Month: April 2023

The adage “there’s no accounting for taste” is as pertinent to these considerations as it is in any other more familiar reference. The effects upon our consciousness by a multitude of influences, some easily seen while most remain quite obscure to us, surely accounts for matters of affections. But also, and no less, in matters of disdain.

We often no more know why we “like” or hold interest of certain matters, or why others either leave us cold, or in disdain. Resistances and flow we may not appreciate to their depths, but we know by experience that one is pleasant to us, the other summons effort and work. And we are just as much “moved” by disdain and dislike as we are by affections.

And even if we come to somehow appreciate the necessity of resistances and the labor(s) they require and find the benefits of an enforced discipline necessary to their overcoming; were we to know from the outset all must end only in frustration…complete, total, inescapable, we would most certainly abandon pursuit of conquest, or any notion of success in the endeavor to overcome resistance and restore flow.

Yet, the knowledge of utter frustration once grasped as insurmountable (though surely not pleasant in experience) need not always hold, or be held to a negative consideration or connotation. There can also be great relief in it, found, no? Deliverance from fruitless pursuits, even if once believed worthy of great effort and expenditure that they might be attained…when finally shown to a perfect frustration can yield a welcome surrender…”well finally thank goodness, I know that’s not going to work, and I needn’t be troubled about it anymore…” Or “there’s really nothing I now know I can do about it”. But this can only occur after the unpleasantness of experiencing frustration is met and a cooler accounting of it has taken place.

There is nothing more enforced to a closed system than its limits, its closed-ness, for it is that by definition. It matters not a whit how large it is concluded to be, closed is closed…always. Nothing is in it, can be in it, but what is already assigned it. And we have already briefly touched upon this in especially considering the matter of consciousness as to whether it is in truth a “real” thing. Even as real as carbon atoms…and this is laughable…whose reality (at least to us) is only assigned them by our consciousness. We now know the difference (and also in acting and reacting) of those from oxygen atoms. Yeah…we seem to have found out a lot. Some one(s) held a real interest in “how stuff is” over millennia of pursuits to know.

And yes, it’s rather easy to now stand “here” in this present time and day and see that flow, even overcoming the many resistances and apparent limits of grasp. If only Democritus has access to an electron microscope, or some such, or even some knowledge of its working, he could have silenced Aristotle. “Look! There’s divisibility to earth, air, fire, and water! Even blood is made up of much smaller and discrete …stuff, just like dirt is!”. But from theory to pursuit of those proof(s) (which are now generally accepted) despite their endurance (or because of it) over thousands of years were essential to such proving. Time might indeed be the most important ingredient necessary for any knowing. We tend to attribute much to the many other things we recognize as being of or “about ourselves”, intellect, curiosity, imagination, disciplines…but if not given time…?

And if stuff is therefore divisible “down” to some nature of essence or individual part from which a whole is made, is this applicable to the matter of consciousness? Already I know my consciousness knows some divisions, likes and dislikes (or interests vs un-interests), knowns and unknowns (at least as “know” is ascribed to itself), some acknowledgement of reason and/or logic and order vs chaos, including some inherent ability to grasp differences and distinctions and not excluding what we call the conscious mind and the unconscious. And some sort of “judge” in there, discerning amongst them. It begins to appear consciousness with so many constituent parts does lend itself to being a “thing” as undeniable as rocks…even as from which those objects get their name. But here’s a question…is that their name?

Oh, do you say “Well, everyone knows rocks can’t name themselves…” Do you then not then see an issue Mr. (or Mrs. or Ms) Conglomeration of Only Molecules Randomly Assembled Over Time? Oh, but you say…”Well, but I have consciousness…rocks do not, and of such measure I even presume a right to name and assign ordering to all other things”?

OK…but then you are admitting the great divide, the great measure, the great(est) difference of such distinction as to make you in all separate…is consciousness. The subject then is a lot bigger than either of us…even all of us..think.

It might even be grasped this is all we have with which to handle anything.

And in it and on it, impacts abound.

It was previously mentioned a few sections back that there is math on this test. The matter was in consideration of how utterly divisible is any “one” man who may think himself as one, as a single integrated unit of oneness. This was set against the notion of unity as the true integrity (integer/singularity) of oneness. But it is quite all our experience of divisions in ourselves; which can only be refuted, and only stands subject to contradiction by one or any who have never…lied. If any would care to make that claim, just remember you are speaking to a man who, in every way, is just like you.

Have you ever spoken to yourself? Who, or what is speaking…and who or what is the hearer? And what is that thing that so often appears in that instance so ready to also add “you know it’s a bit crazy to talk to yourself, don’t you?”

