Dear Peter:

Heavy Duty Bag of Chips Trigger Warning! 😊 Please feel free to stop reading at any time if the salt gets to be too much.

I found it amusing that you called your habit of analyzing “kind of masochistic.” I love analyzing too (as you may have noticed, haha). For me, analysis (not rumination) is enjoyable—it gives me clarity and relief, while confusion breeds chaos.

Taking a moment to differentiate analysis from rumination:

* Both involve repetitive thinking, and both can be emotionally charged.

* Analysis seeks understanding, problem-solving, and insight, whereas rumination dwells on negative experiences without resolution.

* Analysis is intentional and constructive, while rumination often feels involuntary and hard to stop, trapping people in negative thought loops rather than leading to solutions.

The challenge is recognizing when thinking shifts from analysis into rumination and steering it toward constructive reflection rather than endless cycling.

You noted that stillness before analysis is preferable to using analysis as a means to stillness. That makes sense—yet, for me, understanding often brings stillness. Perhaps this is why I struggle with your ability to be still and let things happen naturally.

You wrote, “I am uncomfortable with the wording of ‘your transcendence.’ That has a progressive feel, or something set as a goal to be achieved… My sense is that transcendence is a happening, rather than a doing, willing, or achieving.”- I see what you mean, and I appreciate your clarification.

Your distinction between happening and doing is compelling—transcendence, as you describe it, isn’t something pursued but something that unfolds beyond effort and will. That contrasts with how I habitually seek control through analysis and problem-solving. Letting things simply happen is difficult for me. My attachment to problem-solving makes it hard to embrace an approach that isn’t actively pursued.

You likened transcendence to dance, where leading and following merge—implying that the sequence doesn’t matter, only the experience itself. Perhaps that’s why I only feel comfortable in free-style dance, where I neither lead nor follow another person.

Reflecting on this (analyzing it, of course 😊), I wonder if part of my reluctance to engage in structured dance—besides my clumsiness—comes from a deeper fear of being taken over by another person, of being controlled. If I let someone lead (if let things happen), do I lose autonomy? There’s a threat in Together and in Letting Things Happen, and a sense of safety in Alone and in Control.

You clarified that you’re not trying to address trauma in the Eternal realm, because trauma belongs to the temporal world and must be engaged with here. However, experiencing the Eternal creates a foundation from which past trauma can be examined—viewed through the lens of weightlessness rather than as something demanding immediate fixing.

Yet, my trauma is still heavy, even after all these years. I can carry it better because I am stronger, but I don’t want to view it as weightless. That would feel dismissive of its reality, almost like a form of denial, and that wouldn’t serve my mental health.

Looking forward to the Eternal where there is no trauma feels—dare I say—similar to the idea of Heaven, where pain ceases. It’s comforting, but does comfort change the reality of the Temporal? Our suffering exists in our bones, our muscles, our neurons—woven into every minute of every day. Does envisioning a place without suffering help us process what is, or does it simply provide refuge from its weight?

This reminds me of the song “Somewhere Over the Rainbow,” where dreams come true and troubles disappear—the same longing for Heaven, the Eternal.

I do believe in the Eternal, but I question whether it is about Love. If love is tied to bonding behaviors, oxytocin, and attachment, it evolved in social species for survival and connection. Turtles don’t exhibit emotional bonding, nor do plants—so when we say “plants feel love,” we are simply projecting human sentiment onto them.

If love is purely biological, framing Love as a cosmic or Eternal force could be human wishful thinking—a way to assign meaning beyond survival and suffering.

Yet, you describe Love not as an emotion, but as a state—interconnectedness, openness, presence. In this interpretation, Love isn’t dependent on oxytocin or attachment but is the absence of division, fear, or resistance—a state of being rather than an emotion.

So how does the Eternal feel? You say it isn’t possessed or measured—it transcends time, language, and fixed definitions. Instead of presence, it is absence—the absence of clinging, suffering, resistance. Not an emotion, but a happening.

Yet, if our emotional experience in the Temporal shapes how we imagine the Eternal, doesn’t that mean our perception of it is colored by longing—perhaps even idealized as an escape? If we desire relief from suffering, do we unconsciously construct the Eternal as a place of peace and transcendence because our minds seek refuge?

Your philosophy resists framing the Eternal as a goal or destination—you say it just is, beyond measurement and possession. But can human consciousness ever perceive something free from the lens of desire?

Back to “Somewhere Over the Rainbow”: “Someday I’ll wish upon a star / And wake up where the clouds are far behind me / Where troubles melt like lemon drops / Away above the chimney tops… Birds fly over the rainbow—why, then, oh why can’t I?”- These words encapsulate a deeply human longing—the desire for a realm beyond suffering, where dreams manifest effortlessly. This longing mirrors the construct of Heaven and the Eternal, where existence is imagined as a state free from pain, limitation, and earthly struggles.

The song asks “Why can’t I?”—expressing the ache of being trapped in the temporal while yearning for transcendence.

Yet, your philosophy suggests transcendence isn’t an escape—it’s a shift in perception, not a removal of suffering. This contrasts with the song’s depiction of Heaven as a distant destination, a place requiring movement beyond reality.

Comparing Heaven & The Eternal:

* Both are imagined as beyond the Temporal, promising relief from suffering and a state that surpasses ordinary human experience.

* Heaven is a destination—a divine realm where souls go after death, often associated with reward-based belief systems (and financial contributions), while the Eternal is not something to be “achieved”, or bought—it happens outside of effort, possession, or hierarchy.

* Heaven is emotionally charged—a place of joy, reunion, comfort—while, while the Eternal is neutral, beyond longing or expectation.

* Heaven is depicted as hierarchical or governed by divine presence (God, angels, etc.) while the Eternal is not governed by external entities

Yet, even perceiving the Eternal as “beyond suffering” already implies human longing for peace—so can it ever be free from desire?

* Both seem to stem from human cognition—would they even exist without our brains wired for abstraction, existential reflection, and longing? If humans didn’t seek meaning beyond survival, would concepts like Heaven or the Eternal ever emerge? Likely not.

I imagine that the Eternal resonates with those who seek transcendence without religious doctrine. It strips away dogma, hierarchy, and anthropocentric views of life after death. So, in a way, the Eternal is the abstract refinement of Heaven?

I recognize, like you, peter, that analysis itself wasn’t the problem, but the desire to rid myself of shame and fear through analysis kept them strong. I will be sharing about this later, in my own thread.

Finally—Peter, I want to make sure my questioning isn’t disrespectful or confrontational. My intent is exploration, not refutation. You’ve found comfort in the Eternal for a long time, and I don’t want to harm you by shaking that comfort.

Does this feel like an open discussion to you, or do you sense tension or discomfort in my approach? I value your perspective, and I want to engage with it thoughtfully.

anita

Dear Peter:

I am not focused enough to read ad reply, but reading your last line, the three questions, makes me smile, and again, feeling affection for you. It is a bit like dancing.. with you, is it?

More tomorrow morning, or if you prefer, Monday morning, as I know you prefer to take a break from the computer during the weekend.

anita

Hi Anita and Peter

I just wanted to say that I love the conversation that is happening! ❤️

I haven’t had much time to write because of my studies recently. I have been busy with group projects and exams.

I hope to find a chance to write some this week. 🙏

Both of you keep being awesome! 😄