Log in


Written by jayson. 2 comments Posted in: Definitions

I use words in ways that are defined differently than what may be understood upon first read. Here are some of them:

2 Responses

Stay in touch with the conversation, subscribe to the RSS feed for comments on this post.

  1. Michelle

    Reading your definitions I “realized” that I associate the term “actualize” with “realize”. In doing so, I began to understand the difference between the two in that, to me, one is possessive whereas the other is out of my control. If I “actualize” something, I essentially have some amount of control over my perception of it; whereas to say that I “realize” something means that something happened “to” me and was brought into my world. I do somewhat disagree with the concept of desire creating my “actualization”, although if you were to think of the idea wholly within my control, that would make sense. I do not, however, feel as though it is entirely within my control nor without my control….but a blessed union of the two. Unfortunately, until we develop the technology to do so, we are limited to our own perceptions and interpretations; unable to escape our own ego. This has a lot to do with, I believe, the concept of meditation and transcendence.

    August 20, 2010 at 1:52 pm
    • jayson

      Fortunately or unfortunately, they’re just words, so I’ll clarify my use of them.

      Realize and actualize are basically etymologically the same. But I do intend the “creation” meaning of the word realize when I use it; so when I use it I specifically don’t mean something that is happening TO you. Sort of… it actually has more to do with the definition of “you” than it does the definition of “realize”.

      The difference I intend between the two words is that realization is the creation/use of abstractions. Actualization is what is happening when desires are satisfied. One refers to abstractions, the other to the power-process. Which is why an actualizer is realized actualization – you wrap an abstraction around a reference point of desire being satisfied and BLAM – you have an ego.

      In that sense, then, you are right that it is a “union” of the two, and neither. One thing I will explain in a post later is that actualizers don’t DO their actions, actualizers ARE their actions, because that’s really all we can reference (and by extension, so is reality, since it is literally “that which is created”).

      You’re right on with the concept of meditation and transcendence. The intent of those rituals, and most spiritual rites, is to achieve ego death for the express purpose of expanding the “abstraction of you”. There’s all kinds of rituals for this. However, one thing that is key to the spirituality I’m realizing here is that ego death is not an end state, or a goal – it is a tool. That’s my major problem with Eastern religions and why I find them mildly escapist.

      August 20, 2010 at 2:05 pm

Some HTML is OK

or, reply to this post via trackback.