. This is already the beginning of some very solid metaphysics, and many people grasp this basic starting point.

But then there is a progression, because as soon as there is a belief in separation, the ENTIRE ego thought system can be logically described and predicted for how it will operate, what it will perceive and believe, what it will value, and everything else about it. Even such things as special relationships, special hate, unconscious guilt and so on, are not just things that happen to be a part of the situation we're in, they MUST ABSOLUTELY FEATURE in an experience of being separate from God. There is a completely LOGICAL progression of thought and circumstance which HAS to come about when there is separation, which leads to all of these things.

Jesus describes some of this in the Laws of Chaos, where he says that first there are separations into individuals/bodies, then this MUST give rise to the perception that each individual is different and therefore lacking, and this MUST then give rise to a sense of competition because others have something you lack, and this MUST mean every individual is sinful for the attack that their "independence" inflicts on each other, and you then end up trying to "get" from others what you lack, by valuing what they lack and trying to possess it - which is the purpose of "specialness" and leads to all special relationships. All of this is a completely logical progression. It's simply what must happen and must unfold based on the separation having taken place.

Another example is what happens right after separation in terms of the split mind and how it becomes at war with itself. If the mind believes in separation, in order to be separate from God, it MUST have separation within itself. There is nowhere else for the separation to be. So the mind becomes divided, believing in "self and other". This MUST mean that WILL is also split, and this MUST mean that both of those parts are in conflict. There are two wills operating seemingly separately or with separate goals, since they logically cannot be the same or in agreement otherwise they could not BE separate. They MUST be at war with each other. They MUST be in a state of conflict. This conflict leads to ALL expressions of war and attack and vengeance and eventual death. It all progresses completely logically.

The metaphysics also shows that what once was a single whole mind, or whole self (Christ), must have become divided and split apart following separation. This mind that believes in separation thus gave rise to multiple illusions of individuals. The illusion of these individuals BEING individual is completely dependent on a strong illusion of the ways they are different, and as this illusion of difference becomes stronger and more established, it turns into what we call "form", which is what the BODY is. So a body is actually a logical progression of the thought system of separation and MUST come about if the separation has happened. Bodies are just very strongly-believed-in fragments of mind appearing separate and unique in order to maintain the ongoing breakdown of wholeness. This is also why bodies are a "picture" of the destruction of Christ, made as separation devices to keep individuals apart and therefore keep Christ from being whole.

There is no guesswork here. There are no opinions. There is no interpretation. This is simply a completely logical, consistent development which takes place. If there is a separation, it has "features" which come from it quite "naturally" and which are completely unavoidable. They are not optional. Bodies, worlds, special relationships, death, sickness, it is ALL a "natural" part of a thought system of separation. The metaphysics recognizes this and gives a perfectly consistent structure to it. The metaphysics can explain WHY all of these things come about.

As you learn the metaphysics, which is somewhat deeper than just "the words" of the Course, you will acquire a kind of template or set of simple laws which you understand to make perfect sense. These can be somewhat abstract so it can require some learning to "generalize" the learning and realize that it's all based on a simple set of logic. But once you then "get" the simple logic, you can now USE that simple logic to examine absolutely any aspect of life, any activity or purpose or way that something happens, and describe it in terms of what the METAPHYSICS says about it, which will be the truth. Irrefutable truth. Provided your grasp of the metaphysics is clear and consistent and you're not making subtle logical errors, the metaphysics gives you VISION to be able to see the truth of what's happening or where things fit together.

For example, recently there have been discussions about whether you can be at peace with death. There were many opinions given. None of the opinions were relevant. The only truth is in what the metaphysics says. In the metaphysical truth, the body is a separation device, it is an illusion, and it is within the mind of Christ. It blocks and hides what is behind it and its only function and purpose is to maintain the illusion of the mind being separate. The metaphysics also tells us that since God is life, and being opposite to God is the separation, separation MUST be death. It also must be a fiction of death - a dream of death. It HAS to be. It also tells us that therefore when the body is "alive", the body is still inside a dream of death. This also tells us that the death which occurs at the end of "life" is just a symbol for death, because what happens before it is also death. This is why Jesus says "death is not an end, it is a continuation."

Also since the metaphysics teaches that death is the opposite of life, and life and peace are one, and therefore death is not peace, we VERY SIMPLY can conclude that it is IMPOSSIBLE for there to be death and peace at the same time. This is irrefutable, perfect logic. This is the truth that the metaphysics tells us. It has nothing to do with anyone's opinion, anyone's lack of understanding, anyone's version of what they think is true based on their so-called experiences, or anything else. It CANNOT be true that death and peace are the same thing or that they truly can be 100% experienced at the same time. Yet many people have tried to justify that they are at peace with death or have come to accept it. They MUST be in denial. The metaphysics makes this clear.

