The real drama is the war going on between the two sides in the total self!

Lead me from dreaming to waking.
Lead me from opacity to clarity.
Lead me from the complicated to the simple.
Lead me from the obscure to the obvious.
Lead me from intention to attention.
Lead me from what I'm told I am to what I see I am.
Lead me from confrontation to wide openness.
Lead me to the place I never left,
Where there is peace, and peace
- The Upanishads


*note* amazing essay from Dimitri Halley,whom reaches the same conclusions I've arrived to long ago..while studying the nature of the universe...a must read!This guy KNOWS!..so much for those whom think they are ,,zer spirit,, and ,,we are all one,,..yes,we are all one on the spirit level,but we are all egos too,on the manifestation level.The ego is transformed,and KNOWS!...that is immortality...what the ego knows?..it knows it's origine(aka..zer spirit).ponder,grasshoppers!..because you have 2 choises 1.wait for some saviour to do the job for you,while you relax  like Buddha under some tree,or beg some gods to help your ass(and refusing by that action to become a god)..and 2..take responsability of creation and use the divine in you(aka spirit or Tao) to create...and be the loving immortal.
Thus spokenth the mahayogi,while flexing his mighty wisdom muscles!
-added by danny-
.................
FROM POINT OF VIEW TO FIELD OF VIEW
& THE MYSTERY OF THE EGO
Dimitri Halley
Summary
We keep using the same system of thinking and expecting different results. A form of
thinking is proposed here in order to reach beyond the old dualistic system of thinking which
is based on points of view and sense of separateness between observer and observed. In
this article an approach toward a more complete grasp of reality is explained in terms of
what is called a field of view. 

The field of view is juxtaposed to the point of view, which is
argued is inherently one-sided and which constitutes the fundamental flaw in the current
system of thinking dominant in the modern world. However this sense of separateness does
constitute a crucial stage (ego) toward the possibility of becoming self-aware, which is what
the field of view or field awareness is based on.

FROM PARTICLE TO FIELD
The problem with the point of view, as the word point implies, is that we end up pointing -
at- something, yet in the process separate our-self from what is pointed at or thought
about/looked at. The ensuing sense of separateness will be explained below is a double
edged sword. 

It is associated with the purpose of the ego and the profound ethical problems
which result from this sense of detachment, yet it is also the sine qua non to exit the
primordial indigenous undifferentiated state of awareness toward a dangerous separation
and differentiation yet only via which we are able to develop self-awareness (Neumann,
1954).

Bohm describes the ethical consequences of this form of linear thinking as follows: "It is
proposed that the widespread and pervasive distinctions between people (race, nation,
family, profession, etc., etc.), which are now preventing mankind from working together for
the common good, and indeed, even for survival, have one of the key factors of their origin
in a kind of thought that treats things as inherently divided, disconnected, and "broken up"
into yet smaller constituent part. Each part is considered to be essentially independent and
self-existent" (Bohm, 1983, xi).


Yet via developing the field of view we return to such a non-dual state yet with selfawareness.
The problem with the point (particle) of view approach is that is ends up looking "at"
something, and doing that from only one (external) vantage point, and inevitably ends up
excluding complementary perspectives. The field is basically a "field of tension".

The field of view means looking at one same situation or thing with or from two (opposing)
perspectives. In terms of education if I look at the world (student) only as a teacher I will
not grasp the field (of tension), which makes up the whole field or truth of the situation.


One could call this a typically western approach to wholeness. I will always end up onesided
in my view as teacher. Yet I need to also look at the world as a student. To grasp the
field I need to contain both poles of the pair.
This could be called the typical western path to wholeness for here we have to suffer the
opposites, for this alone leads to wholeness. This is a painful and narrow road vis-à-vis-the
broad road where we run away from the shadow often with hedonism (drugs, sex, power
1


etc). We get a glimpse of this Western way in terms of the crucifixion symbol which
emerges in dreams of westerners as the archetype of development of consciousness.

Here
only the painful continence of the opposites leads to a resurrection or awakening to more
complete grasp of reality.
What emerges then is that I have to contain a field of tension or opposites. Only when I
contain the pair of opposites do I grasp the whole field or the whole situation. For the
opposites are complementary. The whole is always a contradiction, a paradox. Jung once
said a psychological statement is only true if it is paradoxical. Only a direct confrontation
with paradox brings us close to the truth or wholeness. The two poles are one, yet we tend
to always rent them apart.