The kicker to this of course is, that no matter how often or infrequently this may take place in use of your own mouth, it is undeniable of all the inward conversations that take place, are even now taking place, and are always taking place inside. And yes, you and I are both conscious of it.

Something is going on.

To say we have a bent toward order might seem a ridiculously moot point to make. And in some sense, more real than we may know or care to admit, we are all scientists in continual experimenting.

The baby keeps attempting that word till finally it comes out to the parent’s clapping delight. “She said it…she said encyclopedia!”

Admittedly this bit of fancy is most rudimentary in form and example; yet how different is it from the physicist who in mind is proceeding from what he knows, is already able to do or calculate, to the solution of a problem that has troubled him? We are all at play with building blocks. Phonetics just happens to be one of our first introductions to them. And we’d be foolish to assign it any less than what it is, one of our first disciplines…and in some ways a very strict one.

Already our minds are being ordered to a function, to work according to a desired result. And do we no less now find (or then find) ideas become linked in some ways to verbalization, as though the more difficult it is for us to “put them into words” the more gauzy they are to us in mind? And do we not also find how often words appear in mind to take us on some excursion of thought(s)?

And would it be belaboring the point of influences (which to us are well beyond our control at that point and in this matter) to say, that at least on the face of it, the parents above are perceived differently than some others whose joyful clapping would follow the accepted pronunciation of the word shit? We do not even have to enter any so called value judgments here, we simply see difference. We do not, nor ever had, any choice in our parentage. Nor did they (our parents)…and on and on back as far as any care to go.

But even this matter as contention is well ahead, even so far ahead of a more fundamental matter mentioned, our perceptions of difference. The mobile twirls above the crib, yet the baby continues to cry till the mother appears and cradles it. In whatever form of knowing it operates, that baby already knows difference, some experience of need and lack, and that the mobile twirling isn’t sufficient to it. Sometimes the mobile is enough to capture attention to satisfy it, sometimes need of attention exceeds its sufficiency. And as all parents learn (along with the growing baby) what was once (non conscious action?) of expression is soon turned to tool…crying. And rare may be the parent that itself has not learned the difference between the crying that follows a “no” to another cookie than follows a toddler’s falling off a chair. We all order things according to difference and distinctions. Even the subtler ones. (Interior designers make a living off of this, as do the best surgeons)

It would probably be right to ask at this point…so what? What does this have to do, or does this even have anything to do with consciousness? After all, we all know something of differences and distinctions that is so rudimentary as to be laughable. No one tries to cut their steak with a baseball or a lawn chair. Too absurd?

Or, too soon?

Really not if we have already accepted the notion of influences, either those unbidden, even choice-less, and even go so far as to those pursued of interest, sought for the acquiring, for it should probably be somewhat clear how dim we are in accounting for our own interests and pursuits. Some will go to welding school, some to Harvard Medical. And do not be cocksure this is all and only, nor ever solely owed to intellectual capacity. Some may go to Harvard because “daddy” did and “always expected me to” while another may not go…while giving the same reason.

So this matter of seeing and/or perceiving difference and distinction, yes, even, (perhaps especially) in consciousness from which actions proceed can be profoundly affecting. And the subtleties encountered there leave all of us in (me surely, no less than any other) if not a quandary, at least some fundamental issue.

What is the real me (as a thinking/perceiving/judging consciousness)…native, pure, undiluted, unaffected in a consciousness that is fit to know anything apart from all other influences…both bidden/sought and unbidden? How could we even measure? The lightest finger (or subtlest) placement on what we may think are scales in total uninfluenced balance for rightly concluding anything, are, we might admit (might we admit…even to ourselves?) already so skewed beyond our own knowing. Yes, even if not a “problem” to us, it surely is an issue.

We might even take that rabbit trail to the place of imagining ourself able…able to so come to it, arrive at it, that the self be satisfied it has touched bedrock of knowing. But then the question always remains “just how firm is this bedrock” in the knowing of all that may be known? No matter how much, or to whatever extent a man might think he can, or does appear to himself as able to confirm to himself…anything…he will find that apart from some “other” feedback for confirming, he is quite lost in insanity. And that the weakest of all, the most useless of all to him would be to accept any confirming from those no less lost in such insanity.

All with certain finger(s) on scales but not knowing with whose tincture of consciousness they are really working with in order to know; is it daddy’s…mommy’s…teacher’s…friend’s…most admired professor whose thoughts and words were devoured…greatest “past” minds…a preacher’s?

And God forbid we neglect circumstance(s) and how those have informed.

