israelx7wordpresscom

There are few things more often said by believers to any perceived in doubt about the reality of Jesus the Christ’s fullness of reality than “It is not a religion, it is a relationship”.

And since no doubt there is a commonality, a communion in spirit shared amongst believers that has some expression in behaviors, both in word and [some] doings; it is often extremely tortuous to attempt to dissuade one who appears beholding (as it were) from the outside as those unconvinced, that it is not, or far more than, mere religious practices as observable doings to which many, as observers, reduce the matter. Even the believer himself finds these matters often become a sort of stumbling block, of things that seem to get in the way of expression…even if their faith takes some expression in, and through these.

We may say, and in some knowing even say “It is not a matter of going to church, or a church” or “No, it doesn’t mean you read your bible a lot, or pray a lot, or give to the poor a lot” or be “nicer” in some way, and the like. We are often left in some attempt (or find ourselves so) to make clear a thing that is exquisitely personal in nature and beyond the observable by others unless they be of same spirit…that a “someone”, a real person not of mere materiality has touched us beyond and more profoundly than any other has ever reached or touched from a place (and to a place in ourselves) that to us was previously undiscerned. No wonder the apostle said “Who is equal to such a task?”

Yes, it takes God. And likewise, no, it cannot be less than God who accomplishes. Any, or even all of man’s craftiness and crafting of words, explanations, logical reasonings…no matter how skillfully nor devotedly they may be presented can accomplish anything to this end.

Ahhh, frustration! How perfect it (even He) is found working in this to work us through this. We are found often, and in some or many ways, trying to express the inexpressible. And the some of you (if any be reading, at all) also know this is not merely reserved (this experience) to intercourse with, or among the doubtful or unbeliever. It even happens amongst those of the family of faith. That we might say (or think) “Well, it should not” or “it ought not to be” is of less than no consequence here. It happens. You know it, I know it, but most and only importantly, God knows it. The not knowing of what “should be” plain is not something of which God is unfamiliar. Were we able to foolishly assign time to God as something He labors under, we would say “He has been dealing with this for a very long time”

Do we doubt Jesus said this, even and specifically to one of His own chosen:

Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip?

Now, I care not to make an example of Philip as though he is stranger to me, or one I care to distance myself from or spitefully use for some self exaltation…yet (even brother/sister) how could I prove to you that such has come in same form to one as myself “You do not know as you ought to”. Or, “When you say you know, you merely show you do not”

Ha! But I know this! I know these words come…and have.

I am no more nor less than any other finding the curious constraints of being found in fashion as a man. And if, (or better) as this is true “We hold this treasure in earthen vessels that the excellency of the power may be of God and not of us” is a matter unavoidable to acknowledging. And so that same apostle who held query came to rest after “Who is equal to such a task?” finding only resolution in God as can be accomplished only by God

For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.

or as another translation puts it:

For we are not, as so many, peddling the word of God; but as of sincerity, but as from God, we speak in the sight of God in Christ.

O! But this is no small matter of which he speaks. O! sincerity! Sincerity! Who is, or can be sure…of their own? Who has mined past all that might be of personal gain in any doings or words to touch the naked truth? For we learn “peddling” means so much more than for mere filthy lucre, for there is an abyss of things one can reach for to his own adorning if he can show or display what appears as some mastery of matters. Pulpits may throw themselves open to him, elevating stages and dais’s, some acceptance of notoriety, an ability to ascend as one “who should be heard” may present…yet…even with and in all of this there is the far greater matter (not merely relying upon other man’s opinion or acceptance) and that is the matter of how one may prefer to see themselves. There, in that deep place, that place others do not easily see or may not even yet appreciate as being fully clear before the eyes of “Him with whom we have to do”. That place. How does one…even with God…mine past that place to touch a matter too deep…sincerity?