Another simple truth which you can conclude based on the simple metaphysics of separation, is that the split mind is in a state of war BUT it also simultaneously NEEDS that war to continue, in order to maintain a sense of being less than whole and of having an opposite. If truly the opposition were completely wiped out of existence, there would be no more possibility of being at war, and war is entirely founded on being separate and having a split will. So on the one hand, the ego now is constantly trying to attack and be opposed to the "other", but at the same time, it MUST KEEP the other as an enemy for as long as possible. It does not want war to actually SUCCEED, it wants war to be CONTINUOUS.

This is a simple logical conclusion based on the metaphysics of separation. It's not my opinion or someone's interpretation. Therefore all states of conflict and war entail people choosing to suffer for as long as possible. It also means that if one group of people wins the war and totally wipes out the opposition, there would have to be PEACE, because without an opponent there is no basis for fighting. To end the war would thus truly undo the separation, it would be the undoing of those who tried to wage war, and this is not what the ego thought system wants. This is all simple logic. So if someone comes along and has a discussion about war or conflict or attack, if you grasp the metaphysics you can use it to explain what MUST be true about war and conflict.

The separation from God is an entirely CLOSED SYSTEM. There is no room for accidents, there is no room for multiple opinions or interpretations. There is only the FACT of what has happened. You can accept it or you can deny it. If you have a solid grasp of the metaphysics you can DEPEND on it so much that you can TRUST it and you can use it to discern whether people are saying bullshit or whether they are aware of the truth. It also however requires that YOU not be in denial and you not be making logical errors. And the fact is there are a lot of people making a lot of logical errors. Sometimes they are quite subtle. But when someone thinks they know what the truth is but have not quite got it, they will defend it to the death and it must produce war.

Metaphysics reveals that there is only one truth. There is no room for error. There are facts, and that's it. You don't get an opinion. You don't get to interpret it to fit what you want it to be. You don't get to change it. In fact, this extends to your relationship with God and the fact that you keep trying to believe that God has changed His mind about you, or that you can change God. Both must be logically false. But that doesn't stop us believing otherwise, because we are insane. To not get the metaphysics is insanity, and the ego will use it to confuse you and delude you.

There is so much "insight" which can flow out about all kinds of topics if you will just learn the fundamental basic structure of separation. It also reveals to you that there really is only one problem, one dream, one solution. Illusions of how certain things seem different or unique or unlike each other, calling for a special explanation, can be "seen through" if you have the metaphysics right. You will know what to trust, and how to discern. You will be clear about what is true and what is false. You will also be amazed at how you're able to use the metaphysics as a powerful TOOL to give you the truth - what MUST be true - based on what you have learned is logically consistent, EVEN IF you have never thought about the particular topic before. The metaphysics will tell you WHAT IS the truth of the situation, and MUST be true about it, regardless of whether you even believe it yourself.

This logical consistency also builds upon itself. It's like, if you have this blueprint and you use it to place the first few pieces exactly where they belong, then you start being able to draw further logically consistent conclusions from it. It's like a jigsaw puzzle, where if you start out with the correct corners and the correct edge pieces, all of the other pieces can be correctly positioned and discerned, leading to a completely consistent whole picture. It's almost like effortless learning. You don't need to keep learning lots of individual separate modalities or pieces of information. You just get this one 'guidance system' which is the light of truth, the thought system of the Holy Spirit, which puts into perspective absolutely everything else. You switch on this one light and ask IT what is the truth, instead of being in the business of MAKING UP what you want the truth to be all the time, and it will very obviously and clearly tell you exactly what the truth is, from a clear and consistent perspective.

This is also why it is imperative to surrender your egoic attempt to always be the one who decides everything, to always be the one who decides what things mean, to always have your own opinion, to always be running "your own life" which you see as a possession of your own separate from God's will. Trusting Holy Spirit/God is trusting the metaphysics of the truth. The metaphysics completely correlates to the Holy Spirit's thought system. As you trust IT, you are trusting HIM. And as you begin to THINK WITH it, you are thinking WITH HIM, and you will start to have thoughts which are in line with, compatible with, and consistent with, HIS way of thinking, which is perfectly supportive of the metaphysics. The metaphysics of truth IS the way that the mind functions from a true perspective.

So our opinions mean absolutely nothing. Our separate viewpoints are an act of war. Thinking we know that our interpretation of the Course is right, unless it actually IS in line with Holy Spirit's thought system, MUST be a state of denial and MUST entail the authority problem - the ego trying to be the one who determines what is true or not. Only the truth is true. We can accept it, or we can be in denial. If we are in denial, believing we know the truth, we are mistaken. You can accept God's love, or you can reject it, but you cannot change it. You can deny that God is real but that won't change the metaphysics of reality whatsoever. You can pretend all you want, but ultimately, all of reality is a CLOSED SYSTEM with no options and no alternatives. It is what it is. Trying to make it be something it is not, is ego, and WILL produce the illusion of death.