In so much of this and these we are at a loss in discerning impacts and forming. And if these be so unknown to us, how much more our actions that spring from them?

“Forgive them father, they know not what they do”…comes to mind.

To admit to any training of our consciousness, even our minds, is to no less admit to other influences, and perhaps by such admission begin to see how little is found of freedom or liberty in it (or them). Once a thing is directed, it is directed.

Even the man who might set out in some recognition of this and thus go about to establish himself as only to himself, has issues to face. No matter how scrupulously he may search to either undo, or seek to know, or uncover all other influences that he might recognize in seeking to know “his own mind”, may find even this inward bent to be free of other(s) influences is also, and no less, the result of a fundamental directing. Thus, even any motive to be free or believe one is in mind, may simply be bound to some directive of which he is not aware. A bit like a rebel furiously acting in a diaphanous snare.

But he may only rarely ask “Why do I so crave a free mind or to be free in it?”

What is this thing motivating to unboundedness?

The consciousness of man has a very profound motivating to both believe it can know things, and indeed, does. Even if all it seems to know is a desire to know. Even a need to know. In some ways it is voracious, of never ending appetite. Do you not find it so?

Let it see or find what is of some interest to it and it will explore for the knowing of it. Let it see what captures a greater, or even greatest interest, and it may spend a whole life time in pursuit of knowing. And the proportions of frustrations that come in all learning as some form of discipline, will be accounted according to the capture of interest. The greater the interest, the greater their tolerating. And the lesser their accounting. We are told Edison did a multitude of experiments with failed filaments before settling on tungsten for his light bulb.

But ultimately, what man sets his own interests? Or their bounds? What or who…influences there?

Yet, in all, and in all the explorations of things and matters of interest…is it not rare we consider, why? Why does this capture my interest? Why am I provoked or propelled to it or them? Is this not also of some directing…even if fundamental of it is not known?

If we are able to concede to some matters mentioned previously, as either functions or attributes of consciousness, particularly judgments entered by measurements; we might consider what often takes place. We won’t necessarily here address the question of those measurements being made by very peculiar and particular metrics. Just that it does…take place.

When asked or even asking one’s self of any of the “why’s” of those matters that might be observed…”Why do I like fishing?”…”Why do I like math?”…writing, reading, gardening, test piloting, doctoring, sculpting, religious studies, soldiering, public speaking, serial killing, song writing, nuclear physics, philosophy, baking, and on and on with none necessarily excluding any others, (for we can be like jugglers)…do we not generally supply, if to ourselves or others some reason(s) not only adjudged as sound, but most often for approval(s) in understanding?

Pertaining to interests, pursuits, actions and their pleasures derived do we ever think…”well, really, it’s just the rut I am in”? We tend toward approval of reasonable…reasons. And this is no less…a bent. To order things according to our own reasons and reasonings. Even to finding (or believing there is) some consistency in ourselves. And where would that even come from?

Really, if one concedes (do any truly concede?) that chaos and utter randomness is ultimately their only responsible paternity, why so ill at ease in it when believed perceived? Or if perceived? Do we know how much order it would take, must take, does take, to even recognize chaos? Or even say one can. Why do we so engage in the ordering of things? Even thinking we might recognize order (design) as opposed to something other?

;lkjdkuqrGKVBKjkhge;hjkKJHWEFGKJHLFEyVCHJjklgoiutgjknvbkjh’gnk’lb?

?

“He used the very gun given him by his father to maliciously execute his father”, the prosecutor declared.

No, you are not re-reading part 9. There was some attempt in that section (9) to establish that motive and intent, by will exercised to some consequence, leaves the “alone man” (of only molecules in consciousness?) a certain quandary regarding his sense of justice.

And justice, that is our sense of “fairness” executed in judgment for consequence upon an object (no less a function of “our” consciousness) consumes much of our considerations. We’ve built whole legal systems for its handling. We often deal with one another according to it. Might this and these things, of the matters we call man’s law, and rules of judgment, no less show themselves with false foundation?

Again we seek not any proving of God in these reasoning(s), but only that by, and even in, any reasoning confined to those foundations upon which these systems are established can “hold water” within themselves by their own reasoning(s) for being. Are they consistent…and tight?

Any mention of God is held as appeal to those already established in some conviction of His being, but in all, there is recognition no thing based solely in or on “material”, even man’s most exquisite reasoning(s) and so called wisdom in clay establishes Him. In truth it always works not only counter to that, but even counter to man himself. Even that man’s reasoning can dis-annul his assumed (and presumptuous) properties of reason if left solely to himself for their establishing.