Yes, it is a relationship. No, it is not “a” relationship…it is the relationship. We are touching and in touch with the only true person of all personhood. I trust (and am persuaded) that Paul in all his many labors, query’s, investigations, seeking of light in a Kingdom once foreign to him even to such end as he might present it clearly or as unobstructed by matters of himself that might obscure, was given that gift of God of tireless mining. And minding. “Ask, seek, knock” were instruction not lost on him. Each answer spurred to greater marvel, each answer spurred to greater investigation.

I have little doubt (none actually) that there was a curious turning in himself, one at which he could only marvel. Even such as might be seen as in this, if God allow such presumption (or is it faith?)…a turning upon all matters so that “Why did I not see (as Saul) what is now made so plain to me in that place of being Saul in which I was so confident I saw, and knew?” To come to “Yet, even now with what I see and can affirm in such confidence (really not much different than a confidence I also once embraced in all sightlessness) what do I still…and yet…not see?” O! But this form of knowing is far different! To myself, in fact, I am no different…yet this is the strangest of knowings. As Paul I am no better than any other, not even better than that “Saul” who I know (I know! I know! I know!) was sightless! Oh my.

His plea was ignorance. He copped to it. He grabbed it. He held it and presented it. But how? And why could he be sure of it? He knew this was no expiation, no excuse as would suffice, for who has championed only the sufferings of Christ to greater degree as only sufficiency for satisfaction presentable and acceptable before God?

Yet, he claimed it. But no, it was neither excuse nor expiation, but given to him as gift and as such was not to be lightly taken. And surely not to be hoarded to himself as sole or only worthy recipient. By its work from the giver to its work in the receiver (and this work was a miner’s precious tool) his eyes were opened in greater measure to this work of the One who gives. He gave blindness even, provided sufficient ignorance [even] for the glorifying of His son, the son of His love.

So Paul, not denying his own remaining ignorance “Not that I have already attained…” also had such confidence of knowing how such “worked” toward this, the Son’s glory, that he would say:

For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.

He began to understand many of the why’s and hows of God’s working, even in one such as himself. Even that same one as an apostle to the gentiles (a people formerly despised by a Pharisee of Pharisees) who came to see and know much but would yet know this writing he scribed to be true:

And if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know.

Ahhh, frustration! Ahhh ignorance!

What gifts!

Through the hand of the giver…they work. And perfectly well.

Even as catalyst, as all consumed in the brightness of His coming. Even as meet fuel for this longing of His appearing.

To a promise of their end.

Just as we may say “It is not a religion, it is a relationship” to those who are mere observers, we may also come to know another thing after like manner, even Heaven… is not so much “ascension to a place, but to a person” and to and with all that are in Him.

Go instead to my brothers and tell them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.

In Him, all places are Heavenly.

Even, only so.

The references to eating for sustenance, the concept of eating/consuming as necessary for survival, even to its being a particular sign of life’s activity in a thing considered living, are most common amongst us. They are not reserved only to the believer. In truth their consideration is most pointedly and profoundly explored throughout the scriptures as a matter of truth which, to be taken in (eaten), are to be life to a thing in creation, a thing ordained to live by what it eats. A thing of all dependence, even whose dependency is made plainly known by its necessity to such engagement.

It is less a matter of God wanting us to know we exist and have being in all dependence as a created thing; but that, as a matter of truth, opens doors of truth God has purposed in grace for us to know and understand. God is not belittling of what he has created for dependence upon Him, but will and does deal with any notion of mistaking/mistaken identities.

For the believer, having both this knowledge of the uncreated life (of God) from whom all other things known as having life (creatures in creation) while in temples of clay…even the very life of God given through Jesus Christ to abide in these temples, seems to often plunge us into apparent paradoxes and contradictions. And the words seems there is not without its significance. Indeed it is our calling to come out of, or push through (solely by grace) all of what seems to what truly is that often itself seems the paradox or contradiction.

“Why?” is not a bad or evil question here if we can but approach it as supplicant in need of light rather than God’s inquisitor. Nevertheless, though presumption is never recommended, God is able to help even the presumptuous as He wills. Painful lessons…are lessons, nonetheless.

