Month: November 2023

There is an interesting operation (or function if you will) that takes place in observation. We could even call it consequence if we are careful about the use of that word in some point of understanding that this consequence is unavoidable. For generally speaking we tend to think of consequence as a thing that follows after, linked surely to an action or activity, but in some later following. Rarely do we recognize its immediacy is already in the action, even as bound to it. For us it (consequence) holds seeming possibilities, but this, in immediacy spoken of, is unavoidable and sure.

And observation is cause of all we experience as effect.

And this point now should be approached (as I might hope) in as much surrender to absurdity as can be summoned to the limits of the understanding of that word. Actually I should say “word and words” for surrender is a word no smaller than absurdity.

It is too late for us.

We have already surrendered to the notion of being conscious. Surrendered to a thing we can neither define (except by words made up in consciousness, or so we believe) to describe such thing we each believe we have according to that word, but cannot in any other way lay hands on. The defining in defining is all we have of it. We may chase after understanding it, but we must admit it is only by definition it is barely known to one another, and such definition as we trust as coming from a consciousness that is true, or real. In this way it is too late for us; we have already accepted without either any (or much) understanding of it, a thing we believe real. Untouchable, but fully malleable; unseeable but totally convinced can be made plain, in full necessity for any pleasure to be known, but also the source of the greatest of sufferings which men have been able to inflict upon one another. It has created poetry and the rack alike.

I will not belabor the folly of the man who, either by inward conviction or outward speaking says “there is no God”. He is plainly holding or saying he is neither of, nor from, consciousness. And if he does this with, or in his consciousness, (does he not? mustn’t he?) he is stating he possesses in sole or greater measure than that from which he has issued. He is to himself, that breed apart. He is his own creator. That’s fine for that notion can be handled, too. And is being handled. No man can boost his own consciousness, only betray it. That he not only has it, but by some strange working of his own self in it, he can determine where it either is, or is not. And he may project his own consciousness back to a thing he might even call the “Big Bang” (if he is so inclined) and with that consciousness…”look around” and be convinced he sees…none present. Yet with “his own”. That to him…has come as from no where. And, not unlike truth, he is self convinced “I’ll know it when I see it”.

But I have already belabored these some issues in my self indulgence through “Betrayers of Consciousness” (parts 1-53). A sort of verbal rack itself.

But God forbid, in all or any speaking of consciousness, these workings of mind(s) to which every man is subject in his own there be a neglect of including that influence one to another. No matter how much any might like to think of themselves as either their own man with their own mind, “No Man Is An Island” in all its implications holds true. We are as subject to “other minds/consciousness’s” as to what we call “our own”. We are subject…to consciousness.

Don’t think of a pink elephant.

Now (which for me is about 15 minutes after writing the above about the elephant, but for you seems immediate) one could say “this man is trying to be tricky with his use of example” or even perhaps…”well, ain’t that a decent example of how we influence each other’s minds even with a thing called ‘don’t do’…that causes a doing?”. And there could be a million other responses, no doubt. But this is what is meant (at least what I think I meant) by immediacy of consequence through observation. And I would be committing a lie of omission were I not to say (even believing I see it as so) I am no less caught in it as any. For that 15 minutes was spent considering “Am I just being clever?” “Am I just trying to take advantage of someone who may be reading?” or, more likely “Am I…just a smart ass cleverly trying to make a point?”

You may be observing a “me” as you read with some consequence (O! but this guy is so tedious and full of himself!) But, I was no less and also forced to observe and consider myself…and that I made (even in that silly example) consequence…for myself. All doing (who would exempt thinking or such as may be described as “working with or in consciousness”) holds consequence. How much more…communication? For we are always in expression. Which surely does not exclude all behaviors that can be observed…even how one changes a tire. “That man is not too bright using that severely rusted jack”.

“Oh! but I was not trying to communicate anything to anyone by the way I change a tire” becomes moot.

“Oh, but I was not seeking to communicate anything by wearing this Rolex or carrying this Gucci bag” no less so.

We are all caught in it.

And even neutrinos cannot escape the expression (communication) of their being.

Being has consequence.

No less, consciousness. We may try to adjust them or for them (consequences), by something called knowledge and/or foresight (knowledge is power!) seek to control them (consequences), even hold some hope for their influence toward others for a thence from others (I tend to myself prefer amens to “he’s bat shit crazy”) so that in all consequence(s) may be made subject to us. But, they never are.

Even the very act of, disposition toward, desire for controlling consequence(s)…has consequence in it already.

Being has consequence.

And it’s far too late for any of us to not be.

“What makes a man like Ringo, Doc?”

The hole. The hole right through the center of him is what makes him as he is. (is a hole a not thing, or is it “other”…only appearing…as a “not there”?)