For if investigated thoroughly all matters of consciousness in its weights and measures, especially of judgments and a thing called justice are always and only particular to any one man. His agreement with others to the extent he allows does neither make these true nor right. All he has is agreement with himself or within himself (even if offered to others); but we might also understand truth is never a matter of consensus. A man either holds it or doesn’t, other’s agreement matters not a whit.

Otherwise the world would have been flat in 400 AD, mysteriously changing sometime thereafter.

So, in considering the matter of justice, particularly in regard to motive(s) man is very much left in the dark, for unless he can discern motive and intent (are these functions or faculties of consciousness also “real” things?) for in certain circumstance the law of man takes them into account, in others, they can be dismissed as unnecessary.

It is so often strange how man seeks to have things “both ways”, for there is an exclusivity (if reason also be a true thing) that if a thing is unnecessary to a thing, to that thing it is then always unnecessary. Yet we still hold “murder” and “attempted murder” wholly separate by their consequence, with motive assumed same. Or, in one instance a man is arrested for graffiti, in another a hate crime on a synagogue, just fashioning some knots, or displaying a noose.

And how many times have any heard repeated this legal nostrum: “The prosecution does not have to prove motive(s)”? Yet, in other circumstance it is more than willing to delve into what it imagines they are. For if motive is in all unnecessary in certain circumstance, it cannot then be called upon in other circumstance as added weight or for added weight for attribution of greater guilt. But it is. Always, and in contradiction of what it even embraces as first principles.

First and second degree murder, and manslaughter. (A dead body is the only fact)

Graffitti vs. hate crime. (Some forms painted or scribbled upon another’s property is only fact)

Yes, we get all mixed up in motive and consequence. God, not so much. He doesn’t have to “wait” on consequence, for He sees all motive from the beginning. Indeed, ultimately He is all motivator. But again, I am not seeking to provide proof. One has either had His proof made to them within and to themselves, or…not yet.

If it appears a pompous reach that both part 9 and 10 began with the same sentence, I little doubt some already hold some sense as to its salience. Man so often (have you found it so?) uses his consciousness (with reason and logic attributed) to, by these, both reason and logic…exclude God from the consciousness…in short “do away with Him”.

Obviously no man can kill God, but if intent is so, and God sees all intent…what difference? And if there is a proposition offered that God is Himself giver of consciousness in clay (again, no proof provided nor attempted) then such “turning of a given thing” against the giver is of some consequence…even if by no consequence possible: “no man can kill God”, even with all intent. A failed murderer is a murderer, nonetheless. And Jesus had much to expound upon in this regard to “law” when speaking of adultery, and where it truly takes place. And murder also. Motive and intent are not changed in nature because circumstance is either not favorable nor found. Nor even under threat of punishment. Behavior may be; but nature? No.

Why such a foray into matters of seeming legalities, jurisprudence, questions of motives and intents when it seems consciousness was presented on the table for consideration?

Besides the fact as mentioned, that man has fashioned legal systems for determinations of certain matters with whole apparatus’ devoted to prosecution and defenses, rules of evidence, admissibilities vs inadmissibilities, calling of witnesses, standings and testimonies; it is all structured after some fashion for determination of a thing called truth. Murderers, fraudsters, thieves, assaulters may sometimes admit to their offenses, yet often they do not.

And if truth of matters (as so many of man’s endeavors seem concerned with finding it, believing it to be “there” as a real thing to even be found, in sciences, belabored studies of history, maths, legalities, philosophies) the very largeness of these structures so devoted; their intricacies and abundant rules of operation point to a certain matter belieing what many or even most men individually hold to their own heart…”I know the truth when I hear it, or see it”.

Really?

So the question then remains, if truth be pursued as a “real” thing to be found, uncovered, even known (in consciousness)…is consciousness a real thing?

Do you think it impossible a man might might recognize a false answer?

“He used the very gun given him by his father to maliciously execute his father”, the prosecutor declared.

And to be frank, since I am neither prosecutor nor lawyer of any sort, yet with some sense of what could only be called my own useless sense of justice, I have never understood how both the charge and penalty for attempted murder is rendered the lesser than actual murder.

I do understand a difference in result(s), but what is the difference between an actual murderer and a simply failed murderer? If the law already recognizes and assigns intent as same to both, that is murder; and the only consideration is therefore of result, then the man who merely grazes another with a bullet should probably get no more time than the man who accidentally causes a scrape on that leg, torso, or scalp, no?

“He only accidentally wounded him” says the defense then, absurdly. For he surely would not add, “while fully intending to do away with him”.