Here is repetition that for me, cannot be overstated. My own un-necessity. Regardless of whether one has read or seen any of my other foolishness, I am being persuaded that in any communication while in this, my temple of clay…I have only one shot at it, so to speak. God knows a man’s end from the beginning and presumptuous is the man who blithely assumes he will have a later to make things more clear. God knows.

But understand this if able; of all men I have not known one more presumptuous than myself. I am not writing “as a christian”, not writing as one whose words should bear or carry some heeding (and this despite all the apparent contradictions found in my many, many apparent declarations) not as one anything at all, but a man. Of that I have only enough certainty to continue. I am a creature called man. And as man man, or a man, of these I am a man most presumptuous.

I will not belabor this (though any book of my own life, which is of no consequence, would easily reveal it) but I will say it suffices to know me only as a man who has struggled to not be what he is, while in same struggle to be what he is not. And as that man has come up against a something. In trying to appear smarter, more clever, wiser…in whatever way “better” (for fear of appearing…dumb, slow, stupid…as he knew himself to be, in all unfamiliar with this experience called life) he was shown more stupid than he ever or could even imagine himself to be. He knew even far less than he thought. And in all trying to not be (what he knew himself to be) he came up again against irrefutable proofs, again, he was shown less.

So he became a fake, a fraud…a liar. Pretending he knew the dance.

A man being convinced he is just a man. Striving to be (better) or striving to not be (for escape of the worse) resulted in perfect frustration. So perfect in fact…he is convinced he was touching a consciousness, a too perfect ordering of all matters pertaining to him to just be some happenstance. Perfect resistance, as (perhaps) in anything found perfect opens a door to consider…just how perfect perfect is, or can be.

And it is no less perfect that such a man come to appreciate his own lack of necessity as to any other. He seemed at very least…necessary to himself to “be himself” but something unprepared for came with this, something often exalted among men as a paragon of behavior, even a virtuous thing, but of which he was unable to bear. Responsibility. “Be responsible” which when deconstructed is no more than “be responsible for your being”.

How does one do that?

And here, if one is tempted to think one can dissociate necessity from responsibility, one might be very, very foolish. One may have no idea when self volunteering to be “important” or of some necessity, that with it can come a revelation of unbearable responsibility, and such as only one man has been able to answer rightly. And of course this man I met while being found in fashion as a man myself…even as a man who wanted to be important among men even enough to display his necessity to and for being among them (men)…is Jesus, the Christ of God. He alone made perfect sense of, and in, this conundrum. All was of another will (against which this man [myself] had come up against) and it was perfect. A perfect will against which I had struggled, strove and found only frustration. Wanting to present a “good” I found only a produce of ill, and if wanting to avoid appearing ill, an even more desperate estate was shown.

And I would be a liar were I to not say such desire to be important held some sway even after such meeting.

Now that appears paradox, right? Even contradictory, correct? Even with all said just a few lines up of sensing that having a “one shot at things”. It would seem someone is at once saying it appears important to make a “good go” while at the same time saying all he may even think of doing in “one shot” is totally unimportant. There are “why’s” and hows of working that only God can answer, and that even such would bring us to Him alone…for answer. (See how little help I am?) How can one “know” an important thing, and not himself be swayed to believe that then makes him, in some way…important? I think one can easily see this is no less a conundrum, pickle, fix a man is in than any other.

A will, a purpose, a plan…a conscious and consciousness of doing with intent that is not of the man can be the only escape. Someone else…is the responsible one. Now that really sounds like playing with words…doesn’t it? Just shuck off all to another? Well, the alternative test/experiment is simple enough…seek to be responsible for all you are. You will inevitably come to that place (please, for the love of God if you need to, doubt me) of being so jammed up in your circumstance you will easily say, O! so easily say..”It’s their fault”. The “they” (mom, dad, “society”, circumstance and situation, the devil) bear responsibility for my being the way I am, and see myself at this point. You doubt? It’s easy enough…just keep breathing and moving through this thing called life. It’s really…all you (or any of us) have to do. The plea will be “But I am just a reactor!”

