Month: April 2023

There have been lots of questions asked over these entries. Lots of statements made, no less. And often quite so broad in scope as pertaining to man that one would have to be more than a fool to imagine they are immune to question themselves. And often, even most often in such matters, the question of authority in authorship is either plainly or more vaguely addressed in question.

I have no PhD in anything. I am neither neuro scientist nor papered philosopher, no degrees nor documents to present, and for religionists not even a legally ordained “minister”. This is not a man being humble, God forbid. For I have learned too well I am not what humility looks like. And that “too well” should be a tell all to any who read.

It is a rather proud thing to say one has learned well. And “too well”…well, that just adds gasoline to a house of paper being subject to spark, doesn’t it? For another man wrote a sentence somewhere at some time that “he who says he knows does not yet know as he ought to know”. So, in that light it may be better to say (safer to say?) I am only a man. And admittedly, for, or to, other men who share this same forming it’s very plain any self claim of specialty is patently absurd.

Yet, might we all admit that in many, if not all matters and instances, we hold some notion of authority? (Another question, already) Some presumption of its being a real thing…like consciousness, or love, or right and wrong? Some ordering in and of matters that establishes to us the truth of them, the veracity of them, the overriding reality that there is an order “of things” traceable to some foundation irrefutable of that reality.

Scientists in theory and practice tirelessly devote themselves in discovery of “laws” that govern matters of matter and energy. Of stuff seen and unseen…but real…like gravity. (Even time itself, not exempted) Historians tirelessly devote themselves to what “really took place” or was said, written, or done to some end of dispelling any common mythology of those matters that are then dispelled by their verification of what really was. Even philosophers have their playground. And I am none of these.

Yet in all there is a common thread. A search for establishment. A quest for a knowing…unquestionable. The presumption that “stuff” is governed is no small presumption. No, not at all. And that such governance can be made known, tickled from it (the stuff) to give up its secrets to be made knowable is no less grand…or is it grandiose? No, not at all. We determine to know the orderliness of things.

And if one would be so bold as to say “it is all chaos” how little would he even know of how much order is required to even say it…or think it! Would another man be too bold, or even too stupid to say of such a one who says “all is chaos and/or therefore meaningless”… “you don’t begin to know your own stupidity!”? What does the nihilist betray in any of his speaking?

Yes, a consciousness of his presumption. Not that he is conscious of his presumption, no, not at all. But that rather that he presumes the consciousness informing him that “all is meaningless” is presumed to be…right. If all is utterly random to no end, to no consequence, to no matter of mattering at all…what has led him (does he believe rationally?…with “reason”?) to such conclusion? How could he “trust” its working to the formulation of any conclusion?

And still I offer no proof of God. I have neither set out to prove the governor of all nor hold any folly that such can be done so. What I may have some impetus toward is only this, and this only. A more thorough convincing today than yesterday, that man has his baskets into which he places matters he considers of consequence, and those of no consequence. And he does this in a conscious estate of assigning…using a “thing”…his own consciousness for their determination. His use of it is for display of his having it, though in any and every other instance he would never use any tool in complete doubt of its trustworthiness. Nor how at all “it” works. Or if it does, at all. (And so gas pumps have little stickers verifying their accuracy…by “an authority”)

Consciousness is betrayed then, in both senses of that word…betray. He both uses it in claim of having it, while all the while being stirred by such matter that leaves him of no conclusivity for his discerning nor defining of it. And yet, he utterly trusts it.

Who could “peek” in there to see that thing that was previously said few would have the temerity to say, but is nonetheless there in all seeming and gleaming splendor…as full result of man’s inability to discern nor define? What else could a man come to but this in all its untangle-ability from himself in order to be discerned to himself…but “I am consciousness”?

For to even utter “my” as in “I am my consciousness” is to admit division in yourself as one thing having, and another thing…had. And something is propelling you to present and see yourself as integral, as one, even “of integrity”. He sees himself as the integer of “One”.

“I am One”.

“All of a man’s ways are right in his own eyes” someone wrote.

No, you don’t have to say it, it’s already native to you. You discern between right and wrong, good and bad (or evil), consequential matters and matters of no consequence, interests and no interest and place them into your little baskets. Just like me.