That’s some hole, then…for the seemingly empty to make a man what he is.

Or as another man put it “That’s some catch that Catch -22”

Why yes, indeed it is. May you find that the very perfection of its all encompassing entrapment is so perfect, and too perfect indeed, than to do other than speak of its very purposeful and conscious imposition perfectly accomplished. Upon man’s consciousness.

You, and I, and all things…are being handled.

Even by the not thing.

That huge hole filled with everything that appears “not there”.

While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.

If you’ve gotten this far I’ve had my mind changed. I’d be delighted with “he’s bat shit crazy”.

It came from that huge hole. That not only has power to make a man what he is, but to change him according to a will.

Try to fill it with all your own preferences…and see what happens. I surely have.

Do the experiment.

Skin that smoke wagon and see what happens.

Oops, you and I already have.

It’s too late for a do over.

Now what?

This unyielding need we have, often to the point of lust, for the knowing of a thing or things for ourselves surely stretches gaping mouthed into any matters concerning truth. Indeed there is nothing we would say we know in our (assumed) fullest understanding of that word know that does not presume such has been made ours…to our own self. And no less, when we say we know a thing this is strictly bound to our conviction we know it in some truth…the truth of it and the truth about it. And though we may readily admit we don’t know all about a thing we are yet convinced that what we do know…we know.

Yes, I can say I know mathematics. I know how to add, subtract, divide, multiply. But then a brilliant mathematician comes and presents some equation or formula and asks me to solve it. I do not really know if he has written this upside down or sideways, and I am at more than a loss for I am not even sure I recognize it as mathematics.

And very much depending upon the disposition of the advanced mathematician I could then be held up to ridicule “This fellow doesn’t know math at all as he says” or amongst all the other things that might be said he might say something very strange “Don’t worry or fret, I too started with only the tools of addition subtraction, et al. but I can teach you.”

Now either I must compromise what I have said, amend it, frame it better to its limit “I know some math”, or if obstinate (now my disposition comes into play) and persist “But I do know math!”, I insist. And find, by such obstinacy, I must be answered a very specific way. A harder way. For I am refusing to submit to one with a mastery plainly shown.

But here’s the thing in this very poor example. I know enough only to get into trouble. What I believe I know of numbers and functions (and I really do believe I know) does not allow me to receive his sigmas, deltas, curlycues and what all or be seen as math at all. There are no Greek letters in math! Math is only ones and twos and fractions and such. My knowing (as perceived as such) has actually limited my knowing.

As I said previously in not being able to even recognize whether his equation was upside down, sideways or such allows (even coaxes) me to take that space, place, or position…”this fellow is only making all this up; fabricated only to the end of shaming me with ignorance.” And in some sense not hard to understand (I trust it is not) it is my disposition toward imposing my motives (which I do not yet recognize as my own) upon him as fraud has now called into question…and very much so, his integrity.

And if so…and now…is any able to see how absolutely unbelievable it would be for me (or any) to have any expectation, let alone consideration that “Don’t worry or fret…I will teach you” might be heard?

Yet here I will tell you, and you alone, even if no other ever reads this, this has been all my way with the Lord, and all His answer. I have gotten into the deepest trouble (knowing only enough to do so) to either doubt or wonder at His word, and in so doubting His word, cast aspersions upon His integrity. Or wonder about it. Yes, this is me. And He knows this of me. He knows how I have “weighed him”.

Any matter of preference here is more than moot. It would be a lie for me to say “I would prefer I think of myself as one who hears and obeys” or “I would prefer to be seen as one who follows with some loyalty and devotion and obedience”. My preference has now become the lie even though I know very well I am still in possession of some. And if one were to say “O! but this is too hard a way” or “no one could ever like this” I couldn’t agree more. But is truth made subject to our liking, for if it is…only a thing able to be made…subject to…

Do you see?

Only God can settle this matter to any man. But how? How? How can a man be convinced (and as need be over and over…even as every man need be…over and over) of any truth to which he has no chord nor string in, nor of himself, to resonate? The man himself would have to be made into a different species of person.

Yes, this would be necessity.

But how?

Could he do it for himself? Make himself into what he is not?

Or, would it all be, of necessity, only a thing he must have done for him…as to be in him?

In your inner court, yes…that place right there (how visible it is!) from which all issues, even the temerity to speak…do you hear yourself? And if you have been given the temerity to speak from there…do these words frame themselves upon your lips and tongue as one who desires “the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth”? In both thinking to yourself and of yourself within yourself and/or even now with such boldness as to publish to others (by lip and tongue) as speaking true of you?

Or would you say “I love lies”?

See, here’s the thing we both know. One is a pleasurable way to think of one’s self, and if one can even be convinced they can convince others this is so…it appears as pleasure, too.