Yes. Yes you are. Me too.

There is ultimately only one Actor.

And much (if not everything) has to do with position, placement, and order. And only God…remains…God. The all responsible…One. The all important…One. The only necessity of man. That seat is His alone, and happy is the man (as he must be persuaded) to gladly let Him have it.

Sounds odd, doesn’t it…to “let God” be God? Almost heretical (yes, I have also been a heretic in addition to presumptuous) but there’s a divine rest in letting granted through the grace of the Son that slays a wicked thing devoted to wresting a throne from an untiring and omnipotent King. An all good, King.

Let God be true and every man a liar.

There are two positions described/mentioned there, take yours as it is revealed to you. It’s been provided, along with right vision in this “who’s who” of revelation that has beckoned us out from all lies. And it is good to ask, when one senses His coming, about the conditions of peace. And upon what terms can peace be had with this unconquerable King. Luke 14:31,32

We would be remiss (and are) were we to hold any of God’s creation in contempt for reviling. But there is a strict division of which we are made aware. God over all, and the all He is God over. This is no play with words nor casual use of all…or as the apostle speaks of everything, here:

For he “has put everything under his feet.” Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. NIV

or

For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith, all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him. KJV

The reigning of Christ over all things, even those unseen, is plainly stated to not include the God who has placed all things under Him (Christ). There is an “all” of which God is exempt from inclusion.

In this way God Himself is separate from the all…even the “all” others. And surely, all other things.

What then? How then? How can there be relation, relationaility to what is so very very separate and apart…even from what would be described as the all…as a man might know?

Unless He Himself, is providing link, entrance, something of Himself offered, given, made available, made real to man amongst things…as door.

As men we exalt our own reason. Our own ability to “reason” up to a thing, a matter, even a thing we call truth.

It is the foolishness of God that He reason down to us.

And it is this, this foolishness of God, greater than man’s wisdom by which we are saved.

Go ahead, try to outsmart Him if you dare, if you believe you can, if you must. You’ll find something perfect. Even a perfect will at work that caused or causes you to know perfect frustration.

I didn’t like it either. But then a man came I couldn’t avoid. He said this:

Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me. As it is written in the Scriptures, ‘They will all be taught by God. ‘ Everyone who listens to the Father and learns from him comes to me.

Ahhh, frustration! It causes me to swear, to rue my being, to shake a fist at heaven itself in demand! Touching perfection in any way has an effect upon a man. An unforeseen effect that, if he be honest (at very least with himself) can open a door. Even a door provided.

But only God will and can provide even such honesty if it is found. To face the un-faceable.

I am a hopeless wretch of a sinner. A faller short. A misser of all I aim at.

Where is only hope for such a one? Is there…even?

Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.

65 321`7sAWERT12340

Something is implicitly in question in “if”. Or is it explicitly? Might it be both…even at once?

O! so many labors about words, so much devoted to their exploration for meaning.

A man much devoted to his own sense of cleverness once said this: “Man developed language when he discovered how difficult it is to lie without it.” (And one may learn there is some consequence in any and every declaration)

Fortunately God knows how to deal with the clever, by showing Himself more so as needed. God knows how to deal with the man who likes to see himself as anything…be it clever, kind, giving, spiritual, understanding, wise, knowledgeable, better informed; any or all of the “goods” a man might hold to himself as worthy. He has sent His son as a thief in the night to plunder all of every and any man’s goods.

Man lives in a state of comparison…especially as to those matters about which, and in which, he considers himself. Rare is the man who, in his own sense of comparative goodness, is convinced these are also for the plundering. We would like ourselves to be all shiny appearing, but soon we learn the metrics for measuring that comparative shininess are so askew in all our estimations that we begin to appreciate just how lost…being lost is. O! but that fall was great…and not only so, but complete.