None of which can hold God.

And because of such you cannot know it is you who are being held by those baskets. Those bins for and of your assigning. Even to what is reasonable/rational and therefore acceptable, and what is not.

Yes, to yourself as “the consciousness”…you are god. And just like me, what a poor one you are.

And I have no claim nor plea of myself of any difference from you.

Yet I claim to have met a de-throner. Someone very much, and yet not at all, like you and I.

You say you cannot abide such contradiction? Such paradoxical reasoning?

Simply look at where you already live. In all presumption of having reason in a universe of all that (if) you say lacks reason for its being...can yet have reason in it. Even if it be only your own.

(Unless you believe yourself separate from it…and really…who doesn’t?)

To ourselves, and of ourselves…even from ourselves…we assume/presume ourselves to be “the Observer” of all that can be observed. Or all we care to. And ignore what we care not to.

Our baskets do not work here.

Are you conscious of being moved?

Either going to, or being led to a place where all a man has done, might do, or is able to accomplish of himself is shown to be of absolutely no value or lasting consequence to him or any whatsoever, could certainly appear the pinnacle of frustration.

And anyone reading might see a certain care in the use of “of himself” both here and elsewhere; for if proceeding from the notion of a closed system (no matter how large nor varied) man in all is, at best, self reliant. Reliant to and of himself for any and all understanding, reasoning(s) perspective, judgments…even to those things he claims to know. For all he holds in, or of, consciousness. There is not, nor can be anything inside a man that is not of man. Yes, and in that case, man alone is even left to define himself.

And is it not quaint(?), silly(?) or curiously self revealing that he presently calls himself Homo Sapiens from the Latin for “Wise Man”? Has he or any earned that name…of wise? Or is it in just sensing enough consciousness of self to be self aware that he has found no better place to hang that placard? But again, and after all, in a closed system if man alone is able to define wise or wisdom, where else could he place it? And of course, man thinks himself wise enough to know what wisdom is. And here…all words are made up, created, assigned their being “of likeness”. But, if the words at best are only metaphors for matters assumed (or presumed) to be, in some remove for true substance, can we ever know true substance?

We use words to describe love, life, rock, snail, and if enough general agreement is concluded, at best all we do is agree that’s what these things…are. Even consciousness. With words made up in, and from, consciousness. Dare we recall the futility (or folly) inherent in using a word to define itself? Book means…book? Love means…love? Truth means…truth? A lie is a thing that is a lie? All true enough, are they not…but…of no utility to gaining understanding.

Would that not also betray some folly in man…describing or defining man? But, in a closed system…using our consciousness to define consciousness would be all we got.

And man often has the audacity to say “I cannot abide circular reasoning” when there is to him, no other. For he must always come back to some place of original presupposition, or assumption, or presumption of even being…(if that is itself fundamental…enough, or just having consciousness if “being” be a bridge too far?) Or would audacity not apply? Perhaps incapability of escaping his own reasoning(s) is what he cannot abide. After all, things in a closed system can go no farther than…closed. No matter how large or varied.

It could be supposed that kicking a thing while it’s down is bad form, poor sportsmanship, or even a betrayal of some prideful occupation revealing a prideful estate. But who’s to care at this point how pride is considered if in a closed system?

We create of ourselves the very notion of nuance, if so; and so on one hand pride in one’s children is almost encouraged and to a great extent respected and expected; whereas a man who is proud of his knowledge and accomplishments or intellectual grasp and sight sounds as venal and ridiculous as the man has just had an eye exam saying “I am very proud to have 20/20 vision”. And yet, so are we all, in our own consciousness.

If this is in doubt simply note your experience of being rebuked in a situation to which you have not agreed. The student in his setting is far more acceptable of rebuke of his ignorance by one he accepts as teacher, to which he has agreed to sit under. But in an impromptu circumstance let a schoolmate tell him his math is entirely faulty (which may be entirely true) and the reaction may be a bit more volatile. Who we accept as over us are to us our masters, and often to the end we may become masters ourselves. We will sit, but only in order to eventually leave as those now knowing. As even so we choose colleges and/or careers. “I choose to be taught of this thing, in this manner, and by this way”.