You see…we both know this.

And this, this “what we know” is all and enough to only get us into trouble.

That we love pleasure…not truth. And that we make truth in service to it.

And what is “truth” we make up?

There’s a word for it.

What could be made able to admit the truth of that?

It would take a different species of person.

Something that would have to be made able to come out of such inescapable self condemning of itself as loving lies.

Lies.

Yeah, that’s the word. Yes, that’s it.

If any man would have any interest in the truth as even caring enough to say it and not deny it, or hold some inner conviction of its reality regardless of any conviction he might hold as to his relationship to it, he must leave the place of analogy. For to speak, think, or consider beyond its merest superficiality in handling as a word, or even a deeper concept, and well beyond methodologies, he must come to some place of the handling of essence(s). For unless truth is seen as both rock bottom of matters and transcendent in all matters he has not yet left that place of analogy.

It is in that sense a big word. And larger yet in concept. And eventually, if the man would continue, found to be the only matter of all matters that is or ever could be of any matter. The scientist, the physicist, the logician, and yes, even the philosopher is only handling truth by his methodology in some hope of finding (as the scientist and/or physicist) the truth of things, and of forces, the logician of orderly thought(s), and so on. And again, yes, even the philosopher understands he handles it at some remove; in some quest for a thing that operates toward himself as a persuasion, even some imbued vanity that the thing he might find, or bring close enough to eventually touch would then be in full summation of all the aforementioned; of things, of forces, of thought and thoughts, and even consciousness. All are operating as observers, conceding some remove from the matter(s) under their investigations and therefore are consigned to that place of laboring in, by, and through analogy. All, in truth, is by method of comparison(s).

And if this is too fine a point, all labor with some likelihood of hope truth can be known.

Is this sleight of hand that hope is now introduced? Again a word large in scope, larger still in concept…but can truth be applied to it in any form of congruency? Mustn’t they (if truth be known) run together in some sense? How close can they be? Can one (if one is inclined) say “I seek truth, or the truth with no hope of its finding?” That is folly on its face. And if they do, or even must run together are they in birth of one another? “I seek the truth by hope in its finding” or seemingly conversely “I hope to know the truth and/or know it if I find it if indeed it can be found”?

And no question here I must fall to any or all accusation of being merely philosophical or worse. A man seeking to use words cleverly (words themselves being made analogous to thoughts) to the end of some persuasion. And if I were to say of the accusation “I do not care” rightly the astute might say “well there must be some care if seeking to make that clear, otherwise why is it being said?” No, I quite readily admit we are all in some persuasion of one another in a sea of consciousness we share and that even what may appear the most subtle eddy’s and currents are all at work. In that sense we are all in effect. And one must care enough about something to even think…or further say “I do not care”.

Likewise, and no less, is this matter of truth. It is for each of us the yes or no matter, the yes or no question. (That’s a very bold and broad statement, isn’t it?) But who would deny? Could the man, or a man say “There is no such thing as truth” (yes it’s a word, yes it’s a concept)…but in reality.. “It doesn’t exist as either word or concept would lead one to think”. Well, if he states that, and states that as truth…?

O! but we are so bound!

We cannot deny…truth. For even if seeking to deny it, we establish it as a thing deniable.

By matters that have persuaded me a wiser man wrote “For we can do nothing against the truth but for it”. His testimony to its finding (or being found out by it) was by a person…not a word in the sense we commonly think as analogously used to convey men’s thoughts, or even some philosophical considerations of it as a concept, but as from a person made willing to show the truth that He is himself the truth.

Now, THAT is bold. So bold in presentation that yes or no is all and only what can apply here. The penetration of it is perfect amongst all men, that no matter their questions about truth, they are already convinced they are of it, themselves. What do I mean? I mean that each man (am I lying here?) holds this persuasion (again no matter how lofty nor foundational a thing we may make of truth) and is totally convinced he will know it (truth) when he hears it, know it (truth) when he finds it, know it (truth) when he sees it. That there is some string or chord already within himself to resonate, and that will resonate to truth. And that, in short, is a lie.

Am I telling the truth?

or

Am I lying?

A few sections back was discussed the matter of a declaration: “We hold these truths to be self evident…” and regardless of where one stands in relation to that particular document or its enumeration of the truth(s) held to be as self evident; the notion of the self evidency [sic] of truth is introduced. That truth is supported by a self that recognizes it, cannot deny it, and is (at least to all selves like it) plain. We discussed that this could not but leave a certain population out as included as having, or being, such a self. They had to be for this declaration to not be self incriminating of the writers as liars to themselves, and now worse, broadcasters of such a lie by such its declaration and upon which they took a stand. And not only so. No, far worse.