It is a curious matter. Forasmuch as we may consider the how of “how we’d like to see ourselves” another matter is relentlessly working in it. The more we look, the more unbearable it becomes to us. Forgive the coarseness, but like a turd in a punch bowl whose otherwise sweetness may provoke us to some desire or thirst, the moment we look to ourselves…something else is floating, undeniably seen, inescapably presented, that disgusts. And if we continue (is it appointed…this lesson?) we come to learn it matters not if it be a sweet oceanfull of most fragrant punch…we now know to look there will inevitably disclose to our beholding that taint. Anything we may think we have gained in advancement by looking to and beholding the Christ of God, Jesus the Lord; is suddenly undone the moment we seek to appreciate that advancement, or look for it, in ourselves.

“O! But this is so basic” we say. “Look not to yourselves! Look not anywhere but to the Christ of God!” Yes. Amen! And yes, again. But again, yes, there is a training. There is an experience into which we have been immersed, a thing so utterly irrefutable that in grace and by grace…we may touch what is made to us undeniably true. God would have us touch true…and truth, even to such extent we be firmly established, not merely by some dogma or doctrine we embrace…but to know we are actually (and in experience) in a firm and unrelenting grip. Someone has us. We are embraced. We are not our own.

Someone is at work far beyond what we may even desire of ourselves…even for ourselves (“Lord, but I so want to be pure!”) that sometimes may come a strange response that may even sound like the voice of a stranger…”Really? Do you really want to be pure?” that at first does not sound like a friend…for…”who would question such motive?”

This sounds like an inquisitor…not friend. But such question provokes us, such question by its coming stirs us, moves us to consider a cost at which we may rightly tremble and fear. There is something in it, that, while not denying the loveliness of purity begins a work to unearth (even in our own earthen temple) the purity of such desire and request/declaration (Lord, but I so desire to be pure!)…and whether it be grounded in truth…or just the desire to come to a place where we consider ourselves as pure, look at ourselves as pure…even in some hope to delight ourselves in our own…purity. And I dare not pretend here that I, less than some other, desire to appear shiny. (For our desires so often appear as true to us…being so intimately experienced…yet…we learn)

But here also is something other disclosed, here is something of a darkness revealed…even as a necessary thing for such disclosing. I am, to whatever extent I am, living, thinking, acting…as even the very most darkened soul of man, still in the comparative. How can this be? How can such be happening? This seems in all…wrong. This appears condemning of me…”a” me who seeks (or so I think) to know the Christ of God! Might even declare “that’s all I desire!”. (There is always a perfect hearer)

Listen if you can. I believe the apostles write/wrote of true experience, experience(s) enlightened in, and of, revelation. Or, in some other words…they didn’t speak of mere hypotheticals they to themselves imagined. They…knew. Of things worked into themselves…as true. Life and death were made very true to them, even in them.

And in such experience one wrote this:

But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid.

Someone, it is made plain…has been down this road. Can this be? That in seeking to follow and know the justification that is in Christ…such sin is made known that, unless one be reproved and/or corrected by this knowing of scripture (truth, ministered of the Spirit)…one might be inclined to consider Christ is causing/ministering …the sin? As in “My following of Christ reveals too much for me to bear of this falling short, this sin, this revelation of a thing so utterly and desperately wicked, that it cannot be but that the following is producing it“. So often (always?) given to wrong conclusions.

(And thanks be to God the Spirit had that apostle declare “God forbid”!)

How much stumbling could remain here…if not made known? How much could be turned? Not merely misunderstood, but even so opposed to understanding that sin simply must be “elsewhere” than in me…for I AM the one who is alive in the Lord. I am the one who “only wants to follow”. Am I not “doing right”?

Do you think this is just playing with words?

Listen again, if you can…of what the sower says [of some]:

And have no root in themselves, and so endure but for a time: afterward, when affliction or persecution ariseth for the word’s sake, immediately they are offended.

O! but we say, “I do not want to be of that some.” I so much do not want to be of that some THAT: “I, even I, will not be of that SOME [one].”

“I will be (for I am) the good ground…”

No root…in themselves. O! but this is offensive! This is an offense!

