28. above all else i want to see things differently.
in the previous lesson, i gave some background, so please refer to that lesson for the background which has its affects in this lesson.
the previous lesson was: above all else i want to see.
this lesson: above all else i want to see things differently.
on reflection, if i were to order these two lessons, without having read through this lesson at this point, just based on titles alone, i might inverse the order. why? to me it seems that most(?) people all willing to see but find it easier to see differently than to “see” above all things else. that’s just me making an observation.
whether i want to “see” differently or i want to “see” above all else, each requires a commitment to “see”.
as I have traveled in my own experiences, retaining the desire to “see” gets tested. in one instance, i want to “see”. in other instance, i don’t want to “see”.
that is because the instances themselves provide things that i might find inviting versus challenging. “seeing” when it is challenging is far more difficult than “seeing” when things are inviting.
so why did and does it matter that above all else i want to see?
consider the following:
why do i want to see the computer differently?
why do i want to see the car differently?
why do i want to see the building differently?
those are simply objects, everyday objects, objects that i interact with on a daily basis.
the issue is that while i “see” those objects, and that those objects are everywhere, everyday, i am not really “seeing” those things.
which means that to”see” those things, the following must occur:
i want to see the computer differently;
i want to see the car differently;
i want to see the building differently.
for me, back years ago when i started my journey to “see” it was when i “saw” that the bible was not telling me what others has told me the bible was telling me.
later, after i “saw” the text of the scriptures, one by one my “seeing” of other things changed. that was part of my journey of “seeing”.
essential reality is this: once i “see” the first thing differently, i will see all subsequent things differently.
yet when i decided to “see” the bible differently, i had to make a commitment to “see” (understand) the bible, from there i “saw” (understood) the scriptures differently.
some people will claim i “see” the bible incorrectly. all i can say is that my “seeing” of the bible changed and my “seeing” the bible is no longer their way of “seeing” the bible.
but in “seeing” differently i had to stand back from how i was “seeing” the bible in order to actually “see” the bible, which is kind of like those 3d artworks that have an image that can only be “seen” when one “sees” it, but once “seen” it can’t be un”seen”.
in essence, i had to stop taking my past experiences into the scriptures, just as i had to stop taking my “seeing” experiences into the 3d portrait. to “see” either, i had to open my mind to other ways of “seeing”. that is difficult, especially since i was accustomed to only “seeing” one way.
either way, when i say: above all else i want to see things differently, i am saying that i making a commitment to back up from myself, to stop defining the present event according to past terms. in essence, instead of assigning a meaning to whatever it is, i am asking that something what its meaning is.
that is important because when i assign meaning to something, i limit its meaning to my experience(s) and limit its meaning to my thoughts. instead of allowing that something become an additional and/or proper means of “seeing” (understanding) that something.
complex, because the issue is that i will not investigate something which i have already assigned meaning to.
for example, i will not want to “see” the computer differently, if/when i have already assigned no meaning (value) to the computer. why? because i already assigned a value of nothing to the computer and therefore i interpret the computer has having no value, no meaning to me, irrespective of what others “see” in a computer.
but even if i have assigned no meaning (no value) to the computer, but i choose above all else to “see” the computer differently, then i open my self to the possibility of “seeing” something that i had not “seen” before. why? because i had chosen to “see” that the computer might have value, instead of “seeing” the computer as having no value.
but to “see” something i have to believe that the something has something to show (reveal) to me, and that is what that something wants me to “see”.
that means that the computer has something it wants me to “see”, something that is inherently beautiful, clean, and of indefinite value, having happiness and hope.
yet, it is my thoughts and my “sights” of that something that keep me from “seeing” those things it wants me to “see” which is part of its purpose within the cosmos, the universe of existence.
as such, when i state: above all else i want to see the computer differently, i am really stating that i am opening my self, my mind, to “seeing” the computer, because i am wanting to “see” the purpose of the cosmos, the universe of existence.
that occurs with each thing i want to “see” why? because i am setting aside my own thoughts and sights of that something in order to have revealed to me the actual way i should “see” that something, instead of me placing on that something what i want to “see”.
above all else i want to see the computer differently.
above all else i want to see the car differently.
above all else i want to see the building differently.
above all else i want to “see” music differently.
above all else i want to see ideas differently.
above all else i want to see words differently.
above all else i want to see politics differently.
above all else i want to see religion differently.
above all else i want to see money differently.
things i have “seen” with my own eyes.
things i have assigned meaning to.
things that above all else i want to see differently.