Category: Uncategorized

Admitting to having gone a bit far afield in these matters is not difficult nor grievous. And there is a frank persuasion that indeed, it is precisely in the seeming of going too far afield that certain matters are established. For what, either collectively and dare it be said, even individually does man absolutely declare beyond his knowing? Collectively or individually when man or a man sets out to know a thing and summons his powers found in consciousness to know it, ever begins by resolving to himself…but this matter is unknowable?

It would appear that mind, even the mind in or of consciousness, (especially if speaking of man) cannot submit to all frustration as all and only ultimate outcome. Said previously, it is as a voracious thing, yet not often appreciating its own voracity. It is as if not knowing of its own innate (inescapabale?) consumerism it yet strives to be producer or a producer by matters grasped in such consumption of new truth.

Is it so hard to see? Where once man’s communication(s) were only face to face for exchange of consciousness…of what each knew or held, you and I may now write or record to seeming faceless individuals or multitudes in fractions of seconds across a globe. What once escaped on the wind was made more durable in writing and/or symbols engraved, made far more distribute-able by Gutenberg, far more immediate by telegraph…and on and on.

Yet in all, and by all…no matter of advances in technology, techniques, inventions, of words and/or imaging in all attempts at exchange of what might be (vainly?) termed true substance from one to another…or even from “things” to a person, ultimately (are we not?) still left, at very best, yes, still left dealing in metaphor? Still at some remove… where things are only known in terms of other things; working with our building blocks, one upon another, then another…in full hope that the very first laid (and often in complete trust despite its first setting being in all unknown to us) under-girding all above, supporting all above that have come to us as consequence, is true.

And that could well be “I have consciousness…and it is true”

And it was said truth is never off the table.

Dare it even be said…we only know our very own selves…at some remove?

But who believes that? Can it be…believed?

Can that frustration be made bearable?

Is there a terror in consciousness?

You will know if you have ever had any experience of it. That experience of being terrified. It’s rather all consuming, isn’t it? The man who thinks he controls, in some way his consciousness, discovers there (if he is allowed reflection later) that a particular matter he’d prefer to not know he had no power over.

Oh, at times, perhaps even at most times, he is engaged in what he believes is his choosing of what to consider and pursue. But terror…when it bursts in, all previous illusions of his own control are shattered…he is aware of all and only being swallowed whole by a thing, and a thing he cannot recognize or organize for referencing.

Terror is not a thing “like” something else he can make subject to to his rational deconstructions. He is, in all, subject to it. But this does not stop him (if he is allowed reflection later) to make all attempt, all striving and arranging he may think he retains in circumstance, to prevent its appearing again. “I will build a better house that the storm cannot threaten with collapse upon me.” “I will install a stronger door a lion cannot compromise”. “I will not go out unarmed”…

“I will”

But these matters above may only be a response to “things” that may happen to make us aware of some terror. But does consciousness itself, a thing we cannot escape by moving to less storm tossed areas, or continents that are lion free, or better neighborhoods…but consciousness, does it not go with us…everywhere? Isn’t that what we are even trying to maneuver by such moving?

“I will”…find a place of rest from things that can, or do, terrify…”me”.

A better consideration of this matter, and is trusted to be of some universality, is dreams. It matters not how we may seek to define consciousness here (as I have already ceded to all inability)…as though we can find a clear line, rather than an entirely porous substrate of gauzy border between what is called the conscious and subconscious, or unconscious.

We can set all the guards we want or believe are at our disposal (which already would testify of attempt to hold terror at bay, and that’s its existence to us is already entrenched as known) but we may find, in all these “things”, in all these “matters” (pharmacologics surely included) we have already ceded to the supremacy of terror over us. We are simply in all, reacting to…

And let’s even go further if we can. And dreams seem a fair (if universal) application…and what are commonly called nightmares (if universal) are also included as some form of subset of dreams. Even a very particular subset…of those in all, unwanted. And let’s get more specific…for beyond “bad” dreams there are those able to wake us with a start to heart’s pounding, their cold acid taste now so fresh in memory as though etching in places we’d rather not know can be drawn upon. And yet are/were just as real to us as feeling the hot breath of a beast upon our own necks just before it takes a bite.