This means that we have to learn to think paradoxically. One way to approach this is that
we remain mindful that there are always 2 poles running things. We learn to think (actually
be aware) in pairs and realize that the pairs are one. It's like looking at one thing
simultaneously at two different angles. And not only two different angles but often two
competing and opposing angles. This is difficult for the mind tends to recede back into
points (one) of view (pointing at), excluding the opposite and other member of the pair.

So
for instance in Jungian terms we will tend to realize that we always have two opinions about
things: one feminine and one masculine. For instance when we react in a certain way we
will tend to search for or look for the counter reaction which I at that moment am tending to
not express. If I am too nice to someone I will automatically tend to realize that I am hiding
my disagreement with them. 

If I am too angry in a certain situation I will realize that I am
hiding my fear. Grandiose behavior is repressed insecurity.
The whole (reaction in this sense) will always tend to express itself in opposites. I must
have some fear in order to not become overly confident and vice verse. So in this sense I'm
looking for the opposing stand point or viewpoint and thus I become the whole field (of
tension). When the opposites are contained for instance symbols emerge (also in dreams)
where the poles connect and we get doublets and twin symbols as the hermaphrodite. In
ancient archaic languages we find this ambivalence of words where the poles are different
yet identical.
"Such "doublets," identical figures, appear frequently in dreams when the basic polarity of
the unconscious is activated. 

The opposites on a deep level are identical in the sense that
"good" and "bad," "positive" and "negative," "feminine" and "masculine" are still not
distinguishable, not yet separated. [Footnote: This is either a state of "preconscious"
harmony, of unity in the uroboros (cf. Neumann, Origins, p. 18 et passim) or the final state
of the union of the opposites. This primal identity is a characteristic of the archetype in
general: life and death, man and woman, etc., are basically identical (as expressed in the
symbol of the hermaphrodite). Another instance is the mythical motif twins: identical but
representing opposites. To this context belongs the well-known ambivalence of basic words
in archaic language (K. Abel, Der Gegensinn der Urworte, quoted from Freud, Introductory
Lectures on Psycho-Analysis,pp. 150, 194; cf. also Jones, Sigmund Freud, II, pp. 347 ff.);
for instance, Latin altus means both "high" and "deep," sacer both "holy" and "cursed,"
etc.]

The differentiation takes place in the elaboration of the basic, preconscious polarity
before separation, for the "good" and "bad" intellect. But their "value," their position inside
the whole, will have to be worked out later in the process of development." (Adler,
1961, 151.).
THE FIELD IN COMMUNICATION
If we listen keenly to ourselves and others we will hear the conflict and opposition (field of
tension). Yet when keenly listening we will also hear how we/the person tends to very
2
subtly dissociate and disregard the polarity or conflict.

A woman in a class/lecture situation
is constantly interrupting the lecturer. Yet she starts repeatedly with the following
statement: "I don't mean to be annoying but I am going to interrupt you again." If we
listen keenly we find here how she (one pole) is basically telling herself (the other pole) that
her constantly interrupting the lecture is annoying, yet the side/pole that keeps doing this is
not really paying heed to this opinion of herself. The less inhibited pole is trying to
compensate the uninhibited side but this side is being ignored practically.

In this case
there's no connection between the poles. This inner talk is constantly occurring in us, yet
when it is not heeded the opposite side can emerge in dreams or even via projection be
made to play out via others. The gist here being that the more explosive side is in dire need
of the opposite in order to reach some kind of a balance or wholeness.

The confrontation
with the opposite (also referred to as shadow) is confusing and very difficult to deal with.
In this case the person has already started to project this aspect or pole of themselves on
the other/s, experiencing it in externalized terms that it is others would be finding her
annoying. The field experience is turning into a point of view.
Yet when touching the shadow we are confronted with the fact that we have two opposing
perspectives on one same situation. In this sense what is found is a field perspective for I
now experience the whole field of tension as my experience and outlook. 

What is most
important is that the attention shifts from the individual perspective to the interaction
between them in the host. In a sense thus the focus shifts from thinking and feeling to
relation and awareness, and thus not whether one or the other pole is right but that we
need this interplay between perspectives in order to find wholeness. This also occurs interpersonally.


When they're permitted to collide and impact each other what results is a
synergistic effect between them and a third more integrated (transcendent) sense
emerges.
"The third person represents a special viewpoint. Here we come upon one of the first
conclusions of psychotherapy and perhaps one of the most shocking: a deep and lasting
relationship is only possible with a consciousness that is directly involved in and also
detached from the relationship..." (Mindell, 1987, 10).
So here we move out of the realm of thinking as such and strictly defined toward either
rejecting (resistance) or accepting the influence of the opposite.