Yes, man is bound in his considerations of both intent and result or consequence. Especially in the matter of his own sense of justice.

He seeks some kind of “fair balance” he calls justice. Just as the prosecutor in the first sentence above is seeking to add some heinousness to the crime with “the same gun his father gave him” to show a greater depravity…using a gift to execute another from whom gift was given. Implying a very reprobate form of character.

But what of God? Does he “have to wait” to see consequence? Or does He see all intents clearly? Even from the beginning. And even further, as God, would He then not be in full apprehension of His own assigning of those intents as maker of all, and for which and to which each is formed, assigned, ordained?

Did God not know that giving consciousness in and to clay (or dust of the earth) was, even in that assignation to provoking clay to seek to be “more” than it is? To be even as God? And would at opportunity try to do by any and all means presented try to do. This, of course, can never make sense to clay, even with any awareness or merely “self awareness” of being in, and of clay.

“We’re all just molecules slapped together perceiving stuff…even that we’re all just molecules slapped together perceiving stuff”. Yes, this would stand, and actually does, quite adequately. (But only if there is no thing other)

I should love to hear that defense. “These molecules over here just had some loathing in them for those molecules over there (the deceased) and did something to them to stop their movement, speaking, acting, breathing activity as a discrete unit.”

But we do believe life, as perhaps indefinable as consciousness to us (but hey I have it! That’s good enough for me!) is a real thing; that not only can be judged as real, but that the consequences of messing with it illegitimately (another consequence of consciousness…lawful, unlawful) puts certain slapped together molecules in jeopardy of confinement…or worse.

“The defense calls as their next witness the noted evolutionist, molecular biologist, and physicist to the stand”

“Please explain briefly to us the nature and most fundamental essence of man, if you will. And why he does things.”

“Well, first…”

After all, what harm is there in “messing with molecules?” Personally, I do it all the time. I do experiments…all the time. “Will wifey’s molecules “like” being told my own have something to say about that meat loaf?” Let’s try it and see!

Have I gone too far into the absurd?

Nevertheless, being somewhat absurd myself to myself…I may think one thing, say another that contradicts what I think or am thinking, and then often do another that contradicts them both, and yet I am most often absurd enough to often think myself as “one” of some unity, even (ha ha ha) of some integrity. (that nature of being fully integrated in one’s self and to one’s self)

“No honey, I didn’t notice that co-ed with the short plaid skirt, green blouse and tousled strawberry blonde hair that might have had green eyes and wore burgundy lipstick. Didn’t give her a second thought. You know sweetie, I only have eyes for you”

Now am I being too absurd…or just telling on myself? Or many, many…men?

Even absurdly?

“How deep is this dive, anyway…into this thing of consciousness? And, no less, “will there be math on the test?”

Oh yes…on the complete divisible-ness of what seems “one”, and the utterly, perfectly, ineffably exquisite indivisibility of true unity.

Even of which we may know so very little, but enough in glimpse to propel and provoke, where it is entirely salubrious and righteous to say “I may not know much about Him, but I know He is in His goodness, and that’s good enough for me, and even moreso!”

Even the slightest parting of the veil of our own consciousness by the intervention of another, even with His, is abundantly sufficient for all that pertains to life.

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.

It is good to have one who “gets” you, understands you (to whatever measure they do) even receives you in all your weaknesses, foibles, and even contradictions of yourself that others might easily call hypocrisy. Yes, it is good to have someone who with whom you not only can be, but with whom you are as open as you can be, and are open to you as you are.

To say this is rare among men and in the earth, even exquisitely rare as to be beyond precious to a man would only be contradicted by any who have not traveled much in relationship(s). Our facades, even any man’s facades, only become known to a man through this journey with another.

(Marriage is not easy…but it is real. Its very hardness is what testifies to its being quite real.)

We learn (or may) just how much of artifice has been constructed, and in that may see just how much of work and energies and strenuous labors have been, and are able to be spent, and even perhaps yet still in the offing to be spent, for the maintenance in service to what we could call our personal identity. This thing we present one anther in total reliance upon their feedback for verification.

It sounds silly to say it, but it is a sort of passport we present for all our commerce amongst one another. “I see Mr. So and So, that what you present here is saying who you are and that you are you, and I find it acceptably verified. You may pass through”. And, we are accepted.

Silly, no?

But so silly it is true? Or even, so silly because it is true?

To say we are always in need of some verification of who we are, some feedback that not only are we real in the sense of a recognition from outside of ourselves, but that without this we would be lost to the insanity of either not knowing anything at all, or worse, imagining we are the only one who does. Know anything.

