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?
israelx7wordpresscom 