When suffering the tension of being teacher and student two poles collide and a new more
complete experience emerges, no more "a" perspective, but an indwelling, a dialogue.
SEEING THE FIELD
Perspective defined as: "the appearance of things relative to one another as determined by
their distance from the viewer", dissipates for I am both the looked and the looker so
there's no distance or appearance: "I am the whole field". What we get is self-awareness or
thus awareness of being the whole field. Or more specifically awareness of certain
unconscious aspects of self. So the practice of becoming aware of these latent
(unconscious) aspects is seeing the field. 

That is seeing the pair in terms of how the shadow
tends compensate the dominant pole. It boils down to capturing these signals. Mindell
(1987) calls these unintended signals secondary signals. This act of self-awareness lessens
the resistance in the (underlying unified) field. So the core of the approach used here is
becoming aware of the unconscious pole or signals in a situation.
The essence of the process remains a lessening of resistance to opposite points of view or
thus opposites which is inclusion. This is not a cognitive act but a relational operation/act. It
3
is the act of embracing something, i.e., a part of us which we have rejected. It is not (only)
an intellectual or cognitive act. Strictly cognitive acts distinguish and separate. It is an act
of indwelling and feeling that opposite perspective; becoming it. As far as I have reached in
describing the nature of the operation (of touching the Shadow) is entering it and becoming
what the so-called object or other feels (indwelling or inner-standing) versus looking at it
from without.


Therefore also the denomination "touching" from in "touching the shadow".
So becoming aware of it as part of me and seeing how it feels/touching it. Because in
essence it is a part of me I take back. Touching the shadow (or field awareness) is like art,
we can only understand art by becoming it (part of it). Below this part will tie into why
awareness (self) is the path out of division and not thinking. Toward deeper levels, which
are reached when touching the shadow is practiced (in terms of awareness; self-talk, in
dreams and projections) we can go to deeper levels where this underlying unified field is
found playing out between the physical and the nonphysical.
In terms of body work we becoming the symptom, to see what it feels and thus as a means
of reconnecting to the dissociated shadow/fragment. I become the arm to see what the arm
feels and so take back that dismembered fragment of self. For also the body is a theater of
this conflict.


THE FIELD-NATURE OF THE BODY
So in practice we always look for the field (the compensatory interplay of pairs of
opposites). In this sense for instance ones body is looked at as a venue for the expression
of the latent or unconscious member of the pair and thus the field. Sweaty palms are
viewed as expressing one member of the pair and thus as part of the field (Self). But so are
other somatic conditions as infertility and cancer. Also the surrounding is part of the fieldeffect.
The way the other is behaving is inextricably intertwined with the dominant state I
am in. In this sense the other will play out aspects of the field and thus of the pole or
member of the pair I am not acknowledging. 

The whole or paradox will and can express
itself in terms of opposites and in two (causally unrelated) domains at the same time. For I
am both while striving to be one. Reality (as field) behaves as a pair. The + always follows
the - and vice verse. There's always a - enfolded under the +.
Only when embracing the pair of opposites we get a flow while high resistance (between the
pair) blocks the (free) flow. We need to embrace the confluence of the pair, then conflict
becomes an opportunity.
Becoming aware of the conflict (the inevitable first step), or the pair in their high state of
mutual resistance, induces initially what is often referred to as "mixed feelings"; for it brings
the latent conflict into awareness. 

For instance as in when we are too happy we need to find
the sadness concealed within. Yet this field awareness soon becomes soothing as when we
don't run away from a depression for it is half of the whole. Only when the poles are
contained do we jump to another level (of existence or self) where they become. But this
one is not an absence of opposition; but the opposites overtly become complementary.
This is the emptiness referred to in eastern traditions as non-duality. Yet in Jungian terms
one cannot think oneself there. And in terms of the field effect, the opposite (shadow) will
always tend to boycott the plans of the deceiver in us (i.e., the pole of the pair which wants
to dominate and reject the opposite). In this sense the practice consists of always looking
for the leveling effect in us (our communication/body/dreams/projections etc) and in our
environment in order to find the unconscious member of the pair and so contain the field (of
tension).


4
DEMON IN THE ROSE
The field of view or field awareness is a technique or approach in order to reach the socalled
transcendent domain. Therefore the main practice is based on awareness; becoming
aware of the shadow. For the field operates in terms of the shadow (resisted member of the
pair) compensating our general one-sidedness (dominant member). A woman that strongly
rejects her more strong and secure side, dreams of the floor of her house covered with
rattler snakes ready to bite her. The more the opposite is rejected the more aggressive it
becomes in its attempts to topple the dominant regime of the mind. 