Have you ever been down that road? Did you discover some form of terror in the isolation you make for yourself? Thinking you are the only one who really knows? Not yet?

Too soon?

You needn’t worry if you haven’t, or can’t yet concede to the folly that any would ever think of you as one who inwardly embraces being the only one who “really knows”. The steps are perfectly ordered anyway. They all start with “I know better than that.” And are even continued in, and reinforced by, “But now I know better”.

A man is just a witness. Even a witness as to “how he sees himself”.

We, who may have anything to “do” with Jesus Christ from merest curiosity, to some interest, to some deeper interest…even perhaps on to a thing called devotion are in some level of awareness of this thing of “how we see” and/or even, “how I see myself”.

Some may be a little bit more aware of the smoke and mirrors of it all, others may be just gaining entry. But a good start is a good start and none should despise the day of small beginnings.

This is merely part 1 of this treatment. Part 2 starts with the acknowledgment of God as God and from that point on He and you will begin to write a part 2. And its totality is far to grand for me or any man to write of you…or for you.

But for now Part 1 stands as to the frailty of all our smoke and mirrors before the eye(s) of Him that searches all, sees all…and cannot be fooled. And offers mercy for those who are caught in fooling even themselves as to who they are. And from there seeks to make a fool of every other man in that deception. Thinking he can puff himself up enough for another fool to believe he is who he says he is.

Every king but one must end in disdain for those of his kingdom seeing how easily they are fooled by believing he has something they do not. Or that he is something they are not. “I have a divinity or divine right”…you do not.

A king over fools only finds himself King of the Fools.

To one King and one only it is precious to Him that His own believe He is who He says, for He is/was not ashamed to be just as they are. And to give all of Himself honestly without deception to, and for, His own.

Of myself I can do nothing.

The Father is greater than “I”.

Have you yet seen anything greater than your self?

Or…are you still the judge of all others?

Eventually you will find your very own self in that docket and forced to be a witness against him.

Happy are you if you believe there is one who will judge that case with mercy. And grants repentance.

It was said in the last section that the unbeliever faces a two fold problem/issue/conundrum in any handling of the matter of consciousness. While the believer is free from this.

For the believer is convinced mind, awareness, and thoughts are real things as either attributes of consciousness or even some definition of it, itself. And further the believer embraces that there is both a mind/consciousness overall (and full) that is and always has been; in its “allness” of being continuous and uninterrupted well before he first even became aware of any in, or of, himself. Simpler? God knew us before we knew ourselves as anything. Before we apprehended anything…as being. Or even “having” being. Or had any notion…being…is. And would now move, or be active in being.

And, of course, even further…perhaps far further. For the believer is instructed that the true witness of God, even His living and active word (Who is Christ?) discerns among these things of thoughts and intents in, and by, His righteousness. Someone is very aware (even all aware) of all taking place in a, or any man. Even of such matters that might spring up from beneath or outside of a man’s consciousness and awareness; from those places that of him (the man) might be described as his unconscious.

He may even discover his mind, like an iceberg, has more depth and weight below the surface apprehend-able of him, than he ever imagined. But he is nonetheless convinced God sees and knows all of him. Even of what is not apparent at all to himself. That should not be a strange thing for a believer to know or understand.

And were we to further investigate the matter of the mind’s communications, its touching and being touched of “other” mind(s) continually, not unlike the respirations of a sponge in a sea of mind(s), always absorbing and always in expirations of some expression (even when silent), another book would be called for.

For everything in being has expression. Yes, even the rock is in expression of itself. The atom. The neutrino. Everything that is in being, yes, even space, is assigned some expression. Time is even so constrained.

But God? Who, or what assigns Him, anything? What could? Constrain Him to expression? Constrain Him…to anything? And again, if one has such a god who is constrain-able by anything above him, ask (or demand) to speak to his Boss.

What does not matter here for present consideration are the decades of refutations of minds (often speaking or given to words) that have been experienced by this writer as in opposition to presentation of the gospel of Jesus Christ. And here also the writer makes no claim of ever having done so in any fullness, correctness, obedience upon which he might take a stand, or anything other. There have been to him, even in observing the presentation of others who are, and without doubt, nobler; certain frank (and often strident) resistance(s), displayed.

Arguments in contradictions and counter claims have abounded. And, if distilled at all correctly they are presented in opposition to the mind(s) and words of men presenting the gospel as witness to the workings of another mind (even of all intent) that has delivered the Christ for manifestation among us. (That I am heartily persuaded of a something furiously at work to resist a mind over itself, of all consciousness, and power, and will, may even be a moot point)

Nevertheless, I have seen what I have seen, and only apprehend with my mind as much as is allowed by that mind of all superiority…which is of all power and will.