And rare might be the parent who has long tied shoelaces not finding a tight knot as a consequence in eventual submission to “now me do it!”. There is a great deal, perhaps even some fundamental quality of the consciousness of man always directing to…”but I must know for myself”. Even in the hows and whys of things.

But who can teach us of the fundamental quality of consciousness? Our relationship to it, or in it…and from which we measure, assign, direct, include, exclude every matter we have or can ever consider, unless he be superior to this experience we have of our own? Are we all on our own here?

And if so, if it be a “closed system” functionally, or practically and each man’s consciousness is in all and totally separate to himself, who is to say which is right, or true? Would those words even mean anything in such a circumstance? Could they mean anything? So this thing or matter of truth (and even rightness) could not be transcendent (though the consciousness so often claims it so) as “over all” for it would be (and actually is, and practically in that circumstance) no more than meaning consensus.

To beat that dead horse then, (or kick man’s reasonings while down) the world was flat in 400 AD and mysteriously changed some time thereafter.

But do any really believe that? That the universe is subject to changing itself in such a manner…even down to our “own” world, specifically? To go from flat to globular?

How one answers reveals his bent.

“But the universe is always changing, even expanding…” One might say.

Then in consequence one is confessing “the universe is always subject to change”

What subjects it? What then is the all making it…subject to…? If the universe…be the all?

And what a peculiar thing it is to see how the consciousness of man…in and, (if so) of the universe, presumes to himself the power to objectify it (the universe), in practical way as a “thing apart” which he observes from his consciousness…as a “thing” observable.

Either consciousness is so peculiar to allow so, so divorced from all “other matters” of the universe that the universe itself can be made subject to it, or man, in and of the universe (in a closed system) sets too much store in this thing “granted him” only by the function of the universe. And man then is now subject.

Which is it?

Admitting to having gone a bit far afield in these matters is not difficult nor grievous. And there is a frank persuasion that indeed, it is precisely in the seeming of going too far afield that certain matters are established. For what, either collectively and dare it be said, even individually does man absolutely declare beyond his knowing? Collectively or individually when man or a man sets out to know a thing and summons his powers found in consciousness to know it, ever begins by resolving to himself…but this matter is unknowable?

It would appear that mind, even the mind in or of consciousness, (especially if speaking of man) cannot submit to all frustration as all and only ultimate outcome. Said previously, it is as a voracious thing, yet not often appreciating its own voracity. It is as if not knowing of its own innate (inescapabale?) consumerism it yet strives to be producer or a producer by matters grasped in such consumption of new truth.

Is it so hard to see? Where once man’s communication(s) were only face to face for exchange of consciousness…of what each knew or held, you and I may now write or record to seeming faceless individuals or multitudes in fractions of seconds across a globe. What once escaped on the wind was made more durable in writing and/or symbols engraved, made far more distribute-able by Gutenberg, far more immediate by telegraph…and on and on.

Yet in all, and by all…no matter of advances in technology, techniques, inventions, of words and/or imaging in all attempts at exchange of what might be (vainly?) termed true substance from one to another…or even from “things” to a person, ultimately (are we not?) still left, at very best, yes, still left dealing in metaphor? Still at some remove… where things are only known in terms of other things; working with our building blocks, one upon another, then another…in full hope that the very first laid (and often in complete trust despite its first setting being in all unknown to us) under-girding all above, supporting all above that have come to us as consequence, is true.

And that could well be “I have consciousness…and it is true”

And it was said truth is never off the table.

Dare it even be said…we only know our very own selves…at some remove?

But who believes that? Can it be…believed?

Can that frustration be made bearable?

Is there a terror in consciousness?

You will know if you have ever had any experience of it. That experience of being terrified. It’s rather all consuming, isn’t it? The man who thinks he controls, in some way his consciousness, discovers there (if he is allowed reflection later) that a particular matter he’d prefer to not know he had no power over.

Oh, at times, perhaps even at most times, he is engaged in what he believes is his choosing of what to consider and pursue. But terror…when it bursts in, all previous illusions of his own control are shattered…he is aware of all and only being swallowed whole by a thing, and a thing he cannot recognize or organize for referencing.