Often the shadow is
represented in dreams by snakes. Often that snake biting the dreamer represents the strike
of the shadow to curb the dominance of the one-sided dominant pole in the self. For
instance at such moments of extreme resistance a somatic condition can constellate making
it impossible for the, until than, dominant self-orientation (which has turned lopsided), to
perdure.
A client of (suffering from a serious somatic problem) the author dreams the author is
attending three clients by phone. One is schizophrenic (the dreamer is represented as this
one -directly speaking to the author); the other a movie director and the other is a chemist.
On the phone with the schizophrenic the author is singing a song:


Desert and heaven;
devil’s heart –
in your dreams of tonightthe
demon of the rose;
rose of the desert –inthe
rivers of your bones,
he always comes and goes
–you must bear -
While the author is singing this to him he goes into a trans-conscious state and enters
chemical/molecular-like or crystalline structures composed of sides or planes forming a
crystal cave or diamond-like structure. Within is empty space.


The dream further states: ‘These were the chemical structures that the chemist looked for.
While the chemist studied the history that the movie director couldn’t figure out. He
subsequently said: The 3 of them didn’t know each other while the author was their
‘connection’.


The real drama is the war going on between the two sides in the total self. For instance the
macho strong side who at all costs rejects feeling any vulnerability and weakness and vice
verse. Here the two poles are represented in a disconnected form. A very artistic man who
on the other hand also studied chemistry. In this dream he is portrayed as having not
united these opposites.

The schizophrenic here stands for the fragmented self; i.e., the man
in which either pole is disconnected from the other. The therapist being the connection
indicates that the problem is that they are disconnected, and how often in a therapeutic
context it is the therapist who is their connection or mediator in absence of a connection in
the person.
Here is alluded to how the history (the story) affects the chemistry and the movie-maker
who does deal in stories/histories also omits the physical somatic aspect of the story. The
chemical structures the chemist looks for is the symbol of the Self (or the Self-archetype),
which is the paradoxical whole or the field. The empty space refers to the space void of
resistance which constellates when the shadow is touched as is here done, i.e., in the
dream.
5
In a way the shadow and opposite functions thus like a kind of conscience. It is here called
demon in terms of it being the Shadow and thus the side we least want to see in us). 

Often
persons come to therapy to confess a sin "so to speak". Yet when indwelling into their inner
dialogue we find that the opposite is angry at what the dominant side has done. In this
sense it is this side that needs as it were to forgive the side that has committed the wrong.


So in this sense (so to speak) classical meditation is nice but what if we are self deceiving,
who is going to keep the deceiver in us honest? So we must have that "demon" (shadow) in
us who is going to boycott he plans of the deceiver in us.
RECONNECTING WITHIN AND WITHOUT


Reconnecting within and without is the other direction of disconnecting and the sense of
separateness, which results from observation via a point of view.
At the level of perception this means that I am confronted with the fact that what I see in
the other is inevitably a part of me and often a disowned part (pole). This also goes for the
surrounding (animate and inanimate). 

Here I realize for instance that if I feel the country I
live in is too small for me, it is I that am too big (inflated). We also hear this in terms of
when someone laments how boring their life is.


Not only what we see out there is always a function of the state I am in. But that state I
perceive in the other is a part (pole) of my total field I am disowning at that moment. If I
am in traffic and take unwarranted risk it is because I am projecting on the traffic a low
level of danger which is a part of me I am rejecting due to which I inflate. I deflate the
surrounding when I reject this deflated side in me.

What I experience is a product of my
interpretations and thus a part of me. In this way the separation serves to generate selfawareness.
If what I experience is always relative to the state I am in, it means that what
we experience is always relative and contextual and has no inherent reality/existence or
value. If I am experiencing the other as too hot, it inevitable means that I am too cold.


There's no way to know what the other/world is independent from the state I am in. If I
were neither hot nor cold I would probably experience it as neither.
The practice here of seeing the field (a field view). Using the dichotomy to become selfaware
leads to a leap to a transcendent experience. Here we look beyond diversity to a
unified field.

Seeing the field means containing it versus not seeing it and thus remaining
stuck in one half or point of view at the expense of the opposite. Seeing the field (touching
the shadow or opposite member of the pair) releases the underlying tension. Dreams depict
this state as empty of tension as an empty space. So the field of view is itself here a way to
create this state empty of tension.


At this level the limitations of space-time are suspended. Non-local experiences are endemic
to this level of depth of self. We will not go into this here but this level is associated with
awareness of intentions and purpose which belong to the so-called transcendent Self.

