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?
israelx7wordpresscom 