Terror is not a thing “like” something else he can make subject to to his rational deconstructions. He is, in all, subject to it. But this does not stop him (if he is allowed reflection later) to make all attempt, all striving and arranging he may think he retains in circumstance, to prevent its appearing again. “I will build a better house that the storm cannot threaten with collapse upon me.” “I will install a stronger door a lion cannot compromise”. “I will not go out unarmed”…

“I will”

But these matters above may only be a response to “things” that may happen to make us aware of some terror. But does consciousness itself, a thing we cannot escape by moving to less storm tossed areas, or continents that are lion free, or better neighborhoods…but consciousness, does it not go with us…everywhere? Isn’t that what we are even trying to maneuver by such moving?

“I will”…find a place of rest from things that can, or do, terrify…”me”.

A better consideration of this matter, and is trusted to be of some universality, is dreams. It matters not how we may seek to define consciousness here (as I have already ceded to all inability)…as though we can find a clear line, rather than an entirely porous substrate of gauzy border between what is called the conscious and subconscious, or unconscious.

We can set all the guards we want or believe are at our disposal (which already would testify of attempt to hold terror at bay, and that’s its existence to us is already entrenched as known) but we may find, in all these “things”, in all these “matters” (pharmacologics surely included) we have already ceded to the supremacy of terror over us. We are simply in all, reacting to…

And let’s even go further if we can. And dreams seem a fair (if universal) application…and what are commonly called nightmares (if universal) are also included as some form of subset of dreams. Even a very particular subset…of those in all, unwanted. And let’s get more specific…for beyond “bad” dreams there are those able to wake us with a start to heart’s pounding, their cold acid taste now so fresh in memory as though etching in places we’d rather not know can be drawn upon. And yet are/were just as real to us as feeling the hot breath of a beast upon our own necks just before it takes a bite.

Asking if a dream not remembered was real is akin to asking about a tree falling in a forest with no one there to hear. But we are not here speaking of things that may have taken place unknown to waking conscious of memory; but of those whose imprinting in our now waking consciousness we know took place, no matter if we assign their origins to a late night slice of pizza or even recognize in their often absurd logic something able to consider. But nevertheless we know, there we knew terror.

Have you also known these?

Another disclaimer. I am not about categorizing such by symbolisms, nor seeking toward any particular interpretations. Only that there is (or can be) a knowing of terror in the conscious mind that is itself presented of some constituency of that mind (even it be the subconscious or unconscious) to itself. This is solely in some response to the question “Is there a terror in consciousness?” Does some level of consciousness (attained to) inherently hold the capacity to either produce to itself, or know terror? Does the mind of man in whole scare the hell out itself at times in what it can know even in itself?

Admittedly we may often write these things off. “I have been under a lot of emotional stress lately” or some other circumstance has so intruded as to find malleable that matter we once thought solely under our own control…what we call our own minds. But are there not times, like out of left field such occur with no evidence to support (by us) their being bidden to us, by us or our considered estate? “Everything seems to be OK with me…yet…why now this thing presenting?”

Few would have issue in concluding to the man on a war torn battlefield with friend’s brains exploding left and right out of their heads on a daily basis his right to night terrors. But my bills are paid. My lawn is trimmed. My roof does not leak. Neither I nor anyone in my family has received some dread diagnosis. I know no pressing…except, something has broken through it all. Why is my mind being like this…to me?

Is there a terror in consciousness?

Not knowing my audience among men is a good thing. Have you not also found it so? Not having to tailor one’s thoughts and words to anyone in, or of any particular assumed grouping is a great relief.

A good friend, upon some reading and with some welcome advice said he didn’t know “who I was courting” or that perhaps I was just engaged in “thinking out loud”. But what is speech? What is writing? If not…that? It matters little what form it takes from lengthiest fantasy novel to weightiest treatise on some profound discovery in nuclear physics, thought is being revealed.

And I concede here, and have already, that all of us are something of experts in regards to consciousness. Or equally ignorant. The nuclear physicist might have to consider his audience, unless he sets out to cover all of nuclear physics so that even the uniformed novice is brought “up to speed” if possible.

But all of us have been working in? with? using?…consciousness for at least as long as we can remember. It may well exceed even memory though, mightn’t it?

