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?
israelx7wordpresscom 