Asking if a dream not remembered was real is akin to asking about a tree falling in a forest with no one there to hear. But we are not here speaking of things that may have taken place unknown to waking conscious of memory; but of those whose imprinting in our now waking consciousness we know took place, no matter if we assign their origins to a late night slice of pizza or even recognize in their often absurd logic something able to consider. But nevertheless we know, there we knew terror.

Have you also known these?

Another disclaimer. I am not about categorizing such by symbolisms, nor seeking toward any particular interpretations. Only that there is (or can be) a knowing of terror in the conscious mind that is itself presented of some constituency of that mind (even it be the subconscious or unconscious) to itself. This is solely in some response to the question “Is there a terror in consciousness?” Does some level of consciousness (attained to) inherently hold the capacity to either produce to itself, or know terror? Does the mind of man in whole scare the hell out itself at times in what it can know even in itself?

Admittedly we may often write these things off. “I have been under a lot of emotional stress lately” or some other circumstance has so intruded as to find malleable that matter we once thought solely under our own control…what we call our own minds. But are there not times, like out of left field such occur with no evidence to support (by us) their being bidden to us, by us or our considered estate? “Everything seems to be OK with me…yet…why now this thing presenting?”

Few would have issue in concluding to the man on a war torn battlefield with friend’s brains exploding left and right out of their heads on a daily basis his right to night terrors. But my bills are paid. My lawn is trimmed. My roof does not leak. Neither I nor anyone in my family has received some dread diagnosis. I know no pressing…except, something has broken through it all. Why is my mind being like this…to me?

Is there a terror in consciousness?

Not knowing my audience among men is a good thing. Have you not also found it so? Not having to tailor one’s thoughts and words to anyone in, or of any particular assumed grouping is a great relief.

A good friend, upon some reading and with some welcome advice said he didn’t know “who I was courting” or that perhaps I was just engaged in “thinking out loud”. But what is speech? What is writing? If not…that? It matters little what form it takes from lengthiest fantasy novel to weightiest treatise on some profound discovery in nuclear physics, thought is being revealed.

And I concede here, and have already, that all of us are something of experts in regards to consciousness. Or equally ignorant. The nuclear physicist might have to consider his audience, unless he sets out to cover all of nuclear physics so that even the uniformed novice is brought “up to speed” if possible.

But all of us have been working in? with? using?…consciousness for at least as long as we can remember. It may well exceed even memory though, mightn’t it?

And consciousness in man (of man?) seems always about a connection to other consciousness in some seeing of same, or likeness…but not knowing with any precision where it may be found. Or in whom it may be discovered as seen.

Even the nuclear physicist in his treatise, with to him a very strict audience in mind, can still be surprised to find it is grasped by a 12 year old skateboarding prodigy somewhere. Someone whose jackets do not yet have elbow patches, or even eschews pocket protectors. We even betray our own consciousness when we “have in mind” those to whom we speak, or write, or for whom we create.

And it is not as though this is spoken of as a negative or bad thing, to hold some “in mind”. Quite the contrary. Nevertheless, if able to find, be led to, or discover an acceptable place that might include all, or some, or any…or even none, is very liberating. On the one hand it leaves open every door to surprise, and on the other, closes every door to disappointment. So, I assume you are conscious. (And I’d be delighted to hear any argument against that)

Nevertheless, in any of this stuff “about consciousness” were I to discover (by the whole of the world coming to my door) that “but no one else thinks the way you do”, can you imagine my surprise at exclaiming “I knew it! I always knew it!” And who of you…doubt?

