Is it too late to admit, or admit again that in the matter of consciousness I am as much at a loss to define or expound upon it than any other? But, if we agree it is “there” or “here” as a real thing in which we, together, are…as even in consciousness together…perhaps even in some sense locked up in it and to it…can we also agree that nothing (as we know anything) can be understood or defined while confined in it?
The rock must be observed from “outside” to be fully known…its length, breadth, width, comparable density, et al…that make for defining any particular rock…or anything other for that matter. The thing observing, if in the thing for observation, is very much at a loss for any full knowing. Maybe even any knowing at all…except that it is. And we might have to admit the only thing we observe or even recognize consciousness with…is consciousness.
Yet once we perceive and are even convinced “it is” and think about thinking, or what such a thing as our own knowing is, (both which may be only a function of consciousness and not it, itself) we may approach waters less than familiar for navigation. We may even admit to some trepidation. For who knows where that rabbit hole leads? How deep is this matter? What is thought…and the awareness of it, or even them, as thoughts? What is consciousness? What is it of? What is in it?
Have you experienced a “gatekeeper”? I am attending to one right now, aren’t you? Shall I continue to write, and if so…what…and will you continue to read (if you have gotten this far) or not? There’s some matter of will mixed up in this thing that is always working in it (consciousness), but as though over it in regards to attendance.
How could I doubt you have (no less than I) approved some thoughts and continued in or with them, while rejecting others. Probably with even some success depending upon circumstance “I will think about this now” or “I will not (or even cannot) think about this now”.
The man now being chased by a thug with a gun may not find time to consider what he previously was in planning to wear to the award’s dinner. Thoughts and/or consciousness we may discover are most often subject in circumstance, and to them. That too, then, becomes a matter not to be ignored in a sense…being constrained in consciousness by circumstance.
It would seem that any right exploration to any true understanding, that of pure and basic nature of consciousness, would no less require freedom from, delivery from, or escape of being “in circumstance”. I am not to myself, are you?
All my folly in any of this writing could be displayed in an instant as in owing to nothing more than the good meal I had last night. Were I starving to death, would I be doing this or looking for something to eat?
“Pretty girls just seem to find out early, how to open doors with just a smile”
Their circumstance is favorable to its learning and practical usage. How to “get to a thing”…like an open door.
But what control, really, has any man over circumstance(s)? No matter how he try and control to the uttermost to and for himself, and even learned of many seeming practical usages from them, he remains subject to them, in all. Is this not true? Always some finding of limit, even by or in circumstance(s)?
And these (they) are always constraining upon the consciousness. I may be made very unhappy in my consciousness when discovering the boat I had planned to purchase has now gone up $2,000 in price and is now out of reach. Or…when I stub my toe. Or some diagnosis comes.
And on and on and on. And I would be worse than a fool to imagine I can discuss these things as though “freer” of circumstance than another, as though my self is more able to purely touch some essence of it. But…we might admit we are at least, in this together. At least for now as circumstance allows. You and your knowing, and me in mine.
Were we to admit to any of the above and previous considerations of multiple outward influences upon our consciousness, our awareness(es), our thoughts and thought processes; our head might swim with how much it appears subject to. How very much was even formed before we knew of any gatekeeper, of things “put in” prior to any form of developed discerning (at least as we might recognize). In that sense, though to each of ourselves we appear as the normal to ourselves; our constrainment and/or containment within each of our selves leaves us only our “normal” as determined…normal. Did any of us have choice as to parentage and in what milieu we would be reared? Oh, but we are so subject to circumstance!
No condemnation here for that. Nor can be from any man toward another man.
But if we are able to admit (are we able?) this is so, and that we with “our consciousness” observe, measure (judge), and then employ our own logic and reasoning(s) as either faculty of, or mere manifestation of consciousness, knowing that only “it is” apart from any defining to what it “really” is, another question arises.
In what other circumstance would we employ anything for accuracy to judge or measure for accuracy, apart from some knowledge of its working(s), workability and trustworthiness? An altimeter in a plane? The gas gauge in our car? The oven dial with thermostat? Measuring cup to dispense pharmaceuticals to our children?
Yes, we do a lot with our consciousness (or seem to) even much observing and judging amongst and between matters and things, yet our being in it does not much give any indication of really what it is, nor its accuracy. At best we might only concede “I may not know how it works, why it works…but I got it”. And there blithely, perhaps even abysmally ignorantly, leave off all and any matters of any accuracy with “all I know is that it’s good enough…for me”. Yet, we do not do this with anything else. We trust our gas gauge unless or until it proves itself untrustworthy. And all things in material are subject to change.
Again, and as often sensed necessary, I will repeat that this is for no proving of God or even “a” god, but only, if necessary to see foundations so seemingly and strongly supported by both time and most common of assumptions that do not have the foundations they boast of…especially in our own reasoning(s) and logic. Those elemental things that cannot bear their own boast.
And where they do most often seem to “hold” their supremacy is in the contradictory, and even self contradicting nature of what only appears as agreement among men.
Something there is that would elevate man’s logic, reasoning(s) and even all functions or faculties of consciousness above the knowledge of God. The believer should know who and what sits in this assigned seat of abetting.
The man of sin is appointed to be revealed.
israelx7wordpresscom 