Ultimate Fulfillment 29

by Christopher Lovejoy on October 26, 2014


This cosmic field of play that I conceived seems to be taking on a life of its own. Not that I mind. I feel rather taken by the steady stream of hints and suggestions for the expansion of my perspective that are coming up  for me, in spite of myself. As long as I act on them, more keep coming up, in ways and by means not always comfortable or expected. I must say, what a curious thing this construct must seem to those who take their cues from others on how to think and feel, gesture and speak, behave and act, consciously or not, conducting themselves in accordance with established customs, cultures, conditions, and conventions. I suppose it’s not unlike taking a single intention with a very specific image of the outcome (“I allow myself to _____ by _____”) and feeding it day in and day out with your precious energy.

There are so many ways to explore the vital potential of this cosmic field – in terms of two vertical sectors; two, three, or five horizontal zones; nine fixed positions of note; countless lines of travel and areas of occupation; four quadrants; and an infinite number of spontaneous appearances – but before I delve into these ways and what they mean for the ultimate in personal fulfillment, I’d like to begin with the notion of ideal positioning, asking: “where on this field is the best, most favorable and desirable placement for me?”

Another (more precise) way of asking this question is this: where do I, identified as a mature or maturing and decisive ego, position my True Self on (or in relation to) this field, in ways and by means that give me reasonable, meaningful, and lasting access to its full potential?

As far as I can see, there are three basic modes of access, all of them personal: (1) I can (merely?) observe what happens with my behavior and conduct in relation to others (and in relation to “the other”) and I can (merely?) observe what happens with the behavior and conduct of others (and “the other”) in relation to my self; (2) I can, based on (pure?) observation, explore what happens with my behavior and conduct in relation to others (and in relation to “the other”) and I can explore what happens with the behavior and conduct of others (and “the other”) in relation to my self; or (3) I can choose to participate by way of (pure?) observation and exploration based on (pure?) observation.

Note: the parenthetical insertions of “merely?” and “pure?” is my way of cautioning, questioning whether acts of observation or exploration can ever be made or conducted wholly without personal bias or prejudice, which are in themselves very basic and widespread forms of pretense. Presently, I’m inclined to suppose that pure observation (and exploration based on pure observation) is a cosmic ideal: not only is it fearless, it also follows in the wake of being unself-consciously loving, trusting, and forgiving

In short, there are three basic personal modes of conscious access to this field of play, to this field of potential for observing and exploring the realities of light, gray, and dark pretense with presence and for participating on this field through the filter of a preferred shade of pretense, with presence:

  1. observatory access (purely observing what happens when “I let things be as they are”)
  2. exploratory access (purely exploring alternations of “letting it be” and “making it so”)
  3. participatory access (choosing abandonment (“let it be”) and entitlement (“make it so”))
  4. investigatory access (an optional mode of access, which involves exposing pretense)


The observatory mode of access is represented with arrows radiating toward a True Self suspended slightly above the centre of the field with observational access to every point on the field. This central ascendent position is by way of the Witness and can only ever be temporary, because as soon as the Will is exerted for any reason whatsoever by “making it so”, by making anything so, in any way, shape, or form, the True Self descends onto the field, occupying a mere point on the field with no privileged position. Of course, this observational suspension is a theoretical ideal; certainly, it can be put into practice, but the question remains: to what extent can it remain pure (and for how long)?


The exploratory mode of access is represented with arrows radiating to and from a True Self that occupies the centre of the field with the intent of having explorational access to every point on the field, even the darkest of the dark, which is by no means an invitation to abandon yourself to the dark or to become darkly entitled as typical ways of being. This central occupational position is by way of the Witness and the Will with opportunities to practice alternations of “letting it be” and “making it so”. A willingness to occupy the centre of the field as a starting point for exploration implies a deep acceptance of the influences of pretense in relation to presence, of abandonment and entitlement (negative and
positive), as well as egocentricity (negative and positive), and is not so much a theoretical ideal as it a practical placement, not unlike having a home to rest before heading back out into the world to explore it.

Together, observation and exploration serve as basic means by which and from which a True Self, a Self as Art, can participate meaningfully and purposefully on the field. Pure white observations are meaningful to the extent that they leave lasting impressions on the True Self, without bias or prejudice. Green observations and blue explorations are meaningful and purposeful to the extent that they alternate meaningfully and purposefully, making meaningful and purposeful participation possible and desirable. In the midst of exploration, there is a risk of making biased observations, which is why the arrows are shown as green rather than white, to reflect peaceful intentions. Blue explorations require movements to different points on the field, to encounter pretense and experience its effects, while green observations are conducted away from the centre of the field. When an exploration feels complete, the True Self returns to the centre to process and digest its encounter with pretense and to position itself for further exploration.


The intention to employ the observatory and exploratory modes of access give would-be participants conscious access to the energies of allowance (letting it be) and insistence (making it so), respectively. Where the first offers access to “things I let happen”, the second offers access to “things I make happen”. This is an important distinction to keep in mind when it comes time to participate and play on the field with intentions to manifest desired results and outcomes. The quality and vitality of your participation in life, on this field, is determined by how well and how much you can play with these energies of soul and spirit. Aside: the arrows showing the expansion of the circle of “things I make happen” relative to the circle of “things I let happen” (for the sake of spirit) is just one possibility, informed by a Western bias. Allowing the circle of “things I make happen” to shrink relative to the circle of “things I let happen” (in service to heart and soul) is another possibility, informed by an Eastern bias. Cultivating a dynamic equilibrium between these two circles of personal influence is yet another possibility (merging the influences of East and West). Incidentally, “things I let happen” and “things I make happen” are complementary. That is, without ever having an impulse in my life to make something happen, I could never conceive of letting anything happen. In one sense, it is true that “letting it be” can be construed as a variation on “making it so”, but let us also note that making a choice to “let it be” (where soul is concerned) is not the same as making a choice to “make it so” (where spirit is concerned). When we make a fundamental choice to “let it be”, with the intention of letting whatever happens be okay, we employ the observatory mode, and when we make a fundamental choice to enter the exploratory mode, we have access to both “letting it be” and “making it so”, such that “letting it be” can be construed as a paradoxical form of “making it so”, when we deliberately release impulses to “make it so”.

The participatory mode of access requires exposure to many representations, which I’ll provide in future posts. Participation on the cosmic field of play includes observation and exploration but also goes beyond mere observing and exploring. I’ve also discovered a way to bridge the theoretical and the practical, the spiritual and the material facets of human experience, which involves a notion I call Webs of Fate, which I view as crucial to shaping and serving personal destiny. These structures are not meant to constrain soul or restrict spirit, but are meant to be used as devices of expansion and liberation, respectively, to be dissolved or discarded as and when their respective aims are met.

The investigatory mode of access to this field is optional, for those with some mastery of the first three modes of access, who are willing and able to observe, explore, investigate, and expose, with due presence, any pretense to authority, especially presumed authority that has been compromised or corrupted by gray or dark forces (I’ll share what this means to me in subsequent posts).

Note: my evolving outline on the ultimate in personal fulfillment can now be found here, accessible from the nav menu under “Be Here Now”. I’ll be sure to inform readers of any updates

Next: Ultimate Fulfillment 30

Note: this ever growing perspective began here: Ultimate Perspective

Previous post:

Next post: