Month: July 2023

I am wrong. Full of errors, contrivances, manipulations, fault(s), misdirection, and lies. The very things I might look to to comfort myself against this knowing betray an arsenal of equipment that itself betrays my estate. “I don’t lie as much as I used to” or “I don’t lie (or murder, fornicate, steal, commit adultery, bear false witness) as well…that fellow…over there”. Yes, I would “hang one man” to let another go free. Even if it be some former version of myself, as perceived of myself; I am ready, willing, and fully inclined to hang him out to dry. Just let the “now” me…be. I will trade, I will barter, I will concoct rather than understand the full implications of mercy’s necessity to me.

There is always a present fellow finding himself in need of escape and willing to trade off another by show to save his own skin. I will show another man more in worthiness of judgment (and need of it) than this one presently made aware of being under an eye. Tell me what I have to sign, what I have to agree to, make known to me all stipulations and codicils to get this eye off of me! Its judgment is too perfect, its finding out too complete, its piercing searching out is simply too broad and much for me to bear…”I” cannot live under it.

Like every other thing in creation I am caught in expression of itself. But I find this not safe to me. Of course I want to be known. But not that well known. I am too well known! I am too well known! If I seek to hide, the hiding place is already known. If I seek to throw light on another to take some of the heat off, this craftiness is already too well known. I cannot control this light…or heat. I am in all…unable. I am…undone. There is no escape from this light of perfect attention being cast. I am in all the impossible for man.

“The sinners in Zion are afraid; fearfulness hath surprised the hypocrites. Who among us shall dwell with the devouring fire? who among us shall dwell with everlasting burnings?”

“fearfulness hath surprised the hypocrites”

“hath surprised”

Something not known…surprises, even shocks to fear and trembling this thing in expression of itself, shaking to all foundations, waking to all terror as not once known. Where to go? What to do when all is shown as it is?

Who among us shall dwell with the devouring fire? (Our God is a consuming fire)

who among us shall dwell with everlasting burnings? (Can take all the light…and heat?)

This one:

He that walketh righteously, and speaketh uprightly; he that despiseth the gain of oppressions, that shaketh his hands from holding of bribes, that stoppeth his ears from hearing of blood, and shutteth his eyes from seeing evil

O! But this is not me! This is not me! Not only am I rightly excluded, I must be excluded…me with my scales and balances of good and evil upon which I place my pinky to tilt in my favor. Me who loves a compliment, a bribe, a “like” in all vanity.

Dare I lie about it under this eye? Can I even do so? Dare I say “I am not one who seeks favor” while under this eye I search diligently, furiously, tirelessly for any glint of “like” that might deflect its piercing light?

Whatever this eye is after, I find none in myself. Not because I “don’t want to”…the light just exposes every lie. The light sees through all my self attempts before I can do anything to respond with them. Light both makes me “want to respond” rightly, but also shows that “rightly” is not in me…it is perfect in speed. Not fast. Not faster…perfect…in speed.

He that walketh righteously, and speaketh uprightly…

Of all that seems possible this cannot possibly speak…of me. Me, who would trade off a whole creation…to save its own skin…preserve its self…

“the woman YOU gave me…” Completely unaware(?) of whom that woman came out of, was made from…himself.

Was it too convenient for him to forget (or was it deny?)…too much in service to a thing he knew as himself under that eye…to forego?

Did he forget? Deny? Not know?

All consuming ignorance.

Does any son of Adam…have hope?

Does any son of Adam, in all his effort to distance himself from Adam as being an other, Adam being a different man (or a different sort of man from himself) not see himself? The story is not about an other…but me. Not about a “he”…but a “me”. Something wants “me” to see my “self”. And appears to be using what I consider an “other” to do it. Is it all and only to crush under unbearable weight of judgment…even this thing that cannot bear the seeing of itself…and therefore be so given to finding fault…elsewhere? Even its Creator? The woman YOU gave me. All is at fault…but me. I am center to myself.

Oh, as believers we all have probably had some experience with those who hold their view of the benighted. Their view of ignorant goat herders, desert dwellers, superstitious tribal fools afraid of their own shadows who either “came up with”, or were so given to such fantasies and folly as to diligently pass them down generation after generation, mouth to ear. “Nothing here but the silly musings of nomads wandering, stumbling ignorantly through life and across the face of the earth”. Nothing more…and certainly nothing to see here. Old wives tales of no substance, no reality of themselves…just fabrication and product; unlike some vainly perceived “us” in every and any way. The scientific, the informed, the enlightened and educated experimenters…like a Rutherfod of his time.

Oh, wait, bad example…a man who discovered terror at learning nothing is as he thought it once to be. Particularly materially. Not even the most common “stuff”…touchable, see-able, forever surrounding and always in view…is as it once seemed.

Surprise!

It might seem there’s a continual cheap shot being taken at materialists. As though they are “others”. But we all have been so. We have either reasoned up or down from the material…while fully in the material and of the material presuming in our consciousness of self we can, and have, secure place of standing to examine, to observe the material…to judgments about it, ascribing laws to it, formulating rules we tell each other govern it. But if, and only…all of the material is only of the material and we ourselves are no less nor more…where can we stand to observe? The eye cannot see itself. It may “see” other eyes…but itself?

Can hydrogen “tell itself” about hydrogen? Zinc about zinc? Electrons enlighten themselves as to their being? Neutrinos? And whatever a Higgs Boson is? O! but the fault is not in consciousness…but our presumptions about it! And this “consciousness”, yes…even by and in what rules we could say most strictly govern all pursuits in the material sciences continues to discover “things are not as they seem” or there are things “there” (or here) of such exquisitely subtle influence(s) never known to be, never conceived as being…till now. And each has power…a power of expression…in its being. Otherwise “we” could never know or perceive of it. “Things” will be found out!

But…only things can or will be.

But consciousness? Where would “it” stand to study…itself? This is where all our own reason and reasonings must break down. Cannot but break down. What form of reason could be employed to find any reason to, or for, consciousness…that is not of that consciousness? We are both locked up in it and to it. Bound to it, bound in it, and bounded by it…perfectly. No matter what we may consider or call any expansion of it, new or what might be termed “better understandings” in it, as long as it remains to us “our (own) consciousness” it matters not whether the cell walls hold us in a 10×10 room, a whole continent, a world, or universe. The perfection of this containment speaks of a perfection in imposition of containment upon it.

When finding, or perhaps better (at least to and for the believer) when having such perfect frustration disclosed…that is revealed…there is a ministry of truth graciously given us. We die in this frustration, we die of this frustration…but likewise, and as such cannot be over made of this, we die to this frustration. We may come to a deeper appreciation of this thing we so commonly repeat “None [no one] but Jesus Christ…is able. None but Jesus…can do” Jesus. Jesus alone. Only Jesus holds all ability and capability. Only Jesus is source of all or any escape. One door. One entrance to exit all that is made to perfect frustrating.

This is the great paradox in which we live, the great contradiction, the irresolvable…that is: impossible for man.
We are being brought to see what is only possible…for God. And not only so, we have the testimony of scripture that this assigning is not happenstance, not some natural conclusion or consequence of some logical outgrowth of materiality unhindered; but that this be understood as known

For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope;

God alone locks up, God alone sets free by His chosen one, Jesus the Christ. Man’s wisdom, reason, striving…avail to all and only frustrating. Even to the finding of it perfectly…imposed. Bounded. Completely constrained. Even so much so that another would write (if we merely take any comfort to ourselves in “well, at least I believe in God!”) this:

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

O! how perfectly we find any and all self commending not only fails “to work” here, but is under a quite forceful exclusion.

For some I hope I am beating a dead horse.

For others I may be appearing to be in some contradiction, some inconsistency, some manifest lie or hypocrisy. That is perfect also. And no doubt there is consideration of this matter as stated by that same apostle who came to understand the perfect frustrating of all man, or men might think they do, or can about their own circumstance:

I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me.

Yes, he wrote truthfully of truth. Even to all things.

But if there be any question, any posing of matters to doubtful disputations…I can only ask what is nature of attitude, disposition when reading? Is “I can” primary…or “through Christ”? Each man already answers…for there is no place provided here for lie to prevail. We may not know “how we read”…but God does. We may not know how we understand and from such add motive for motions; is it “I can”…or “through Christ”…but God does. And of course, I am no less in need of disclosure.

Even if one were to make the case “about” such scripture in all context of Paul’s other writings and there state…”Well, as I read all his writings (unless Paul is a liar)…he certainly strove to present Christ as in all preeminence, not merely as primary of all things…but of all and only necessity to man”

And fair enough, we may find some agreement. But as to our selves? Do we yet know what Paul understood? Do we somewhere think the garnering of information is the equivalent of conformation? Do we know? Or do we parrot? See, I don’t even know this of myself, nor can make any claim to…but God does. Know. Is it enough for the believer…that God know(s)?

If not, then what else possibly could be…sufficient?

And what happens in us when we are told, or hear: “You do not yet know as you ought to”? (For now we even know another thing!)

Oh yes…we are finding out what Jesus means when he says “narrow”. Perfectly narrow.

And no less…what is impossible for man…

only everything.

And all I have written, even if any be read, are all and only the considerations of a fool. A man caught in all the same impossibility of every other man, no different than any. Only able “to know” what is disclosed to him, and even there yet reliant upon another that what is disclosed can, or will be shown, as either rightly, and/or yes…even wrongly received.

It is enough.

For I know nothing by myself; yet am I not hereby justified: but he that judgeth me is the Lord.

Just because I may know nothing as against myself as in having some clear conscience (or consciousness) about any matter, no man is by that justified. O! but it is pleasant, it is desirable, it is even comforting…but all and every is now made aware, not by me, but by the overwhelming presence of a reprover given in the name of Christ that he is being, and in being, being inescapably seen. All of creation has taken a turn.

Consumed by one man’s death in it whereby death to it, and from it, is given.

By the will of One it has been consigned its place to be understood as under. And by the same will of that One, the above is disclosed.

And a man can receive nothing except it be given him from above.

Even oddly to myself, this last entry about these matters was additionally entitled “For believers, only”.

Happy could be the man who doesn’t know what he does. Mercy is granted there to him, and for him, but not by him…to himself.

This proclamation, entreaty, prayer, supplication…(God help me!)…demand(?) contains no “because”.

It is plain without any “because.” It is statement of truth. And truth is true without need of because in support. Nothing needing to be shown prior to prove it, to make it so…truth is what supports all and is of itself in need of none (support).

“Forgive them Father, for they know not what they do”

Happy is the man who lives there…in and with that knowing. Even as dying. For he alone knows what mercy is, what forgiveness is, as to have it rightly answered. He asks…for what He knows. Even in His right ministry of it. His alone right ministry of it…to whomever He wills.

And He wills it to what doesn’t know what it does.

Is that you?

Is this…me?

What is primary?

What doesn’t know what it does…or the granter of mercy?

God knows.

It is enough.

I have spoken quite broadly of what man does, or men do; especially in, and with, their minds. And of things taking place in their own (our own) consciousness. No doubt to some this is irksome. And, no doubt, to some even provocational. To the one causally reading I have little need of persuasion that most is seen, at best, as an uncharitable view. One might even say a cynic’s view if so inclined, and that all presented is no more than that; the self indulgent rantings of a man with a blade to hone. There is no argument had, nor need of one to present against this. After all, in any accusation the concession would already be present if one concedes I am only a man.

There is already an agreement to likeness by identity as “a” man, even if only a ranting one. And so identity and identifying in, and to, some likeness fits us both; and perhaps better than appreciated. And again, I have little doubt that to those thus persuaded, there is a preference to either think of one’s self as more charitable and most probably, not a ranter. More…what(?)…deliberate, rational, of some greater consciousness, some greater understanding of what “really takes place” or is taking place broadly across the spectrum of man’s considering of himself in his consciousness.

But here again we find point of agreement; that consciousness…even if disputed over, is a real thing. A very thing quite immaterial, yet found in (produced by? a product of? real…at all?) a material being. And which, as from it flows in the man all other notions (are they real?) of truth, justice (or fairness), trust, and every counterpart that is thereby included if conceding them as real…lie(s), injustice, and distrust. What a wealth of matters come into view!

I will at this time leave off who juggles/handles them with any skill, if at all.

But to the less than casual reader who may be paying greater attention to things said and is not so inclined to judge merely according to approval or opprobrium, the source of that irk could well lie or be held as against, in some sensing of what appears a lack of consistency. Hypocrisy. Or against even some unspoken claim of ascendancy. That is in finding a man (like me) so willing to point out what he calls presumptions and presumptuousness as broadly identified across the display of man’s consciousness, but does not see his own presumptuousness to imagine he can himself step outside of his own being as a man to hold such perspective as such would either allow, or be able to be held to, any confirming. This would indeed be the heights (or depths) of hypocrisy. Of presumptuousness.

Yet, see how much we agree as to their being no less to us….real things? And to hearken back…where do presumptuousness and hypocrisy fall on your scale of “good” and “bad”? Are they…neutral? Hold some smelly and offensive taint? See how we all betray ourselves to holding incessant and unrelenting…judgments in our consciousness of even one another.

I say they are so rarely turned as they must be if the balance is to be square, if the scale is to be equitable; to not only outwardly as to what we perceive as coming to us, but inwardly to where still another thing no less comes to us, our perceptions of ourselves.

Yes, it’s too easy to us (comforting, comfortable, pleasurable) to say “Who do you think you are to…?” to another.

But when we find the question turned as one unrelentingly posed, as one in which we are forever in effort to answer (we like to think rightly) but of which we only deceive ourselves and are deceived by notion of comfort (and rightly goes out the window faster than we know) it is always present, always turned by motive of comfort for ourselves…but which remains, nevertheless.

“Who do you think you are…?”

And we are always caught in it…for response, and by our response.

Everything that is…holds expression of itself. And gives it away.

And it is not me asking “Who do you think you are?”, you began answering that long before in every motion, thought, word, and deed…of when you first touched consciousness.

You’ve been caught in trying to know by trying to show (just as I)

“Who you are”

But what will you (or I) do when finding there is nothing we can do about it for either the knowing or the showing?

Telling ourselves? That is out. For who can assume in himself a superiority of view of himself that would give perspective, view…to judge? If (as said) judgment holds some inherent assumption of superiority (or at very least separation from or to the thing being judged) but…who imagines themselves…superior to themselves?

Yes, we are all very well caught.

Unless something superior to us is, and is both willing and able to tell us who we are. But that then means submitting to “its” judgment as from that superior place and position. And there is something loathe to accept that. Its being as merely a created thing. Creator…of no thing…and certainly not itself.

A thing that might say “I believe there is such a thing as truth” or what is true. A thing that might even tell itself or say of itself additionally, “and I want to know the truth” as though its motive of seeking is pure toward that one thing. But, let’s not fool ourselves (or better, let’s not continue to); truth cannot be had apart from submission to it, acceptance of it as fully over one (or us) with no wiggle room allowed for its greater application toward one man as not towards another. To indict one man or seek to constrain him to whatever degree with it, while letting another go free (so to speak). And always ourselves at very least…included. There is no “Friends and Family” plan for exemptions nor mitigation…with “you” (or me) as center of that source for dispensing.

And it is one of our (as man) common, but crafted clevernesses [sic] to imagine some grasp of truth sets us above another, makes us better than another…when in reality the only right response, equitable balance in response to truth…is a greater submission to it as imposed by its knowing. One cannot know truth apart from knowing of such submission.

And one can tell me (or any other) they don’t care a thing about “it” while still striving to make known to both me (and yourself) “who you are”. To give what one imagines is the truth…of who they are.

We really don’t know what we make of ourselves.

A god.

Judging all things as judged by none other.

Having introduced some notion of good and bad/evil in regards to our possession, or witness to consciousness in the last section, can we consider it further? If, as stated, a man holds no care for being either right nor wrong in his doings and/or so called knowing, is this tenable? But, lest I appear as one attempting to deal only in theory and completely apart from any practicality or utility, we might first have to consider how such notions of good and bad/evil so easily attach themselves to all considerations in matters of our consciousness.

Perhaps you do not accept this, nor think it so. But if the word “ignorance” (as the estate of not knowing) is presented, what is your reaction to it? Do you not already assign it some measure on what might be called a moral scale? Do you consider it entirely neutral? Or, as I am convinced (wrongly?) it holds some place of repugnance, of distaste, of a preferred not status that is assigned to some judgment of being “bad”?

Ignorance…”bad”. Knowledge…”good”?

Perhaps you see it as childish and simplistic. And I cannot argue it is not. In fact it could be argued that such introduction of notion of good and bad/evil has been introduced into us (even attaching itself to such considerations of ignorance and knowledge) so very subtly and at such early stages in the forming of our consciousness (or awareness of it) as we had no control. It came in as mother’s milk to us. Our “gods” fed us so. (Even as they were so fed)

Or, are you feral? (and tell me…is that “good” or “bad” to be identified so?)

Our broad assigning of metrics of good and bad/evil touches and taints most every (all?) consideration. All things fall under some judgment in eye so that even judgment itself is often described as being good or bad in its exercise. As in: “He showed bad judgment there…” or the like.

We may even, in the extreme, prefer to think of ourselves as “non-judgmental” or appreciate what we believe we see of it in others…and surely when we feel or sense as though we are “under it” our first instinct is escape. It speaks of a superiority, it speaks of a having of some position…over.

We might all be “very bad” in our judgments were we to not see how very comfortable we are in exercising it in every thing toward us, while making no account of how much it is despised in any exercise over ourselves. This is but another thing in which we may discover plain division(s) in our own self. A divided-ness; even about judging, and judgments. Another place testifying of our stuck-ness in some predicament.

Is happiness…a “good” thing…misery, suffering, and sadness bad? Happy might be the man who finds of himself he can neither find nor make escape from any bit of their experience. And find something there disclosed. But each would have to admit by some sort of knowing that for themselves and to themselves they only want to know the “happy”. That their balance is so terribly skewed to themselves; sense of right and wrong, good and evil, justice and injustice, true and false, light and dark, knowledge and ignorance, and yes, even life and death are all corrupted by this skewing. And that he holds to, or is witness of a consciousness in all corruption; constantly and incessantly deceiving, turning everything to fit his own advantage as it only fits to his vantage; that is, his perspective as from himself, to himself, and of himself. And that he is as surely locked into this to all impossibility for any man’s ability to escape. For to escape would mean to lose his own being as himself to himself, and who could do this?

An escape would have to be provided from somewhere else. Something else. Someone else. And of such nature that could convince a man as even against himself in some very real way…that he might trust another to “keep” his being. By their being. Even in their being.

But who has believed our report?

If this is not seen it is because the enigma is not seen in ignorance, caused by a deep defect not yet revealed.

The thing we look to to keep us intact to ourselves, as ourselves, for only ourselves…is also the very matter that keeps us locked in a prison of isolation.

Our ignorance is not being held against us (Forgive them Father, they know not what they do), but lying about it holds consequence.

If you were blind you would have no sin, but now that you say you see, your guilt remains.

If it seems an argument is being made, and has been; that life (and our own consciousness in it as we call it) on this material plane is actively prevented from any true knowledge, immanent, immediate, and pure by the very nature of being of consigned to materiality; that is because it is. The argument is substantial and unrelenting. Holding at best only to concepts we believe true, even such notion as truth, our frustrations are such that we only approach their reality in metaphor, or has been said in another place, in types and shadows.

This is our precious predicament. One might even consider how that such concepts, like a carrot held out of reach to a donkey affixed to it by a stick, ever provokes but never comes within reach. They torment us to activity. We have, know, or sense some compelling to apprehend or understand what is real but as an integral part of this reality (as our minds convince us of our reality) we are bound up in it and to it, and can never “get outside” to view it in any objectivity. We are always subject to what our own minds and consciousness make of it. We are the gods of our own reality. We may not prefer to think thus, for to us it is plainly an entrance into crazy land: “Things are only as how I choose to view them” is rarely admitted.

But once we find out we are already there another predicament presents…where is the exit? Is there an exit? How would I even know it…if such a thing is, or could even be seen? If all is so skewed by my self to my self, what hope of any escape? Look now at what I have done (even to myself) in acknowledging such a thing as crazy is, vs. sane, truth vs. lie, understanding vs. ignorance. I am locked in to a fall. For to admit to, or hold to one as being a “real thing” I automatically assign the other a justifiable reality also. To come to see that living in and by such comparison is ubiquitous and inescapable to the mind of man is a dread predicament. It even touches our most fundamental notions; those things we say “we know”. And are our springboard of all consequent motions. On the most fundamental level it could even come to one that he (or she) is only relatively…alive. Comparatively…alive. Even and only…relatively conscious.

I am no guide here. Hold no certificate that testifies of any successful navigating. If I do see a fatal flaw, an Achilles heel, it is no less part and parcel of my own material makeup than any other I might ascribe it to, or seek to hang it upon. It is the simple (perhaps all our simplest) presumption that to know about a thing is to know that thing. Am I as convinced of myself my consciousness is in no way less than yours? Or that in yours there’s a whisper of “but my knowing is better” just as in mine? A whisper easily escalating to a shout if, and when, it seems needful?

And if, or perhaps better…when…I am shown wrong in all these considerations, these thousands of words, is some deficiency exhibited? Is it compounded by my saying “I have no care for it”? Would you think or say within yourself “that is a wrong attitude, that is bad to hold to”?

Be careful at least. For in that place of your acknowledging wrong and bad (or evil) you justify the existence (even to your own self) of a thing called right…and a matter called good.

What “good” is.

How right is?

Or, do you only know “about it”?

The case for light, barely made in the last entry (48), is rather encompassing. And no doubt their myriad considerations have implications for us that we rarely attend to. From thinking we actually “see” in real time (which we do not), to those frequencies and wavelengths of electromagnetic energy whose narrow range of sensibility to us as light we call “light” but which include radio waves, the infrared (“below” red) spectra and those above the violet range (of ultra violet) that includes gamma radiations. The longer wavelengths (of less frequency) are also of lower energy, whereas as we ascend (even in ROYGBIV) to beyond the violet the higher frequencies of shorter wavelengths are of higher energy. And it is not without implications for our material structure that these higher frequencies carry enough energy to disrupt molecular/chemical bonds; even, and especially in our bodies.

Though we call the narrow spectrum we see “light” they are all of the same nature of electromagnetic energy, and all moving through a vacuum of space at a fixed speed. It may sound frivolous, it may be too clever an observation…but no matter where we look to see, or in seeing, we are always “seeing” the past. The light though speedy (to us) and time of its traversing whatever distance from object to eye so infinitesimal as to be beyond worth considering…however…in yet another way our presumptions about certain things is upset. Our perceptions, as made subject to time in this place of materiality are not really as we usually think of them. And, no less, there is also a time lapse between eye and brain. But for us, these matters are short enough (of which we can do nothing, anyway) or close enough for government work…in our consciousness. It is not that we account for them, we don’t even consider them. But when we do begin, or allow for their consideration, not only does time present itself as component of disruption, but even our concepts of time (as intertwined with and to them) become vaguely (but truly) affected. Instantaneous in reality becomes less than instantaneous in concept. Or as held as concept.

It seems (at least to me) we are always encountering spaces… in time and distances…and we are always and truly at some remove from this thing we call reality. As though we are forever locked in to being and fully immersed (even in any concept or definition of what we might call reality) as in all of metaphor. “It’s like this…see…?”

But as strange as this might sound, or even somewhat hostile in, and by, presentation…really…what else could it be? How else could it be? If we consider we might know reality as some thing to be known we have either of two positions; for if we are bound up in it and to it we can not appreciate or know it as “some thing other” as for definition. If we think we are somehow exempt from it, or separate as to have a position from which to study and observe it as other, than we must accept we are not part of reality. Neither position is really tenable, is it? Our consciousness will not let us accept ourselves as not real, but reality cannot be known as other thing apart from the reality our consciousness forces upon us.

If only there were a mind of all reality that both fully knows itself as real…but is under no obligation to, or for, its consciousness. A mind not under…dictation. A fully real…and free…mind.

What sort of light would that mind have in effect upon our own?

Any?

All?

Either all acceptance or all rejection…according only to the light of its choosing. And a choosing of which it is under no compulsion to make.

If, or when we come to discover that “knowing” for us is no more than our perceptions of what we believe it means to know a thing, and like all perception(s) is/are sensibility dependent, we find foundations shaken. And this can be both revelatory (though disturbing) and healthy.

I can think of nothing other as some salient example that might serve than what is called the pigment theory of color vs the light theory of color. They are quite in opposition, though serving the whom of who is using according to their need of understanding and/or expression.

The artist, of the pigment theory comes to recognize black (as it is perceived) as the “presence” of all color(s). White is contrarily or conversely considered the absence of all color.

But to the scientist/physicist who deals in wavelengths susceptible to measurements, it is the opposite. In the light theory of color, black is the absence of all color(s), while white light is its/their presence in totality. When “white” light passes through a prism it yields on exiting all the colors contained within itself. They are made plain by separating of all the wavelengths of what we call color through the work of the prism to cause “white light” to traverse varied distances in its travel through the prism. All these frequencies of light that we call color, contained all within “white light”, are revealed. In total darkness (or what we would call “blackness”) obviously there is no light to be separated or discerned thus. So for the scientist, and according to his understanding of light, frequencies, and wavelengths, he holds a very different understanding of color than, let’s say, the artist. But as to their use, both the scientist and the artist are served equally in their understandings.

To get frivolous, but for the purposes of how we express ourselves according to understandings and perceptions, there could be two renderings/paintings hung side by side in a gallery, one done by an artist, one by a physicist. One all black, one all white…both entitled “A Colorful Day By the Seaside”.

And we would be less in some awareness were we to discount this interplay of perceptions and understanding and how each affects the other as intertwined…particularly to our understanding of even ourselves and thence our own expression to the “world”. To each…”other”. Yes, we favor our own view. We are intertwined to it. Bound in it, to it, and by it. We serve ourselves…according to our perceptions and understandings.

To go even farther into such frivolity, no doubt there are scientists who dabble in painting, and artists who dabble in science and are most likely untroubled in their pursuits. Depending upon which stage they ascend to address (express) themselves to the world, i.e., to “others”; they will adopt or put on their appropriate hats.

And, if I may get very personal in anecdote about perceptions and understandings, I venture to share this. To me the leaf is green. To me that is the irreducible substance of it in perception. It…is green. But the scientists tells me it appears green to me because it absorbs every color/wavelength of light except green which it reflects now to me, and my eye, and mind. My understanding of substance is set askew. My mind wants to think in terms of “no, it is substantially green…’giving off’ green and its substance of the greenness of itself to me” It is not that the scientist would refute this, he would say “Yes, that is why you perceive it as green, that is how color and wavelengths of light work to us…it reflects green because its substance is such as to absorb every other color/wavelength of light and reflect the green wavelength.”

But now my mind rebels, or is at least provoked to questions about true substance. The leaf now becomes very different to me in my understanding regarding what I previously believed its substance…it is not “pulsing out” green as from the substance of itself, or “making green” for me to see. Both it and I are entirely subject to the light falling upon it. So now, if I were to seek to understand and express that leaf as to a truer notion of understanding of its own substance…I am somewhat forced to say “Leaf (at least to me in substance) is absorb-er of red, orange, yellow, blue, indigo, and violet.” Its substance as absorber…is that…for all except green.

It doesn’t “give off green” (though it actually is doing that…giving it off, not receiving/absorbing it into itself) as producer of it. In this, again, an entire notion of passivity as only a thing in all subjection overcomes me, upsets me, even disturbs me (this thing I call myself as active man, a doer of things):

Both it and I are entirely subject to the light falling upon it.

Entirely subject.

Something wants to rebel at this.

Something tends to want to make its own light. And claim it as its own.

The light has made this plain.

Though there has been some care in writing to not always conflate mind and consciousness nor employ or imply their strict interchangeability, this has not been scrupulous. Often mind and consciousness have been mentioned as though in speaking of the one it could be assumed both are the same. But the seeming and subtle difference between them should not be abandoned to being of no matter. That we often do conflate them to all congruence I would agree, but I would rather suggest we are better served if considering mind as that always active engine whereas consciousness holds more that quality of a passivity, an observer of sorts at slight remove in awareness of such activity. But this is my own understanding. And may just be a man begging indulgence.

The interplay, or their interplay, should not be lost on us. The mind holds and exercises in its doings many things of which the consciousness may only be made aware in part. For instance…we are not always in total recall (or consciousness) of all of what we call memories, yet they are (to us) actively being maintained somewhere in mind. When we “try” to remember a name, recall a quote, retrace a route or in any instance summon up to consciousness a thing we trust is in inventory (how to “do” long division) we hold a confidence our diligence in seeking will meet our librarian directing us to the information. Even, and again, this matter speaks of some internal division(s) we encounter in ourselves, for what is the “I” there? Or in all of this?

I may think or say “I am trying to remember something not presently in reach of my ‘I’ “…but is the I the thing seeking or the thing holding (even if temporarily out of view)? Now “I” (ha ha) cannot argue against one saying “Well the whole of what is going on there is the “I”, that’s all and only how the I works and constitutes (for our communication) what an “I” is.” And I surely cannot argue against such definition if it is presented, but inwardly…inwardly do we not all know something of this matter? Not all that is in my mind is ever all that fills my consciousness. Yet, because of such interplay against which I cannot be unpersuaded, what in other instances would be sought for clear lines of what is cause, what is effect; here I am lost as a goose as any. “I” am just far more aware of a seeming game of hide and seek that is often, if not always, taking place. Stuff so often bubbles up to my consciousness as though unbidden, while at other times with intent a deep dive for retrieval ends up fruitless. What is belching up ideas, (or faces, or names, or past experiences…not to mention dreams) while at other times appears to be hiding info…even info I know (or am persuaded confidently) is there?

“Let me Google for the name of that group that sang that song”

“Oh, yes, of course that was them…now I remember…” ha ha ha…

O! what folly to “think” we know our own minds!

Yet we do, don’t we? If only because all our so called knowing…takes place there.

But isn’t the reality that if we really don’t know our own minds…what do we really…know?
And perhaps knowing as we use it, assume to its meaning (as we use it) is as unreal to us as would be our repetition of some word or notion completely foreign to us as to lack any true utility.

Again, and in some belaboring of this point of how circular reasoning is decried as useless (due to our being wed, or sold to linear reasoning and logic) in most every circumstance, knowing for us and to us, is never any more than that.

“I know because I say/think I do (whether stated outwardly or inwardly), and I know…what to know…means”

And from there…we build.

To come to see or understand in any way the “bind we are in” that is irresolvable to us and made real to us in and through consciousness is no small matter. To ourselves, if we speak of what we would call our own consciousness, it appears our sole touchstone and foundation upon which all is built that we would even call our self, or identify as ourselves. That “This is me of which I am sure“.

But once it is apprehended, or even barely seen, that there is that very attendant necessity of feedback to establish establishment, we see the bind. Like Rutherford, we see the space(s). Our surety is touched. For despite all our prior conviction of our own “oneness”, our perceived integrity of all the boundaries surveyed that hold our consciousness of our self, as to our self; we cannot bear of ourself such terror as comes in any notion (perception, sensing, even vague ideation) of total isolation. The “space” around us that allows us to define ourselves as ourselves and to ourselves…also speaks of isolation.

Make no mistake. Beware flippancy. Yes, here we can discuss such matters. We can be in exchange…about it or them. Just as we might talk about hunger or starvation thinking we know and touch certain truths about it…but we are talking about it at some remove. Yes, some space from it. Even our talking about it proves the remove…for the starving man has little interest in talk. His consciousness is narrowed to a singular pursuit, getting out from under that total pressing and exquisitely painful awareness of exquisitely narrowed focus.

Pain (or such as is described as such) has this effect. Its varying degrees may be acknowledged, its intensity to whatever measure may be considered…but pain in totality, not merely conceptualized, requires of us escape. There is no choice in or about this. And though to one the suffering of a scraped knee may generate wails to heaven while another plays through the pain with a broken hand, that point is moot. Our own responses may differ as observed outwardly by another, but both the scraped knee and broken hand produce a favoring, a focus upon the source now in, and made subject to pain. Relief is sought. Pain teaches things in a manner nothing else does, or can.

For some, if not any or many that might read even this, there is great pain. Not merely the pain of enduring another’s thoughts (which can be great enough) but an uncommon uncovering of a common and truly gaping wound found in any consciousness described as our own. It throbs there, pulsing, thrumming and humming out all motive, all motions as a dynamo flings out power…but in this, from the terror of isolation. Such painful terror has a product. Is it any wonder then…why we favor our own consciousness?