You see, we are all very much the same, or not. Either in hope for some likeness discoverable or, if contrary in all conviction that none exists…how profoundly we continue practice to all our own perfect frustrating. What impels to, on the one hand, if convinced all communication and attempts at it shall never find likeness or is fruitless…even meaningless, yet absolutely forbids the man from settling into all isolation inherently accepted by that? Is it not…terror? And dare we agree to this? For if we do, some likeness is already found.

Do not even nihilists hold some meeting(s)? Or write? Or speak?

Why?

Is there a terror in consciousness?

It’s probably good at this point to reiterate what was said in part 1 in reference to the word betray. First would be the more common usage, as one who betrays another by dealing treacherously with them. The second or other usage would be toward a usually unintentional revelation of estate. The example given was of a beggar wearing a Rolex.

But we can easily see their relatedness. Both have something to do with a showing or display of an agenda once sought to be kept hidden. The first is to place another in jeopardy by a gained trust falsely engendered and cultivated, the second (not unlike in showing true estate) is also a revelation, though usually unintended. In the first there is an intentional maneuvering of the object/person to a place of vulnerability for demolition, while the second demolishes an assumed presentation by a de facto refutation of estate presented. Beggars don’t usually wear Rolexes nor drive a Mercedes. One it appears betrays, anther gets betrayed as not what he presents.

But here also is where their similarity comes into play, for both are finally revealed of themselves as betrayers.

There might be found another agenda working, even above all others given to any subterfuge. And that is that the truth of all matters, things, and persons…will be made clear. And that no thing can remain long hidden.

There has also been some care taken when speaking of consciousness to more question our understanding of it than seek to assign some definition to it, as I readily admit my poverty of understanding will neither tolerate, nor provide. One needn’t betray themselves as more of a fool than one already is, and even I can enjoy this position.

Those questions remain. Consciousness, and our relationship to it, is it a “thing” we have? A thing we use? Both? Neither? Or is it a thing we see? Even, are in? I have my persuasions as you have yours. Nevertheless there is, in all the question(s) above a basic and inclusive quandary/problem/issue I make no claim to resolve. (But I have my persuasion)

And the issue is there is a “we” in observation of it, as though able to look at it as a thing apart in seeking any understanding of it. And the quandary then remains, can “I” or any so separate ourselves in some consciousness…from consciousness…to appraise it for what “it” is? Yet, we do attempt so, don’t we? To even (if we ever have) seek to understand thought(s) and thinking…by thinking about it/them. Just like the man who says within himself…”Yikes! Where did that thought come from?” And then proceeds to use the very matter of thoughts and thinking to pursue. What even causes him to want to know…where thoughts come from?

Perhaps I am too queer and none of this is relatable by you. Or perhaps, and more than either of us may care to admit to one another, I am just like you, and you like me. That would be something, wouldn’t it? To both find ourselves admitting to all the same puzzling? But of course, any are free to say they know themselves stem to stern, and I trust this will either be displayed as truth or betrayed as lie.

For this matter of truth we are not yet done with, and is always on the table.

If truth is in play, on the table, even in any of man’s purview for discussion, we may continue. But truth is just a word. And in this case, a written one. Try as we might (and we do, don’t we?) to communicate our having of things in consciousness to others we believe are of some like consciousness, we may find there comes a point of great difficulty. Even impossibility in the limits of our communication(s) of our understandings and definitions, to another with their own.

To reduce this to the absurd is too easy. But is it true? The 17 year old boy laboring strenuously in the back seat with a young lady, both in a certain circumstance, is looking toward a particular outcome. Finally she says “but only if you love me”.

How common is it that it may only be days later, or months later, or even years later (does it really much matter? Even adding “vows” can become awkwardly accusatory) that a word believed of some transcendence over time meets the test of time and fails? Time and changing circumstance make subjects of us all. It might be tomorrow, it might be next week, or year, or decade(s), but we may learn how malleable we are, even in matters we consider of rock bottom foundation.