In the distilling of argument (not intentions, another matter all together) the contention is generally, if not overall, that there is/was no consciousness (nor conscious being) responsible for, nor initiating the universe of material things. There is no conscious intent to it, no reason attributed of it to a particularly conscious being, for its being. In short, there is no God.

If pressed with responses from the believer such as “No thing can come from nothing” another one might concede to it or protest that he is not saying that at all. Or that he does admit to some agreement. But where the believer has placed God as one having no beginning nor end, (and in full consciousness) he ( the God denier) simply ascribes the same to materiality sans consciousness.

If the believer can say “something is” that is unending in time and of being, he the denier, is not prevented from saying “I find it to be likewise for the material.” And in nature he does have some support by laws of conservation of mass. And were he even familiar with nuclear fission where matter is converted to energy (no less part of the material universe) there remains a conservation overall, but only in a closed system.

But regardless of all counter contending, once presented from one consciousness to another it can now “land” in the believer’s mind. Oh, he can shut his ears and close his eyes and repeat “But I do believe in God, I do believe in God” as though by such strenuous exercise he can “hold on”.

And obviously if the argument has upset his own reasonings by its own seeming reasonableness, showing that his own faith is in some owing to his reasonings, he will be shaken to whatever extent God allows. But, in Christ he is always invited/instructed to dig deeper, go farther, ask more, seek more, knock more; till by God’s grace he find a better establishment. This is birthright. Our rooting in God is always past any and every place we of ourselves can reason to, even into His very foolishness that is greater.

But the believer is assigned the handling of things, which surely include those things of argument and contention that would seek to exalt themselves over the knowledge of God. If he might learn to bear appearing foolish to himself in whatever he encounters as by God’s hand, even to a seemingly unbearable frustration, he may find a door prepared.

May we never lose hold of “As many as I love I rebuke and chasten…” and such chastening, even of whatever form eventually lands in the mind (consciousness) for consideration. Stubbed toes on bed frames at midnight, no less. When we may discover everything “not” gratitude…comes pouring out of us in an instant. What a gift is repentance! Everything is assigned by God to the believer’s good end. And repentance there shines! As gift, and not work produced of man. But in a believing man as gift to Him by Christ.

This is all the most open of all open book tests as we come to discover how open Christ has made Himself to us, and for us. Yet, even if we doubt, God is neither shocked nor grows weary.

But shaky arguments can be exposed and even must be, first in us…lest anything that remain of shakiness, or instability whereby other shakiness can find hook to grab, or home to land…and there trouble the believer. But God grants peace.

We may leave the argument or engage on the grounds proposed if finding grace to do so. But regardless of that, if there be any unsettling in us we will find God has well equipped us for its tearing down.

Let one (mind) concede to the system as closed, even one’s own if need be. And begin your own argument, as would then need be.

“I will think about this. I therefore have expressed a conscious mind with will to do so. I accept my own consciousness as real, a true thing in this system I propose as closed. Even if I may have any doubts to any other consciousness in it. Of this I am sure, I am conscious in it. But if I say there is no consciousness and reason for it, but yet know (of myself…even now) I find consciousness and reason (as I reason within myself) even in it, and the system is indeed closed, this cannot be.

Either the system that to me I propose as closed has always held consciousness in some form that I now have it, or am in it and of it, or it is absent in all. For a closed system cannot come up with/create/manufacture a thing not already native to it, and “there” in either full potential or manifestation.

Therefore if I say ‘consciousness has always been’ I admit to a consciousness always being (God) and refute my unbelief. If I say consciousness ‘is not’ I refute myself in both my being and my reasoning(s).”

Yes, life is very hard for the unbelieving. He abides in all contradiction of himself with no escape…if left to himself. In only a closed system.

Listen if you can. Even if conceding (as is often popular today) that the “Big Bang” is mother/father (for most also concede it cannot be “seen” past or beyond or before) of all we see, perceive, imagine, or propose, then all seen was there. My house (and yours) were there in all elemental substance of cellulose, my car in iron, carbon, and aluminum, (and rubber and plastics, et al) my children, you me,…all that we may describe as “in being”…was/were there in form. A closed system cannot contain what is not in some form, native to it.

So, how do we see, perceive, or even handle, this matter of consciousness?

Even this “thing” with which we do all, and have all to do?