The abyss of already knowing it is in, yet churning out denial. It is caught. Needing to have space “around it” to know itself as itself, yet needing to bleed into another for such feedback that confirms it truly is. Needing itself, but of such desire to lose itself and loose itself from the terrors of isolation that all and any manner of lie suffices to it. It wants to be known as real but cannot without such feedback, yet denies to itself that that is the all that constitutes every motive. It is always and ever caught in reaching out and drawing back in all simultaneity. Too much given out, and it is gone to itself. Nothing given out (expressed) and it can never know of its own reality by any feedback of confirmation.

Yes, this is a real bind. The realest of all for man. He gives away agreement to the very end of having agreement. But knowing if he gives all away in agreement in order to have full confirmation of himself, he loses the very thing motivating himself to such confirmation, himself.

Yep, it’s the bind that makes all men liars.

The taker, the needer doing all and everything he can to fabricate the appearance as giver. So he can take. Such fabrication requires lots and lots of energy. And the pain of the terror of isolation…is sufficient to it.

Total isolation…and it cannot know itself as itself. Total “giving away” of itself, and it loses itself and is again, unable to know itself. And the consciousness of man would eat whole of universes before surrendering any notion of its persistent reality.

The “I am” that is in accompaniment of “therefore I must be”.

I tell you there is a consciousness unbound by any of “why”. There is nothing preceding it that such consciousness asks. Or would form any question to.

This consciousness questions and receives every question, but to itself and of itself, it not only does not hold one question of itself, it is an absurdity to consider such consciousness would. And that consciousness is not absurd; not merely because it never has nor does ever lie to itself (and therefore all others) but precisely because it is not of any need.

It can bleed into another without any loss of itself, it can withhold from another without any loss of confirming necessary to itself. “It” needs no agreement from man to be established to itself. It need not give. It need not…take.

Unlike you and I.

Which are all of need.

Created things.

Suspended in such sustaining.

By a “what” that has no need to.

Having touched very briefly on the matter of agreement(s) and the power they exert in a man’s consciousness, or over it, let us consider it a bit further. It is, after all, one of the faculties or functions of consciousness in which we all engage often most unconsciously; but by which we proceed. This matter of trust and its placement originates in the confidence of ourselves, and indeed that we are in the singular sense, we ourselves.

We trust ourselves to be our self and there, for purpose of such power we believe is for gaining are made willing to extend this trust toward others (consciousness) in, and for, agreement. Again, as being so convinced this working is so fundamental, rudimentary, ubiquitous, and irrefutable it is simply another thing too plain as to be rarely noted or considered. That it touches such matters as power and apparent gaining that may seem tangential at first glance; we may find these are so, and no less, bound up in it, and to it, that such also will bare consideration at their proper time. Our quest for power (such as it appears in the mind of consciousness) should not be so foreign nor strange to any. Nor should the “why” of it; the hungry seek food, the thirsty drink, the weak, powerless and vulnerable…seek power. And man’s consciousness is all bound to its own preservation (even in food and drink) and even expansion that is is not difficult at all to understand. There is a compelling in it and to it, a strict binding to matters of preservation and expansion that simply, until seen, are not seen. But, once seen (as with most every matter) cannot be unseen.

The baby cries in all subjection. It is (at least as to us) first response made plain to us in our exchanges on the physical plain and is no less considered a sign of health, a signal of healthy normality. Indeed the more vigorous and active engagement in it is believed and received to a relief of other possible concerns as might accompany in contrast; that is to a listless and barely active newborn. Clenched hands shaking and legs kicking while filling the room with wailing speak a rightness to us as other behavior and circumstance might not. Does not.

Here, crying and wailing as signal are most welcome and, if absent, sought. We may speculate as to what level of consciousness the baby is in experience of, does it “know” of its relatively sudden transition in a from to a to (a warm and fully climate controlled womb not unlike a sensory deprivation tank to a place of sudden and overwhelming sensation) where even a need to do a something previously all unnecessary presents…to actively support itself in breathing. The now of demand upon it is probably greater in experience than all other things we remember. (For thence we have no less come)

Memory, consciousness, these intangible matters that are only made real from one to another (if in fact they are) only come by what? Communication. I hope to not belabor by every step I might describe of entrance into this first tutelage and training, but, and also because, I am convinced it is so easily recognized when considered. And, no less, how agreement is actively and progressively being pressed to an individual in such discipline. The imposition of language is so very great a matter of molding, forming, and structuring a mind in consciousness that in some ways it easily lends itself to being described as severe. But it does not take much consideration nor imagination to understand how a one individual gains power in submitting to it. And agreeing to its constraints. It can learn to express itself of needs.

How this progresses is also not beyond our apprehension or appreciation. What seems one of the most fundamental needs, that is of an individual expressing one’s self, is so facilitated by language and words that it is easily understood as matter of advantage to itself. In fact there is some measure of frustration or discomfort when one finds them self unable to “put into words” some matter of mind. The mind has adopted by agreement to a certain matter, but also finds in it some hobbling.