Again, did the earth change from flat to sphere somewhere along the line? And might we learn a caution then if there be any pooh poohing from our present back to theirs?

In this ridiculous case of the back seat lovers it is often made clear to one or both, or perhaps even neither yet that “being on the same page” is no small feat. Or that where it was assumed to be so, was not. The cost of it may be shown too high, and is often considered so. And we do learn something of the cost of our own assumptions and presumptions, don’t we?

Unless of course you are the one who has never uttered nor thought “If I had only known…then…” We even find our own history replete with testimony of a “one” who was not on the same page as another in now. “When I was a young man…” I am/was not myself. It sounds odd to put it that way…but is it true? We usually hear the more employed “I am not the man I once was”, for now “I know better.”

But the question remains…is that true? The man referred to as not as myself, today, the younger man, the more ignorant man (?) inexperienced man…tell me…did he also and no less think he (at that time) knew better…in his exercise of choice(s)? Only later to be either shown presumptuous, ignorant and/or quite uninformed. So the man who stands today thinking “now I know better”…how different really…is he from that other man?

That “other” man that no less, at that time, thought he knew better.

And although it may be uncomfortable to consider; nevertheless, is it true?

And so that word again…true. A thing of truth. Truth. Is it transcendent? Is it, in all, malleable? Does it even mean anything? Does it need support or does it, is it, all that does support? Do facts support truth, or are facts our only “seeable” manifestation that a matter of truth is at work in supply of them? Stuff exists…do we therefore only refer existence as a property assignable to stuff (even consciousness), or do we hold to some obverse? Stuff exists…therefore there is a testimony of existence. Rather than existence being defined in, and only by term of stuff?

We shall find, if we have not already, we can of ourselves progress no farther than metaphor. We are, by our own observations de facto stating a remove from reality. It becomes to us, a “thing” observed, seeking to measure its properties, its laws of function and abidance, at a remove, at some distance. And all the measurements, calculations, conclusions that take place in mind are never any more than “it’s like this”. And also at best then, all communications which derive from consciousness are then and only all the more removed. Is it a problem/issue we just accept? Or is it that we rarely consider it?

What’s the truth of those questions?

What is truth? Is a question many have asked. Even farther back in time than that ancient Roman procurator is recorded to have asked. Seems some things…don’t change, at all. Some considerations…despite all the seeming progress in time and/or technologies can bring us no closer to resolution. But the always pernicious lie remains, just assume you know it…and do, and will always be able of yourself to recognize it. It was said earlier we all play with building blocks. But what if we find the very first one toxic and able to contaminate all else built upon it? What resort have we then? Any?

What would any “know” to do…if all knowing is then shown, not merely fragile, but utterly corrupt in all? What would be the “go to”? How could a man even know…he is wrong in all his knowing?

In part 2 the statement was made:

“…the matter of truth as relates to consciousness is of paramount importance.”

This is either too bold and insupportable or just bold enough. And though these words are to and for whomever comes across them, since I have taken some stand as a believer in God, and that only through the work of Jesus Christ; it would not be true of me to not say some difference remains among others who believe, others that deny that faith, or as yet have not even heard of it.

And here I well understand that such seeing and stating of difference and distinction in (and of) my consciousness leaves me well open to any and every denial and refuting; right down to (or up to) its extreme…as in “there is no truth in your (my) consciousness.” As said from one consciousness as to my own. Believers meet this accusation often…if not daily, depending. It either comes in some form of conflicting world view, or if not, may be extended ultimately to its own extreme “your view (the believer’s) of reality is entirely unfounded, the most base of constructs founded in all error, and you are entirely wrong“. Happily, the believer learns to live with that. Or will. Or can. The believer’s capacity for joy is boundless. Too bold? Or, too soon? Nah. Not really.