And consciousness in man (of man?) seems always about a connection to other consciousness in some seeing of same, or likeness…but not knowing with any precision where it may be found. Or in whom it may be discovered as seen.

Even the nuclear physicist in his treatise, with to him a very strict audience in mind, can still be surprised to find it is grasped by a 12 year old skateboarding prodigy somewhere. Someone whose jackets do not yet have elbow patches, or even eschews pocket protectors. We even betray our own consciousness when we “have in mind” those to whom we speak, or write, or for whom we create.

And it is not as though this is spoken of as a negative or bad thing, to hold some “in mind”. Quite the contrary. Nevertheless, if able to find, be led to, or discover an acceptable place that might include all, or some, or any…or even none, is very liberating. On the one hand it leaves open every door to surprise, and on the other, closes every door to disappointment. So, I assume you are conscious. (And I’d be delighted to hear any argument against that)

Nevertheless, in any of this stuff “about consciousness” were I to discover (by the whole of the world coming to my door) that “but no one else thinks the way you do”, can you imagine my surprise at exclaiming “I knew it! I always knew it!” And who of you…doubt?

You see, we are all very much the same, or not. Either in hope for some likeness discoverable or, if contrary in all conviction that none exists…how profoundly we continue practice to all our own perfect frustrating. What impels to, on the one hand, if convinced all communication and attempts at it shall never find likeness or is fruitless…even meaningless, yet absolutely forbids the man from settling into all isolation inherently accepted by that? Is it not…terror? And dare we agree to this? For if we do, some likeness is already found.

Do not even nihilists hold some meeting(s)? Or write? Or speak?

Why?

Is there a terror in consciousness?

It’s probably good at this point to reiterate what was said in part 1 in reference to the word betray. First would be the more common usage, as one who betrays another by dealing treacherously with them. The second or other usage would be toward a usually unintentional revelation of estate. The example given was of a beggar wearing a Rolex.

But we can easily see their relatedness. Both have something to do with a showing or display of an agenda once sought to be kept hidden. The first is to place another in jeopardy by a gained trust falsely engendered and cultivated, the second (not unlike in showing true estate) is also a revelation, though usually unintended. In the first there is an intentional maneuvering of the object/person to a place of vulnerability for demolition, while the second demolishes an assumed presentation by a de facto refutation of estate presented. Beggars don’t usually wear Rolexes nor drive a Mercedes. One it appears betrays, anther gets betrayed as not what he presents.

But here also is where their similarity comes into play, for both are finally revealed of themselves as betrayers.

There might be found another agenda working, even above all others given to any subterfuge. And that is that the truth of all matters, things, and persons…will be made clear. And that no thing can remain long hidden.

There has also been some care taken when speaking of consciousness to more question our understanding of it than seek to assign some definition to it, as I readily admit my poverty of understanding will neither tolerate, nor provide. One needn’t betray themselves as more of a fool than one already is, and even I can enjoy this position.

Those questions remain. Consciousness, and our relationship to it, is it a “thing” we have? A thing we use? Both? Neither? Or is it a thing we see? Even, are in? I have my persuasions as you have yours. Nevertheless there is, in all the question(s) above a basic and inclusive quandary/problem/issue I make no claim to resolve. (But I have my persuasion)

And the issue is there is a “we” in observation of it, as though able to look at it as a thing apart in seeking any understanding of it. And the quandary then remains, can “I” or any so separate ourselves in some consciousness…from consciousness…to appraise it for what “it” is? Yet, we do attempt so, don’t we? To even (if we ever have) seek to understand thought(s) and thinking…by thinking about it/them. Just like the man who says within himself…”Yikes! Where did that thought come from?” And then proceeds to use the very matter of thoughts and thinking to pursue. What even causes him to want to know…where thoughts come from?

Perhaps I am too queer and none of this is relatable by you. Or perhaps, and more than either of us may care to admit to one another, I am just like you, and you like me. That would be something, wouldn’t it? To both find ourselves admitting to all the same puzzling? But of course, any are free to say they know themselves stem to stern, and I trust this will either be displayed as truth or betrayed as lie.

For this matter of truth we are not yet done with, and is always on the table.