The discipline of it, and its far reaching consequence(s) in mind may be rarely considered, but they are there. How often do you “think in words”? I have little doubt you hold images, vague and gauzy concepts, ideas that sometimes flash through like meteors in a night sky whose origins and destinations you seek to trace, but…how often do you think in words? Something from “out there” has been so very firmly internalized. And so much so there is often an internal labor to fit one’s thoughts…into them. And we, by agreement to them (though introduced long before concept of agreement could at all be understood well enough to “put into words”) were enlisted to them. We were fed words and language as surely as milk at mother’s breast. And they become to us and in us what they are, no less as tracks laid down by rule to follow. And we grow in what could be called linear reasoning…a thing with beginning, middle, and end. Not unlike the sentences we form for other communication. And we agree to this.

Much has been built…one might even say the whole of a world of edifice that appears to reach upward (as such we assign as progress) but whose foundations are shakiest of all for any with sight. For what has been built upon the agreement of man and men holds in it that worm forever eating away at it; that none are ever in the fullness of agreement no matter what bonds are sworn to. And the worm always has a way of showing its work, the self and selves of men made to be different in their sameness assigned (as each no less holds many division(s) in himself) that will and must be demonstrated as selves express…themselves. We may look for some sameness…for likeness and the attendant like of affection, but each self holds an inherent hostility to every and any other self.

Do you ever wonder about vows and oaths? Their “why”? Agreements and contracts? Their why? Man is forever looking to establish himself by the something “outside” of himself, not knowing of the bind he is already in.

His own and total vulnerability and flux to circumstance.

He knows it, but somewhere deep, somewhere he’d prefer to not explore and cannot because it is all of dark to him. The very possibility of his not being (of which he takes so for granted) is off limits and set off limits by a self manifest in consciousness that forbids his going there. The unspoken codicil or addendum of “I am” is “therefore I must be”.

But who could bear their own mustn’t?

Is there a being, (or form thereof) and/or a consciousness that is not “because” dependent?

Just…is…with no because?

Someone said a man could come to the place, not where he would wish, hope, or find some comfort or solace in this matter…but that it would be better for him had he not been born.

Who could believe that?

Doesn’t a man have to be born…to even believe…in “better”?

Who could say such a thing? Knowing of what is better, apart from any necessity of any man’s agreement? Even knowing no man would, or even could, agree?

What manner of self is in expression there?

Having droned on about these matters for tens of thousands of words, anyone (no less than I) might easily consider “What’s the point?” And it is a more than fair question.

But also consider this, if you can. Is there anything more in the realm of what might be called the “intangibles” upon which more is placed in reliance than this thing we call consciousness? Is it not, in all, most fundamental to all that would be considered the workings of man? This must, at very least, disturb (and where is such disturbance noted?) the most purely materialistic amongst us.

For the premise and proposition are clear, and perhaps too clear as to be so easily ignored. All function of material (or product of material function) cannot be more than, nor less subject to, the matters that govern material. If matter is assigned whatever laws of restriction (gold is not lead nor fluoride) and even subject mechanistically to all other considerations, then surely consciousness as the product of such (materiality) is just as surely restricted. It, no less, must ride the tracks laid down to it. Even what might be called deviation or excursion from what is considered the “normal”…is already assigned to its bearing of restriction. In other words, if speaking to some psychological aspects of consciousness (of which we are not forbidden) such deviations as we perceive them cannot really be outside the realm of such restrictions to possibility. In short a man’s mind is a mind of man…whether he be cannibal or philanthropist.

It is our precious vanity to think an individual mind, or individual’s mind of man is anything other than a mind of man.

Therefore it becomes moot (even absurd) to think we can assign to consciousness (as is most commonly and consciously accepted) a form of deviation that is “out of bounds”. But we do. And we do often. The truth of the matter (can we bear it?) is that the truth of the matter is only less absurd by stating no man is less absurd than any other, no man “more crazy” than any other…for both the absurd and the crazy/demented are equally laid out (as tracks immovable) to man in consciousness. Since all possibility for (what we call) crazy is already and inherently in occupation of consciousness, we come to see it is only by the clever adoption of agreement that we believe we nullify this truth and therefore establish what we call true criteria in judging a man’s consciousness.
And if you doubt, or do not yet know such power as agreement holds in your consciousness (or that consciousness to which you witness) there is time to learn…perhaps.

But if the so called “sane” are no more nor less sane (sanity itself being a rather clever artifice of great utility in most circumstances) than any other to which they might ascribe such notation, of what use is it? “But O!” you think, “it is established…’we’ have determined what are ‘normal’ excursions in mind and behavior.” Do we see how silly this is…and sounds? No, we at best only know or see what we believe “works” best (or has by past testimony)…and to what? Nothing more than the consciousness that serves its own interests.

We may believe there is a numerical superiority established by, or in, agreement (safety in numbers) but once agreement is reached it is firstly barely maintained, but more significantly, agreement in consciousness does not make “many” consciousness’ together, but rather a blend now into simply a “one” consciousness no more nor less significant than any other.

Do you not see this? Know this? Yes, agreement is very powerful…even to a powerful deception of strength when its underpinnings are not seen or known. What are the underpinnings of man’s agreement that lend itself to this deception of power?

It should be plain, but if need be let it be exposed. The convincing that individual (as perceived) consciousness is insufficient to a justifiable end, therefore by the “adding together” of many other insufficiencies it is now made…sufficient. It is like the adding together of many “wrong sums” in math…even to such end that such adding will leave one even farther from some correct solution. Rather than face squarely “if I admit to some insufficiency that I erroneously hold, is made better by the addition of many other insufficiencies, that notion held is even worse in error than first admission of my own insufficiency.”

Do you yet see? The lie of safety in numbers? There is only safety…in safety.

But who can believe only “one” is necessary? Or that there is a full and fully sufficient consciousness?

Not merely so, but that only one…exclusively…is safe?

To what consciousness are you a witness?