In the matter of “like” (those things in which we find affinity) and likeness, there is much to be said. Were we to strip away all matters of affinity due to their emotional provocations that often stir our consciousness, we would most likely also discover how much of what we think we know also being stripped from us. We rarely consider how much of (what we consider) our knowing is merely attributable to such affinities. Our predilection to want to believe and know certain things and resistance to others; that we either go on to establish as known true to us, or seek to negate…that are simply based upon “like” and dislike, runs deep indeed. This has been touched upon.
We may even be persuaded within that we “like” the truth, or want only the truth. Even to know the truth. That we are and would be above all (truth be known!) the securest of guarantors for its safe keeping if, or in, its granting to us. The fickleness of others we may see and even eschew greatly of their multiple and manifest hypocrisies…but we trust ourselves to act and be, differently. It would be funny but for the ravages wrought of those thinking themselves able, and able to be, more right. Who could escape judgment for this?
Yes, here consciousness shows itself quite double edged; for to believe one knows a thing rightly comes with it some pressing to be consistent to its rightness of knowing that we find unable to fully uphold. We simply don’t like being nakedly displayed as hypocrite and liars. (Why that is is for another time) But…we do not like it. Suffice it to say for now we hate being shown how insubstantial (without substance) we truly are of ourselves. We like to think (and very much so) ourselves as real…even substantially…real. With all our capability to thence decide what is real. And true. Of some internal integration toward truth and upon such integration to truth that we esteem our own integrity.
Oops, there’s another knowing we hold attributable to only “like”. A pressing to see ourselves as being a certain way. In such way we want to.
Listen if you can. I surely don’t know where, or on to whom, these words might land. And if it appears as some picking on any in particular, it is enough to say there is enough hypocrisy to go ’round.
One holding to a purely materialistic view (if believing all that current science tells) that is, that all is simply, basically…even truly particulate in nature, even down to subatomic particles and built up to what is seen and known due to inherent forces present in, and of, and acting and interacting upon these particles; a purely deterministic view is likewise inescapable. In order for anything in or of that system to believe in choice (or such as would appears so, or be described so) would imply that such being of this thing called choice or option-ality is of position to control and effect all these most fundamental forces and particles of matter. For if consciousness is only a matter of these things, quaint notions as reason with attendant (or so called) rejection of illogic become not merely moot, but untenable. How could a thing of consequence (consciousness) owing in all to a certain order and arrangement of necessity for its being, hold sway over that to which it owes its being?
If you need a ridiculous example, I am not shy about being ridiculous. It is akin to a person telling their parents to mate so that he might be born. And yet, who of us most practically speaking does not embrace our own ability to effect, even and including to the judging of others for the effects of their being? But such hypocrisy is not limited to the merely materialistic minded, it would even be hypocrisy in that instance to embrace such a notion as hypocrisy as most would understand that word. Yet we act and react with others according to the extension of a principle embraced inwardly “I can effect…(and make choice how to)…therefore…I can rightly judge others according to this same measure for the effects I judge as to their being.”
And this occurs to such measure in each that together and in some agreement (are its foundations made more sure by agreement…if they are already all of false?) that “legally” it can be decided (chosen?) in the extreme of agreement that one can have such effect(s) by chosen action as to merit what we consider nullification of their being (death penalty). But what is one, or many…removing? Nullifying? The effects of certain particles…so arranged? But who of us isn’t (in that case) merely and also no more than certain particles…so arranged? Yes, it is rather hilarious that certain agglomerations of atoms think themselves “better” in some ridiculous notion of what is commonly called morality. But, who of us doesn’t?
Hypocrites (if hypocrisy exists) all.
But, and if, morality is itself also a consequence of consciousness (at least to, and in, man’s mind) the very consciousness we embrace as real to ourselves (at very least, our own) is no less the very consciousness before which we all stand accused.
How double edged it is having consciousness! On the one hand we would celebrate it (at very least, our own) as our supremest having, (even being terrified of its possible nullification) but eschew the very thing we find so inimical to our celebrations, no less carried in it, bonded to it, present without contradiction as suffused also throughout all its (consciousness’s) being…guilt.
What a party pooper.
israelx7wordpresscom 