The thing not yet mentioned is really the fundamental matter in all. The you reading (and I writing) are both the consciousness addressed, and addressing. The we that together we are, are our consciousness(es). And though as writer and reader presumptions can abound as to positions in this, as though “I” as writer am addressing you, that is false on its face. The consciousness you are, that is the “you”, is nonetheless addressing me with no less immediacy. Whether a word is spoken or written back (to the “me” so to speak) is of no consequence. We are both (even all) responders. Respondents. Yes, even as to summons. We are both in circumstance and responding with “our” consciousness(es) we seem to have or hold. Even, right now.
Yet, in some sense it then becomes either redundant or foolish to say “I” (or you) have consciousness; for the “I” that is “I” and the you that is you is the consciousness that is speaking (or thinking). But nevertheless we do hold, do we not, even if it seems redundant or foolish to say, some measure of fundamental convincing that we are in some position of observation…apart. And in, and by observation, some seat of judgment. As though our “I” has consciousness and observes it, and can; rather than is in it. At best, being simply witnesses to it. This “thing” we are in.
Listen…you and I daily, even moment to moment judge (even as though above) what we understand as our own thoughts, do we not? Second piece of pie? Trust working under that vehicle with that rusty jack as only support? Shall I say this? Or that? Shall I not? But we are always limited here, are we not? And to only those matters that to us, are made the possible to consider.
Whether good ideas (as perceived and judged by us) pursued and/or expressed in whatever fashion, bad ideas abandoned or suppressed…unless…desire of whatever form exceed by will to usurp (even in us) the place of observation and seat of judgment. We might even call it lust in its potency rather than mere desire. We may act…( have you ever?) even counter to the judgment we perceive as ours. And we cannot escape this, for we are always in circumstance. And circumstance provokes. And even further what circumstance might so provoke, even be so provocative that lust might be so clearly displayed as both to its presence, and no less, revealed as to its nature? Can it be escaped?
And neither, if we are left to ourselves, can we escape the experience and seeing of circumstance as always in flux, always changing, never understood in any full continuity. Time stamps circumstance(s). And as much as we would like to control circumstance to our pleasure, what comes to us, comes to us. And we respond. Even with more ideas and/or actions for their dealing.
But it cannot be left there, only, as though circumstance(s) are always and only of the un-pleasurable or unwelcome variety provoking response with idea to modify or contravene; for if we inherit a fortune we might now consider “should the new boat be 75 or 100 feet?” And new ideas, perhaps never considered, are in owing to new or differing, circumstance as we perceive. We are subject in all. To circumstance(s).
But here we are more interested with the initiating (or birth, or rise) of that convincing we all hold of thinking we are set apart in ourselves as though we have any ability to observe objectively and then judge effectively that may lead to any acting effectively. It should be plain (yet it doesn’t feel it, does it?) “the” or our consciousness cannot go outside of itself…as though the you of you, or I of I, is yet all unbounded. For the very boundaries of “our” consciousness define to us who we are.
Inside (so to speak) is the “me”, outside is the all other. Our identities, because they are peculiar to us, particular, and even precious to us, also hold limit…I am me, you are you, and are neither up for escape nor exchange by us. No matter how much the “I” might perceive as in any ascension over in presumption of any ability to be objective or judge rightly, it is all of locked up to, and in, the self.
I speak to those with some understanding of the natural man.
But this does not mean the self is either content or at ease in this estate, it can be found either seeking to escape the bounds of itself by expansion, seeking to be a “bigger” self by acquisition of things, positions, titles, (or even souls!) by incursions into the identity of others.
A married man should have no difficulty understanding this. As much as he may think he knows his wife or knows of her, he will learn there is a place in attempting excursion of his limit of identity by an unrighteous incursion into hers, where strong opposition is met. And surely it can be the other way around. There is always a doing of harm in this, whether it be clearly made known in consequence or not to a man or woman. It can and does happen with friends…and may extend to even all others. Attempts at usurping. To the end of self expansion. A self not content with, or in itself.
And, unrighteous incursion cannot be over stressed. For it raises, at least in possibility, there is such a thing as a righteous incursion. A righteous presentation or penetration of, and by, a self not one’s own that by consideration is shown greater than one’s self. And is therefore brought into submission as the lesser to a greater. But who is able here? What is able here? What circumstance is, or even could be, that not only allows for an objectivity to judge among all selves that even one might be found greater than another that is found lesser…and how would be such matter accomplished that there be no harm in it, at all? What consciousness would be over all, and is there?
The believer has had this question answered to himself and in himself. If it is not clear yet, it is not yet clear. But it will be.
Of God are you in Christ Jesus. And He in you.
But I am not yet seeking to limit any exposition to the one who either call himself believer and/or is, for in the matter of consciousness, so to speak, all are in the same boat.
For if we admit to any consciousness (and it would be a curious argument to hear that argues against it) then we likewise admit, if even not knowing it in extent or sum…that all consciousness is. In natural terms and of natural things, once a man identifies a stone as stone he knows, if even again not knowing the full amount of them in the universe, that all stones that exist, are in existence…even if it only be that one. He knows there is or are…even from one stone, a sum of all stones. But here we are speaking of something not at all tangible, to us quantifiable or even subject to some qualitative measuring. But this does not matter at all, if once we admit consciousness is. Here we are trapped, all of us.
And I dare say yet some remain convinced of either the superiority of their own due to their convincing they have truly only found one “real” as ascribed to themselves. As in “this may even be the only stone” but it is. But that only shows lack of exploration, and not a condemnable offense.
If that seems too lofty or of some presumption, God knows. I cannot continue without you. Nor would “I”. Whether you know it or not, accept it or not, it is too late for me to see you as anything but gift given as help for me to even know of whom, and where, I am. And that surely I am not alone in consciousness. I once thought it could be otherwise.
I am debtor in all.
May God help me not lie of it.
israelx7wordpresscom 