If truth is in play, on the table, even in any of man’s purview for discussion, we may continue. But truth is just a word. And in this case, a written one. Try as we might (and we do, don’t we?) to communicate our having of things in consciousness to others we believe are of some like consciousness, we may find there comes a point of great difficulty. Even impossibility in the limits of our communication(s) of our understandings and definitions, to another with their own.

To reduce this to the absurd is too easy. But is it true? The 17 year old boy laboring strenuously in the back seat with a young lady, both in a certain circumstance, is looking toward a particular outcome. Finally she says “but only if you love me”.

How common is it that it may only be days later, or months later, or even years later (does it really much matter? Even adding “vows” can become awkwardly accusatory) that a word believed of some transcendence over time meets the test of time and fails? Time and changing circumstance make subjects of us all. It might be tomorrow, it might be next week, or year, or decade(s), but we may learn how malleable we are, even in matters we consider of rock bottom foundation.

Again, did the earth change from flat to sphere somewhere along the line? And might we learn a caution then if there be any pooh poohing from our present back to theirs?

In this ridiculous case of the back seat lovers it is often made clear to one or both, or perhaps even neither yet that “being on the same page” is no small feat. Or that where it was assumed to be so, was not. The cost of it may be shown too high, and is often considered so. And we do learn something of the cost of our own assumptions and presumptions, don’t we?

Unless of course you are the one who has never uttered nor thought “If I had only known…then…” We even find our own history replete with testimony of a “one” who was not on the same page as another in now. “When I was a young man…” I am/was not myself. It sounds odd to put it that way…but is it true? We usually hear the more employed “I am not the man I once was”, for now “I know better.”

But the question remains…is that true? The man referred to as not as myself, today, the younger man, the more ignorant man (?) inexperienced man…tell me…did he also and no less think he (at that time) knew better…in his exercise of choice(s)? Only later to be either shown presumptuous, ignorant and/or quite uninformed. So the man who stands today thinking “now I know better”…how different really…is he from that other man?

That “other” man that no less, at that time, thought he knew better.

And although it may be uncomfortable to consider; nevertheless, is it true?

And so that word again…true. A thing of truth. Truth. Is it transcendent? Is it, in all, malleable? Does it even mean anything? Does it need support or does it, is it, all that does support? Do facts support truth, or are facts our only “seeable” manifestation that a matter of truth is at work in supply of them? Stuff exists…do we therefore only refer existence as a property assignable to stuff (even consciousness), or do we hold to some obverse? Stuff exists…therefore there is a testimony of existence. Rather than existence being defined in, and only by term of stuff?

We shall find, if we have not already, we can of ourselves progress no farther than metaphor. We are, by our own observations de facto stating a remove from reality. It becomes to us, a “thing” observed, seeking to measure its properties, its laws of function and abidance, at a remove, at some distance. And all the measurements, calculations, conclusions that take place in mind are never any more than “it’s like this”. And also at best then, all communications which derive from consciousness are then and only all the more removed. Is it a problem/issue we just accept? Or is it that we rarely consider it?

What’s the truth of those questions?

What is truth? Is a question many have asked. Even farther back in time than that ancient Roman procurator is recorded to have asked. Seems some things…don’t change, at all. Some considerations…despite all the seeming progress in time and/or technologies can bring us no closer to resolution. But the always pernicious lie remains, just assume you know it…and do, and will always be able of yourself to recognize it. It was said earlier we all play with building blocks. But what if we find the very first one toxic and able to contaminate all else built upon it? What resort have we then? Any?

What would any “know” to do…if all knowing is then shown, not merely fragile, but utterly corrupt in all? What would be the “go to”? How could a man even know…he is wrong in all his knowing?

In part 2 the statement was made:

“…the matter of truth as relates to consciousness is of paramount importance.”

This is either too bold and insupportable or just bold enough. And though these words are to and for whomever comes across them, since I have taken some stand as a believer in God, and that only through the work of Jesus Christ; it would not be true of me to not say some difference remains among others who believe, others that deny that faith, or as yet have not even heard of it.