Utterly offensive.

Listen.

With what do you read? With what do you hear?

When you read (and hear yourself…reading) what rises?

(Do you not know death precedes…rising?)

If not, what is rising from…for that what to be rising…to? Is it not to our Father, Himself?

Listen again, if you can.

Do you [we] chuckle? Are we amused? Vexed to wondering? Wonder to vexing?

The Corinthians. The Galatians. The some of the “those” and the churches addressed and rebuked in the Revelation of Jesus Christ?

The writer of Hebrews saying this:

For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.

O! but those “those” who seemed to be failing to get it. Gee…”some others” have needed again to hear “the first principles of the oracles of God”. This obviously isn’t speaking of me! It’s the “them”.

Always the them again…

Or consider an apostle writing this…one who labored among them “bodily”, once present in flesh with them, saying:

But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage? Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years. I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain.

“They” missed it? “They”…didn’t get it. The “they”. Is that what rises in us as we read…and hear ourselves reading? We who “have the Word(s)”…as though the “they” really did not?

Or, as was recently said elsewhere, of the man seeking to distance himself from Adam, reads of Adam as though it is not himself? Reads of that man who would hang others out to dry “The woman YOU gave me” and does not even know his own self (from whom such woman was taken, was made)?

Always a distancing from…the them. Even reaching to God “the woman YOU…”

And make no mistake, our God knows the place(s) we assign Him in our hearts, when in comparison to an “I” or me…He is simply listed with all else as just one of the “others”. As though He and the woman now, are equal in stature in Adam’s sight. (I haven’t been able to fool Him, have you?)

Or, have you ever said, thought…or marveled at Pilate asking, having the temerity of asking…as putting into question some utter frailty of truth in his question “What is truth?” in the very presence of He who is the truth? Why don’t men…see? As though truth ultimately leans upon, rests upon, is supported only by our knowing of it, accepting of it, acknowledging…of it. Our allowing of “truth” to be.

Why don’t the “they” see? When really…isn’t the better question…why don’t I see?

O! look…I did it! In my writing I show myself liar by presenting what is not! Comparison presented, as in “better”…question!

No…it is the only question in such circumstance of wonder. “Why do I… not see?”

The answer is always too simple: I am the man who loves his own comfort more than truth.

And such a man of all men, if any have need…needs to be saved.

Even has needed someone to tell him this, someone who is able to show him, this. The man in need of salvation. A man basking in his own light of knowing and understanding.

He has needed what makes him most uncomfortable, the truth. For he neither knew it, could know it, or have it.

Believer, you’ll notice Jesus didn’t tell a “them” what spirit they were of when telling a them in rebuke “Ye know not what spirit ye are of” in responding to a question about the calling down of fire.

Was a change needed…or a consistency…lacking? Were they of Christ’s spirit…but didn’t know? The spirit of the world…but did not know? How would “they” know? Where would they go, could they go, to know? To resolve such a “Ye know not…”? )

Who would leave them in such seemingly dire straits of “not knowing”?

(I am persuaded Jesus knew/knows precisely where such must lead if a man is to have this resolved, and it cannot be to himself or any other man…only God)

And yet again, to “others”:

Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. (Where would such have to go, and would they even have that have to go…to know?) Who inspires…the need to know?

Someone is telling men, all sorts of men (every man?)…unashamed, unafraid, undeterred and at too many junctures to be ignored: “you don’t know”.

And again when one asks for special seats, for place of privilege, of advantage for their sons: “Ye do not know what you ask”.

And may God help us, for even when being told to know, or that such knowing is…comes this:

If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him. Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us. Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip?

Listen, we all have our “pet” doctrines, our perspectives, our way of resolving to ourselves certain matters that appear in questions of “why?” I do. I have surely moved in them. Have you?

Do we say “O, but this was before the resurrection, this was before the day of Pentecost when the Spirit came (or was made known to certain) in such great power.” Yes, we often say such. O!, but things were different after…that. And though it be true, we yet have certain testimony.