Our relationship to what was called often in the last section, that is the material universe, is peculiar. We explore such as can be discerned of it with the natural senses which inform the mind of our consciousness and thence and there, seek to bring it into some conformity of understanding. To grasp a consistency of it. To find, if possible, the nature of it, even some law or laws of it. But it can never be disregarded nor overlooked we “do this” with a consciousness present, as much as anything else we might find, in it, and of it. Our own consciousness is therefore not separate from the material universe.

But of course, this can only be an acceptable proposition to those who are able to admit consciousness, and admit to it, as much as anything else we might find in the universe. As much as we may like to think ourselves observers of the universe of material things (and what observer can rightly observe unless he be a thing apart from what is in observation?) we are as much in it as anything we might imagine we can observe of it. Even again, a trap we are trapped in. That is, unless one believes his mind/consciousness can escape the bounds of this inhibition…to even observe and discern the material universe as though from outside of it.

But here an even more peculiar consideration must be endured. For if convinced of this, or any ability to escape there would be a de facto admission that the consciousness is not of material origin, nor dependent upon it for its knowing. That it then can step outside all its confines with something that then must be immaterial (nor material dependent in nature) to observe and discern. Is this an odd proposition?

Well, we might say, both yes and no. No, if we propose its immateriality, but yes if we concede to its being materially dependent or that its origins are solely of universal material.

The problem here for the unbeliever is plainly two-fold. Which in hope will be addressed later.

And please here remember we are not seeking to offer any “proof” of God but that such argument that may arise against His being are to be, and can be torn down as those proud things that would seek to exalt themselves (and confound the believer) over Him. This is a birthright accorded by Him to we who believe.

And here, even in arguments presented and torn down, the believer may find his own false foundations shaken, in order that any and all establishment come from only one. That we know whence our faith comes, and only can, and must.

And yes, we may be led to discover many shaky places otherwise.

If we hold this alone as proposition of our faith, we will then, sooner or later, come to its expression as, or for, our faith:

“Everything has to come from somewhere…all the things in material seeing (of the material universe) had to come from somewhere, and therefore is my faith in God…as the immaterial and eternal God who always was and is” Such a man may be led to learn he is still only reaching out with his own reason and reasonings. Even in support of a god he does not yet know as is of elemental formation.

When he meets the clever he may be dumbfounded. Yet even rightly so. He may meet the man who says “You propose or attempt to explain all away of material things (in having to come from somewhere) with something you may then say has always been, is un-created, and doesn’t “have to come” from somewhere.” Do you see how that shaky contention invites a clever response? “For what prevents me (the unbeliever) from saying then, that the material and all energies have always also been in some form?”

The weakness of this, if it be our sole foundation, is exposed. Indeed, it is shown as a mere function of yet man’s reasoning from the material, for its foundation of materiality is exposed.

Only in (or from) the material have we learned “everything must have some beginning”. As in, “the radio did not make itself” if our faith only rests there. But, even so, it is not a bad beginning (as nothing is if it is understood as only beginning), but it cannot stand as conclusion. It remains shaky and shakeable. And God does not rest upon, nor will, our reason for support of Him. This, even all and any of our own reasonings, must be shaken. And it is good they are.

We must enter into the foolishness of God. And I am persuaded that not only those of the faith of Jesus Christ can, but must. Where all our own reasonings must fail us. What remains of my own also, and no less.

I said it was not a bad beginning. Especially if it be recognized as only a beginning. For the call remains “that we may know Him”, and not merely of His existence. And only what is of the dauntless one, Jesus the Christ of God, will remain undaunted. Experience of shakings may be many; who doubts He said “now is my soul sorrowful, even unto death” but yet endured? Yes, our souls experience many things. But the power of the spirit is not to be denied. Nor can be when seeing the Christ. For it is even the spirit alone that gives such revelation. And it is only in the knowing of Him as our sole salvation, that is our salvation. Yes, all “else” has to go.

This brief section of scripture as to what is “not bad” as beginning addresses this:

Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.

As wholeheartedly as one may be in belief that God is, the question is simple. Does the demon’s knowledge of God’s existence provide them salvation? Or is one convinced their knowledge of Him, even their sure knowing of Him as Being, should, or is intended to exceed, what God provides His very own children? God forbid! Our birthright runs far deeper and is beyond what they could know or might explore. And I am also convinced grace remains to their great confounding. Those beings that furiously strive, but only to their own end.

Our labors, even if they could be described as such, are for more delightfully provided. To both see Him and know Him as He is, and for the child of God in Christ, there is no prohibition nor law against. Knowing Christ is knowing the Father, and the Father, through the Christ, is always calling His children to know Him.