And here I well understand that such seeing and stating of difference and distinction in (and of) my consciousness leaves me well open to any and every denial and refuting; right down to (or up to) its extreme…as in “there is no truth in your (my) consciousness.” As said from one consciousness as to my own. Believers meet this accusation often…if not daily, depending. It either comes in some form of conflicting world view, or if not, may be extended ultimately to its own extreme “your view (the believer’s) of reality is entirely unfounded, the most base of constructs founded in all error, and you are entirely wrong“. Happily, the believer learns to live with that. Or will. Or can. The believer’s capacity for joy is boundless. Too bold? Or, too soon? Nah. Not really.

To express that faith of an all conscious being, all powerful, even all the omni’s one cares to ascribe to Him is, in the sense I even now express, reproves me. For we already hold some defining of “a” being, who or what “a” being is. But God is not so…subject to any defining. The God who is God is subject…to no thing. So the best I can presently employ is to switch the noun for a verb, that instead of His being “a” being, His being is in being (verb, now) all that would appear, and as such does not even yet appear to any man of all boundlessness…of all the “omni’s” a man could ascribe. So the better understanding of any or all ascription would not be that “He is all conscious” (almost as though viewed as “He looks around in His mind” as we do) but perhaps rather that He is in being (verb, again) the very all of consciousness. He is, what consciousness in all, is. Is this too subtle? I think not. But I concede the weakness of my words.

But we do that, don’t we? We “look around in our own minds”, don’t we? You see the conundrum (again) of our own divisibility; though we like to think, and even present ourselves to each other and the world…as one. But then what is doing the looking, what is doing the presenting…that is looked for?

Is it not unlike a man seated in a movie theater? Something is seeing “thoughts”, ideas, notions, not unlike images or words presented on a screen. Is the man in the seat viewing…”the man”? Is the screen itself that appears such images are presented upon with notions, ideas, even words…the man? Or is it something or someone in the projectors booth, entirely unseen and out of view, even unknown to the man that elects what to project on the screen for viewing…”the man”?

And, if any of this holds water to you as a true matter of experience, and undeniable (are you not right now “seeing” if you agree?) I make no contention that any of these “have to be” or are the man…but rather that we “see” the occupations of our minds in consciousness held, it appears, as differing estates; as one both having thoughts, but also perceiving them. Seeing them…even discerning (or trying to) see where they are going, or may go. And who of us has not had the experience of “where the heck did that come from?” in regards to certain thoughts? So much testifies against any notion we control our minds. And who would that be anyway, that we to which we may ascribe some (any? none?) of control?

Who is us?

And dare we tell the truth on ourselves?

If not then, what are we always and only in offering?

I have not sought to hide that I am writing as one claiming faith in God, even that there is a faith of God delivered through one man true in that faith, Jesus Christ. I no less believe that the god of which He testified/testifies is the God over all others that might be testified to, or by, any other. He testifies of the God who has no boss. None above Him in any sense, the very Head of all things. All visible and invisible (at least to us) and as we might describe them.

And if I have had any compelling in this writing, at least such as I might or am able to discern, it is in part to such end that a very invisible matter to us, though far more real than most anything other we may handle (so to speak) and by which we do indeed handle all matters, even handling them in it, that is “our” consciousness, is as real a thing…and even more so than that chair you may sit in; for it is all and only in your consciousness that it is even assigned…reality.

I can easily tolerate any and all disagreement here and would be interested to hear any contention or argument against. And I am rather persuaded that even the most strident argument against would only betray that a consciousness as a thing is at work (an entirely invisible matter working in an entirely invisible manner) that contends against. Any use of it…betrays we “have it”.

And please, if so inclined, do not trouble yourself with reference to PET scans or fMRI to say such matter of claimed invisibility is now made visible (“Look! we can now “see” thought activity!” or “Man makes the once invisible…visible!”) for I have never denied man as “a” god with even some proclivity to make the previously unseen of others then seen to others. For you would trouble yourself far less in contentions if merely pointing me to Picasso’s Guernica. Or a wheel. Or just…speech.

Men are always making stuff from their minds. Translating invisible stuff to visible stuff or modulating air waves. Or writing. Or frowning. Yet the thing from which they spring…even consciousness itself, remains invisible, indecipherable, even named…but as author of all definitions (for us if locked up to it) it is itself indefinable.