To express that faith of an all conscious being, all powerful, even all the omni’s one cares to ascribe to Him is, in the sense I even now express, reproves me. For we already hold some defining of “a” being, who or what “a” being is. But God is not so…subject to any defining. The God who is God is subject…to no thing. So the best I can presently employ is to switch the noun for a verb, that instead of His being “a” being, His being is in being (verb, now) all that would appear, and as such does not even yet appear to any man of all boundlessness…of all the “omni’s” a man could ascribe. So the better understanding of any or all ascription would not be that “He is all conscious” (almost as though viewed as “He looks around in His mind” as we do) but perhaps rather that He is in being (verb, again) the very all of consciousness. He is, what consciousness in all, is. Is this too subtle? I think not. But I concede the weakness of my words.

But we do that, don’t we? We “look around in our own minds”, don’t we? You see the conundrum (again) of our own divisibility; though we like to think, and even present ourselves to each other and the world…as one. But then what is doing the looking, what is doing the presenting…that is looked for?

Is it not unlike a man seated in a movie theater? Something is seeing “thoughts”, ideas, notions, not unlike images or words presented on a screen. Is the man in the seat viewing…”the man”? Is the screen itself that appears such images are presented upon with notions, ideas, even words…the man? Or is it something or someone in the projectors booth, entirely unseen and out of view, even unknown to the man that elects what to project on the screen for viewing…”the man”?

And, if any of this holds water to you as a true matter of experience, and undeniable (are you not right now “seeing” if you agree?) I make no contention that any of these “have to be” or are the man…but rather that we “see” the occupations of our minds in consciousness held, it appears, as differing estates; as one both having thoughts, but also perceiving them. Seeing them…even discerning (or trying to) see where they are going, or may go. And who of us has not had the experience of “where the heck did that come from?” in regards to certain thoughts? So much testifies against any notion we control our minds. And who would that be anyway, that we to which we may ascribe some (any? none?) of control?

Who is us?

And dare we tell the truth on ourselves?

If not then, what are we always and only in offering?

I have not sought to hide that I am writing as one claiming faith in God, even that there is a faith of God delivered through one man true in that faith, Jesus Christ. I no less believe that the god of which He testified/testifies is the God over all others that might be testified to, or by, any other. He testifies of the God who has no boss. None above Him in any sense, the very Head of all things. All visible and invisible (at least to us) and as we might describe them.

And if I have had any compelling in this writing, at least such as I might or am able to discern, it is in part to such end that a very invisible matter to us, though far more real than most anything other we may handle (so to speak) and by which we do indeed handle all matters, even handling them in it, that is “our” consciousness, is as real a thing…and even more so than that chair you may sit in; for it is all and only in your consciousness that it is even assigned…reality.

I can easily tolerate any and all disagreement here and would be interested to hear any contention or argument against. And I am rather persuaded that even the most strident argument against would only betray that a consciousness as a thing is at work (an entirely invisible matter working in an entirely invisible manner) that contends against. Any use of it…betrays we “have it”.

And please, if so inclined, do not trouble yourself with reference to PET scans or fMRI to say such matter of claimed invisibility is now made visible (“Look! we can now “see” thought activity!” or “Man makes the once invisible…visible!”) for I have never denied man as “a” god with even some proclivity to make the previously unseen of others then seen to others. For you would trouble yourself far less in contentions if merely pointing me to Picasso’s Guernica. Or a wheel. Or just…speech.

Men are always making stuff from their minds. Translating invisible stuff to visible stuff or modulating air waves. Or writing. Or frowning. Yet the thing from which they spring…even consciousness itself, remains invisible, indecipherable, even named…but as author of all definitions (for us if locked up to it) it is itself indefinable.

There, surely…but only able to show…in part. And only showing itself…even to us…in part. Just how large is the basement of our subconscious upon which our house above is built, in its bellowing and belching up resonant rumblings? Even and every so often…terrifying ones when we are defenseless against them?