THE TRANSCENDENT SELF
What we have found in terms of firsthand experiences of what happens when the field view
is suffered is that a self state is achieved, referred to as the Self (capital S) archetype which
transcends the domain of the relative and the opposites. So here the whole being awakens
as it were and it is via this whole version of me that a whole (non-local) glimpse/sense of
reality is availed. Some would call the deepest core of the self: spirit or spiritual in nature.
6

A way to verify getting close to the transcendent self, without falling prey to self-deception,
is gleaning via our dreams for instance statements and insights from this non-local Self,
which resides not at the circumference as the ego but at the center. 

The problem with the
conscious mind (in Jungian terms), is that it will tend to think it is understanding nonduality
but for instance it could be doing this in either very cognitive. This is why the
practice of touching the shadow is a way to confront the conscious mind with the opposite
and thus to -in a way of speaking- keep it honest. Yet we must remain weary of the ability
and capacity of the conscious mind/awareness to deceive itself. We need to look for data/
material beyond the fabrications of the conscious.

What we have found is that for instance
in dreams we find insights unfolding of a transcendent nature which -as it were- the
conscious mind would not be able to formulate. In a way then the transcendent is
approached in a empirical form.

THE MYSTERY OF THE EGO
So why do we fall into this illusion of separateness and the inherent existence of things? It
is proposed that we come apart in the illusion of separateness, and while things are
distinguishable yet not separate/d, we do this in order to become self-aware. 

The method
developed here is based on self-awareness because the coming apart into the a separate
state and the illusion of inherent existence/separateness, is based on becoming unconscious
of one half of the self or a part of the self. So the formation of this separate "I" is based
on thus on one half of the self becoming unconscious of the other and its core.

Eventually the whole is the self yet the coming apart is actually a way for the whole to
become self-aware. The problem is that when in the mode of separateness we tend to make
sense of the world (the distinguishable) from out of this partial aspect and in doing this tend
to see the whole from one angle only. In our Western context we tend to think about things.

Thinking about thinking to go on thinking is a contradiction in terminus. Consciousness is
the next paradigm. Self awareness is what takes us back into the mode referred to as
transcendent. Here we experience the whole which is not only a composite of (but union of)
multiple/opposing perspectives, which is here referred to as a field of view or seeing the
field.

So in attempting grasp the field or the paradox it's not about anything out there, it’s about
yourself. That’s the most important thing to know about and/in order to, stop us on our
walk from going either too much to right (conservative) or too much to the left (liberal).

In the center or paradox we are both. Self-consciousness based on becoming aware of our
unconscious (touching the shadow) is a bridge toward a more profound and integrated
connection to reality beyond diversity.


Here lies the mystery of the ego. Ego: maybe on micro cosmic/small terms it's the essence
of all badness on planet, yet on big scale, it is what we are truly about. For without the
duality the ego gets caught in, there would be no self-consciousness. There would be
wholeness which is not yet self-aware of itself. This actually takes us to Jung's work in
answer to Job on his analysis of the figure of JHWH; and the necessity of the further
incarnation of God (as the imago Dei or self-archetype) in order to become self-aware. So
the duality, as such, is the illusion yet without it we can't reach self-awareness.

"We rightly associate the idea of suffering with a state in which the opposites violently
collide with one another, and we hesitate to describe such a painful experience as being
"redeemed." Yet it cannot be denied that the great symbol of the Christian faith, the Cross,
upon which hangs the suffering figure of the redeemer, has been emphatically held up
before the eyes of Christians for nearly two-thousand years...Why this inevitable product of
7

Christian psychology should signify redemption is hard to see, except that the conscious
recognition of the opposites, painful though it may be for the moment, does bring with it a
definite feeling of deliverance. It is on the one hand a deliverance from the distressing state
of dull and helpless unconsciousness, and on the other a growing awareness of God's
opposites, in which man can participate if he does not shrink from being wounded by the
dividing sword which is Christ. Only through the most extreme and most menacing conflict
does the Christian experience of deliverance into divinity, always provided that he does not
break, but accepts the burden of being marked out by God. In this way alone can the imago
Dei realize itself in him, and God become man." (Jung, 1969).
References
Bohm David. Wholeness and the Implicate Order. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1983)
Adler, Gerhard. The Living Symbol: A Case Study in the Process of Individuation. New York:
Pantheon Books, Inc: 1961.
Jung C.G. Answer To Job. Collected Works Volume 11. Princeton University Press. 1969.
Neuman Erich. The Origins and the History of Consciousness. Princeton: Bollingen.
Mindell, A. (1987). The Dreambody in Relationships. England :Arkana.