Prerequisite: read article 50 Dreaming failure.

This article 51 is the second of two parts.

In the original dream, the superintendent finished with the additional words, “Surely you didn’t think I opened the entire building exclusively for you?” Does that question explain why this blog is “Being For Others?”

After you have spent your time in the dream building, will you want to return with your increased understanding and go through the course again? That is reincarnation theory. Will you seek a higher-order building with continued experiences and careers? That is resurrection theory. Is there an inexhaustible progression of buildings, perhaps not existing until you participate in creating them, through which to expand infinitely? That is Ernstraudian theory.

Did you read the dream as my unconscious wish to be the prophet who carries needed enlightenment to the rest of mankind? In that case the “failure” refers to unawareness of those who needed the light. Examining that hubris is a necessary step, but I do not stop at that exclusively self-centered question. Recall several articles here that have diffused the distinction between self and others.

Consider that the superintendent was addressing my selfish perspective when he referred to the light I was carrying. Describing the building in those terms protected my immature feelings. After I become aware of the existence of others, the superintendent can give me a greater truth: the function of others. My unawareness of others showed that I was not on the wavelength of their illumination devices. Had I possessed greater sensitivity, their light would have expanded my experience.

The conundrum is contemplating who is teaching whom. In the prior article I go from being unaware of others to feeling more enlightened than others. In today’s article, I am forced to acknowledge that others were apparently coping without my illumination. The missed blessing was reciprocal sharing, that is, bidirectional respect.

Is this the difference between patronizing and appreciating? Does “being for others” lie in appreciating them, not changing them? Is that how they teach me? [“teach me”—there I go being selfish again! Self-other duality is abstruse.]

Image by Patrikphotos from Pixabay 

Image by Gerd Altmann from Pixabay

Audio file

cover email:

Please study Article 50 before so much as opening today’s Article 51. The two form a progressive thought process that loses value taken backward. You cannot unthink a thought.

We are studying the meaning of meaning, expecting even more in Friday’s article. I hope you can enjoy philosophy in the homespun terminology with which we implement it.