There, surely…but only able to show…in part. And only showing itself…even to us…in part. Just how large is the basement of our subconscious upon which our house above is built, in its bellowing and belching up resonant rumblings? Even and every so often…terrifying ones when we are defenseless against them?

Little wonder man is a god to himself, seeing his own choices, proclivities, propensities, ideas, of some ableness to be made real to himself. No attempt has been here made to deny. No attempt remains to deny. Man makes a lot real to himself and is often found seeking to make such to others. There’s a great market for ideas. Much to be made off of, or from stuff that was once invisible to even the man, but when come across, or stumbled upon…or even diligently sought as through a veil till finally grasped…many will pay well for something…”new”. And different.

But I am only writing about the very oldest thing any of us know…or are able remember…consciousness. Nothing new here at all. Nothing marketable. Maybe even a thing thought so common as to be thought absurd to mention. Like writing a treatise on toe nails. Nothing to be sold or bought, not even anything to be re-branded. And we all presently, to whatever extent we do have it, know we have it.

And what I may see “about it” may be better expressed by others, considered deeper and longer (for I am still in my youth) to some interest of far greater generation than I achieve. Yet, I am no less persuaded, each of us having it are no less persuaded we are all experts in it. For really, with what else do we seek to do…everything? “It” gets a lot of use. And just as the roofer who pounds nails all day can become something of an expert in use of, and about hammers, we are all pretty convinced our working is perfectly suited to the way we use ours.

“All of a man’s ways are right in his own eyes” is a sentence that comes to mind.

What could ever make this plain to a man? I surely can not.

For neither have I sought (and often made plain) that anything of my own mind, even in belief of the God whom Jesus the Christ declares is in my purview to make real to another. That perfection of frustrating, mentioned a few pages back, is made plain to me now…not as irksome bounding, but as a relief given, even a very savory truth to abide in. As in “I have tried everything to no avail in perfect frustration therefore I have no choice but to rest from it”.

“Of myself, I can do nothing” once a thing so hard on the hearing…to be striven against in reply of ability to refute, to prove otherwise, to show as even conquerable, has invaded and devastated all opposition when I was made aware I am in the one speaking it. And I surely didn’t choose who to be in. No more than you can, or do.

And yes, I was so sure I was assigned myself only in which to live and be…and isolated. There is/was no visible, invisible, known or unknown possible way out of this enforced conundrum and most perplexing to utter despair of condition. Finding an inescapable taskmaster thrashing constantly to being right, to being correct, to knowing of anything to a surety; but in such palpable isolation any and all assurance necessary for any confirmation, for verification, was utterly denied.

Then, an invasion. By a conqueror.

Since the word “crazy” was brought up in the last section, and we are considering consciousness, this matter that either is itself, or takes place in mind(s); we might as well stop on it, linger about it a while and see what kind of water it holds for suitable defining. And I am not unaware that the word insanity has also come up previously.

Someone once wrote “Crazy (or insanity) is just a clever construct formulated by an agreement of two to marginalize a third person”. Or, you can no less flip it if you care to: “Sanity is just a clever construct…” And it’s plain (or should be) why this is so in power dynamics used for control.

If you start with any less, that is two, you see the problem in establishing the authority of definition. And control always rests upon authority. With only two…who will decide? If you get down to one alone, what is on or off that table? Would we be too absurd to say “everything and nothing” are both simultaneously on that table?

It seems this matter of reference and referencing, a thing which sole consciousness cannot establish to itself, is both necessity and deep problem. If it concedes to necessity of agreement to even know itself, to whom or what to concede such power by agreement to establish itself?

Really, if it’s just you and me here…who is to say anything about rightness or wrongness of thought…what, or to where, or to what extent consciousness is allowed excursion? Who gets to set the bounds? Is there “crazy land”(?) and who would know when we have crossed over into it? You may not even like this train of thought and already wonder if its very reading will (as impacts have already been mentioned as occurring) affect you and feel great trepidation at any continuance. Don’t worry, I see you have brought mommy and daddy with you (and all your experiences of circumstance(s), and learnings, and knowings) and they are no less welcome here than you are. What a multitude! Or…is it just you and me?

We all, in some sense, are already carrying our references. We can both pull our endorsements as need be.