Little wonder man is a god to himself, seeing his own choices, proclivities, propensities, ideas, of some ableness to be made real to himself. No attempt has been here made to deny. No attempt remains to deny. Man makes a lot real to himself and is often found seeking to make such to others. There’s a great market for ideas. Much to be made off of, or from stuff that was once invisible to even the man, but when come across, or stumbled upon…or even diligently sought as through a veil till finally grasped…many will pay well for something…”new”. And different.

But I am only writing about the very oldest thing any of us know…or are able remember…consciousness. Nothing new here at all. Nothing marketable. Maybe even a thing thought so common as to be thought absurd to mention. Like writing a treatise on toe nails. Nothing to be sold or bought, not even anything to be re-branded. And we all presently, to whatever extent we do have it, know we have it.

And what I may see “about it” may be better expressed by others, considered deeper and longer (for I am still in my youth) to some interest of far greater generation than I achieve. Yet, I am no less persuaded, each of us having it are no less persuaded we are all experts in it. For really, with what else do we seek to do…everything? “It” gets a lot of use. And just as the roofer who pounds nails all day can become something of an expert in use of, and about hammers, we are all pretty convinced our working is perfectly suited to the way we use ours.

“All of a man’s ways are right in his own eyes” is a sentence that comes to mind.

What could ever make this plain to a man? I surely can not.

For neither have I sought (and often made plain) that anything of my own mind, even in belief of the God whom Jesus the Christ declares is in my purview to make real to another. That perfection of frustrating, mentioned a few pages back, is made plain to me now…not as irksome bounding, but as a relief given, even a very savory truth to abide in. As in “I have tried everything to no avail in perfect frustration therefore I have no choice but to rest from it”.

“Of myself, I can do nothing” once a thing so hard on the hearing…to be striven against in reply of ability to refute, to prove otherwise, to show as even conquerable, has invaded and devastated all opposition when I was made aware I am in the one speaking it. And I surely didn’t choose who to be in. No more than you can, or do.

And yes, I was so sure I was assigned myself only in which to live and be…and isolated. There is/was no visible, invisible, known or unknown possible way out of this enforced conundrum and most perplexing to utter despair of condition. Finding an inescapable taskmaster thrashing constantly to being right, to being correct, to knowing of anything to a surety; but in such palpable isolation any and all assurance necessary for any confirmation, for verification, was utterly denied.

Then, an invasion. By a conqueror.

Since the word “crazy” was brought up in the last section, and we are considering consciousness, this matter that either is itself, or takes place in mind(s); we might as well stop on it, linger about it a while and see what kind of water it holds for suitable defining. And I am not unaware that the word insanity has also come up previously.

Someone once wrote “Crazy (or insanity) is just a clever construct formulated by an agreement of two to marginalize a third person”. Or, you can no less flip it if you care to: “Sanity is just a clever construct…” And it’s plain (or should be) why this is so in power dynamics used for control.

If you start with any less, that is two, you see the problem in establishing the authority of definition. And control always rests upon authority. With only two…who will decide? If you get down to one alone, what is on or off that table? Would we be too absurd to say “everything and nothing” are both simultaneously on that table?

It seems this matter of reference and referencing, a thing which sole consciousness cannot establish to itself, is both necessity and deep problem. If it concedes to necessity of agreement to even know itself, to whom or what to concede such power by agreement to establish itself?

Really, if it’s just you and me here…who is to say anything about rightness or wrongness of thought…what, or to where, or to what extent consciousness is allowed excursion? Who gets to set the bounds? Is there “crazy land”(?) and who would know when we have crossed over into it? You may not even like this train of thought and already wonder if its very reading will (as impacts have already been mentioned as occurring) affect you and feel great trepidation at any continuance. Don’t worry, I see you have brought mommy and daddy with you (and all your experiences of circumstance(s), and learnings, and knowings) and they are no less welcome here than you are. What a multitude! Or…is it just you and me?

We all, in some sense, are already carrying our references. We can both pull our endorsements as need be.

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.