Peter’s rebuke by Paul for hypocrisy and fear of certain Jews. All the letters, rebukes, admonitions for whole churches in peril of leaving their first love, of wandering off into prideful arrogance and/or neglect of fundamental matters. And I would be more the liar were I to not say (by omitting my admissions) I have been just as that “they”. God forbid, this is not humility, this may not even be Godly fear (for only God knows). Nevertheless of this I am quite certain…it is true.

I am the “they”. I am that “them”. God help me, but even this has often fit me too well to deny:

For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you, as it is written.

What hope then? Where can one go…if seeing this? If knowing this of himself?

Where? To whom?

I can testify as surely to this as I can to any other matter I might offer in testimony “I surely did not want to know this of myself” No desire, no will toward, no hope formed of any form…to know I am of the “them”. But, I am. God knows…I am. Has always known…I am.

What then is difference? Is there difference? Dare I compare, falling back again into such matter that hid this knowing from me? At least I am not as bad as…? …Them? …I once was? …Some “other” man?

Uh, oh…a thief has been here. I can no longer find among my goods what once was.

Here are several “ifs” each to ourselves will either be recognized for confrontation and resolution from the only place of resolving…or we shall gloss over them, glance over them as provided for some “other[s]”. Mere filler to puff out a letter from an apostle that may not yet be recognized as having labored among such “ifs”…even to the end he might state them rather succinctly. (Unless one believes he merely wrote of hypotheticals, of mere supposes, of quaint issues foreign to himself and of no necessity to find resolution)

Therefore if there is any consolation in Christ, if any comfort of love, if any fellowship of the Spirit, if any affection and mercy,…

This same one, this same man, this same apostle would later write as to a dear son in the faith who knew him (and his manner of life) who both served him and served with him in such matters of [the] faith that to bring any question of his sincerity in these words, [I say] will have necessary consequence. I do not say this to inspire fear or as threat. A man cannot avoid bringing what he brings…when he reads, when he seeks to understand, when he “looks”…even into another’s mail.

This is from Paul to Timothy and so stated, and yes, it is very much the opening of another’s mail. To have any understanding requires some submission of place accorded as to either writer or receiver lest we be caught (as well we may be…even to an eternal purpose) by our own presumptions. Even that we may learn what liberty…is. And what it is not.

This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief. Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might shew forth all longsuffering, for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting.

Our like, dislike, preference[s] and/or lack of them mean nothing in such clarity. This man even claimed to know the “why” of why he obtained mercy. Someone was pleased to show him, to use him as an example of what necessitated such patience in longsuffering, even by showing such longsuffering in patience toward him[self]. Here there is no claim of being right, doing anything right, but only of being the chiefest of sinners Christ Jesus found of use…for displaying mercy toward.

I am persuaded this man was persuaded against all of his previous notions of what being a shiny trophy meant. How he could not even be so persuaded till another stole all that was once counted to himself as advantage in that severely misaligned perspective once held. [For whom I have suffered the loss of all “things”]

And yet…and yet…he held a triumph.

I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith:

And he saw a crown.

I am as far now from my intended intentions first considered when first scribing “Too great an if” as title as I may be. For I had another “if” in mind at that time. But now, I see something of mercy I had not seen…even then…something coming into plainer view as being “too great an if” as one we must learn, by whatever means to count as “off limits”. And as I am persuaded this is as much for me as any, and as much for any as for me (For I am every bit of “the them”, as the they, the you to even [if it be only vanity] I write.

“If you loved me you would not do me this way”

Yes, may we all be dissauded from a such by being rightly persuaded to truth.

Not forgetting, but coming to hold dear this truth:

As many as I love I rebuke and chasten, be zealous therefore and repent.

Are you rebuked…much? Chastened…much?

I almost envy…you. But then I am reminded I am of the “them”…needing such, even kept alive…through such.

In life…as such.

“If” you loved me you would care how I feel.

Really, no one cares for you as He.

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.