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.
israelx7wordpresscom 