For the declaration was issued that such, as such, come from a Creator whose imprimatur of this self evidency [sic] of these truths is also undeniable. Either slaves are not men, cannot possibly be men included in “all men are created equal” and no less entitled to all so called rights enumerated, or the men in practice, regardless of their statement(s), are shown liars. And if they (even if not holding slaves themselves) but allow that others might (even such signators in whose company they have also signed and therefore show themselves as of that company) then they wittingly or unwittingly (it matters not) have shown themselves in practice not only compromisers [sic] of truth, but by practice declare (demonstrate, show) truth is compromise-able. Or, at the very least, their own declared truth(s) are such.

But God forbid any think I can say much about “other men”. For, in doing so, I only admit “I am of their company”. Worse if I think I have some “other” innate standing for speaking only to what must be entirely unlike me.

And what do we call men willing to compromise truth…whether it be assigned to themselves as “their own”…or even by most lofty statement made as coming down from a Creator as over all?

What then is truth if it is always (is it always?) subject to being compromised?

Either “not truth” (for it is neither rock bottom nor transcendent for compromise has made it its subject)

or

Truth always shows men as the liars they are.

And I am a liar. Even one who, in all practice (look and see how much I write and declare!) is full of compromise.

My self is the greatest liar I know.

Am I telling the truth?

To say (even we as believers) have never encountered unbreakable word to such measure as is being revealed in us as unbreakable, seems too bold a statement. Nevertheless, is it not so? To say we are now in discovery of the true, even that true God who speaks and is speaking Himself in us, and to us, and into us to make us also true (as He is) through Christ, is not something for which we are provided prior reference. There is nothing of us gleaned from our time “in the world” upon which we might say this is not all absolutely new to us.

We may think we know what honesty looks like, (or love, or life, or integrity, devotion, loyalty, or a thousand other things the world looks after as good things) but when God speaks with unbreakable word and of unbreakable word we are either given grace to see or must lie. Either all analogy gives way as it must, or we are yet living only in shadow of type and are ourselves only shadow men. God is patient.

Listen if you can and are made able. And if you (or we) hold the terrible truth of God with some trembling in your own commonness of dust as before the God of all creation…you (or we) may be able to hear. For all is new here…not like new. The faith of Abraham, commended by Christ and spoken of often to us through the scriptures was of this nature related by the writer of Hebrews:

“By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to go out to a place that he was to receive as an inheritance. And he went out, not knowing where he was going”

This is too terrible for any man to receive except by “a” grace given. For what man does not soon discover how deeply held is his disposition to appear as one knowing where he goes and what he does? Yet there is this great gulf of difference also soon learned (is a disciple made one able to pay attention?) that what has appeared once as man walking purposefully and knowingly is now revealed to him as all stumbling to a terrible end (even in himself) while the one settled by faith to stumbling through a place unknown to him, yet finds (and testifies of) one all along the way ready to rescue and pick him up.

I understand how this may sound mumbo jumbo. Both men are stumbling through, but one, yes, but one does not think he is. He is self convinced he knows all the hows and whys of what he does and is more than willing (no, greatly devoted) to making a show of how purposeful he is in his proceeding(s) with all knowledge of them. To himself he can…and will…show “he knows”. This man I know only too well. And I would think we all have had some experience with him, as being in him.

But the man of faith, this new creation for whom and to whom all things are being shown as new, has something of that unbreakable word in him of having to let go of all he once set his compass by. His only plea here is, and can be, for mercy. He has nothing to assure himself he is plowing straight, nothing (once so grand to himself) that he is remaining in bounds by looking back and gauging his own doing well; for he is where he has never been before. At best he can look (though it may seem back as in memory) and only see where God has appeared to him as help all along the way. He is losing sight of his doings…seeing only the merciful hand of God.

As need be read of Abraham. And though none (certainly myself) can bring any accusation against him, you will find he had much to learn about being preserved in his walk, about steps taken that were indeed ordered for him, but of which he could never boast of having done everything rightly.

And to put what may appear too fine a point to it…that which appears too weak, too ignoble, too easily dismissed as a poor place to set one’s hope for, or as weakest and most frivolous way of life and being…that is in plea of mercy…is being shown this man as a strong, and even strongest suit.

All that knows better than mercy would say “if you just did it right the first time…you wouldn’t need it” or “if you just knew what you were doing you wouldn’t need it or have to find yourself in plea of it”.

Just “be” better.

But.

There is no knowing of anything greater than God’s mercy, nor His delight in showing it.

Happy is the man who is robbed of his ability to think he may maneuver around it, try to be what doesn’t need it, or appear as more than he is as one exempt from its necessity to him.

For he gets to see how God delights in showing it in a place he has never been before.

And yet…he knows it as home.

As home for which he has held no prior reference.

Not like home.

Home.