Learning Everything At Once

"How do real emotions fare in competition with the ones we are told and expected to feel?" from the text below.

The distance between the child and authority over the child is the distance between a meaningful society and the one that exists. We need to actually feel this in the need for force. The need for force is intrinsic in what society has become and intends to become. The child is evolved, it’s mind complete. Authority is to find a short-cut to acceptance: the child’s mind will not accept society, but the child will be made to accept it.

This is science. You yourself can see that it is real. But you tend not to see if things are real. You tend to ask what it is telling you to do. If it tells you the water is clean it is telling you to drink it and wash with it. You are not inclined to find out if the water is clean, but want to accept something so you can act as if it is clean. Even when the water makes you sick or impairs your eyesight you are inclined to just go ahead and trust that the water was clean; you just add that diseases are mysterious. This is the short-cut we are looking at. If I say so, why should you have to find out for yourself? I am courting your mind with what I write, which authority did not ever do. So you are completely unfamiliar with why I am writing. "Will this be on the test?" And also with how I am doing it: this is not obedient writing; no one writes like this.

Where do we accept society? Where we go ahead with it! We look for education, entertainment, religion or "enlightenment", guidance, a profession or "what we want to be when we grow up.", a favorable marriage or just some sexual experience, a political ideal, and all that, with the conscious. And the conscious is not perception; it’s just "go ahead and drink it". If we look with perception we don’t want any of that; it is too impromptu and perfunctory.

So where we are looking for what society promises us we are conscious, and where perception does the looking we are "subconscious", meaning that whatever perception is, it has nothing in common with the conscious way of observing things. If the conscious says it is hearing or seeing or reading the perception says it is not hearing or seeing or reading; it is missing absolutely everything that was there to be heard or seen or read.

To illustrate, let’s take police. If you want to commit crimes you must evade the police. Is this perception? The conscious can evade the police. But it can not actually gain. Crime is still self-destructive. And the conscious can’t ever find out why this is. It knows it has evaded the police perfectly. And who are the police? They are society, authority. To the subconscious it is quite clear why crime is self-destructive. It has always been so. Harmony is no joke or choice; you do it or you suffer. If you’re a problem life musters solutions, not police or society.

The same goes with considering only people, since that’s how society works. If you don’t consider every living thing you are not considerate to or by the subconscious. Our species can become more conspicuous all the time, but the perception will never perceive it as less wrong to injure another species.

Education and experience tell us we grow more important every day, meaning the less educated and experienced grow less important, and that is society, the conscious view; but the subconscious will never agree with anyone’s unimportance. If their unimportance leads us to act out our importance life will muster a humiliating solution.

Perception follows molecules. How are you? My perception tells me how you are. But if you want to sell yourself as some sort of expert you can’t sell yourself to my perception. So you make a big smile, and get very conspicuously serious at the right times and in the right places. My conscious is like an orchestra and you are conducting it with these new expressions of feelings authority has invented. You use the body I perceive with my subconscious as a stage for expressions that are actually signals of a whole new kind designed for a part of my mind that can’t find the subconscious.

(The device of this mystification is really quite simple: the mind is relationships, indivisible into individuals, while the conscious is just individuals: authority and obedience. Nothing but relationships pass through the subconscious, and nothing but individuals pass through the conscious. The mind has no objection to being no individual because it truly loves; it has evolved all this life around itself with every skill and inspiration it can find, while the conscious is built of contempt: my right to authority and yours to obey or be dealt with harshly.)

Then I perceive, but also I read these signals. I perceive you are contemptuous of me, and I read that you are trying to help me. Gradually, as I grow to believe in your altruism I adopt the contempt as my own, and I have contempt for your efforts to help me. This is an authority-challenge. I think I’m a rebel, but really I’m just you all over again.

The signal-reading (smiles, frowns, etc.) process is isolated from the perception process by its contradiction of it (leaving us to accept one or the other), and so only the signals exist to it. These signals tell me to trust you. They let you save my soul, my car, my liver, my data, my money, my children, my marriage, my country or whatever, even though you intend to do quite the reverse because there is more profit in it. My life decays, but that is already explained: to be destitute is to be wealthy. There actually is nothing but sex, drugs and rock and roll. Having all that, you are actually richer than children and other species. Evolution "doesn’t get better than this!".

What do the younger children have, when they are not being obedient or supervised? Whatever it is, they gradually let it vanish and eventually go grasping after, and competing over, the sex, drugs and rock and roll that remain as what matters. Some dilettante with an electric guitar can get on the tube and humbly attest that he has made the lives of a whole generation worth living. This, the what-they-had-to-begin-with, is the subconscious. It can be replayed like a civil war battle with something like LSD. You enter a world of perception, in fact but not in social fact because the chemical can’t put you "back in the game", and when the drug wears off this little piece of the past utterly vanishes just like childhood reality. For anything from a few minutes to several hours you were in the world where molecules and their order relate to you and beg you to move them again, and where you know that is what you should be doing, evolving, but there is no way to cling to that time when it has passed. It becomes the most nebulous of fossils in the conscious, "Sure, Dude, I tripped a few times!". There is an imprint in the dried up sand-stone of the inflexible part of the mind telling you you did "trip", but only God knows what it represents, whether it swam or floated or flew or crawled or wormed its way, or if it was just rooted to a spot. And even so the conscious continues to insist it is a person, because it is the person authority intended to produce. Even the way it rebels is obedient.

Intelligence has a single reward, union with all of life. This reward is an emotion that lights us up like a new-born sun, and it is not that we like the feeling for itself but for what it is telling us, that all of life is doing this together; that play is wonderful companionship in every species, that reproduction is holy in every species, that action is grace rather than efficiency in every species, and that watching closely will reveal incredible intelligence and inspiration at work in every species, and so on. To feel alive to all the life around us, so that we are not missing anything in the translation between what they are doing and what we are aware of them doing, is far beyond feeling alive to oneself. If we can’t live for this emotion it decays, and when it decays we have another emotion, one that isn’t a product of intelligence but of its opposites, obedience, and knowing obedience, which is authority.

Let’s say I feel superior to you. Authority tells me to feel this way. I am smarter, I do better at any test and job, I make more money, I have more imposing physical prowess, prettier girls flirt with me and so on. I am not trying to raise the emotion back up to where evolution peaked. I am attached to this terrible emotion of superiority and to looking down on people and fellow creatures. I will be getting short and brusque with them. "Stop arguing with my decisions! This is not a democracy; it’s a job!", and "Why should I have to buy a vermin-proof trash receptacle, when I have already paid outrageous taxes?". The conscious has no such interest as raising my emotions, emotions being what I am united with. Emotions define what intelligence is doing, while something we pursue consciously tells us what a system is doing, a system like, "Any disadvantage to another counts as an advantage to me. Never pass up or overlook an opportunity to put someone at a disadvantage.". If I don’t like my emotions some of the time I just take a few drinks or pills. I am not trying to raise emotions, and the television always tells me that to hate precipitates some of the greatest adventures and gains. "Don’t get bored. Feel more terrible feelings."; "Mercurial people have all the luck!" Chemistry I can buy is in charge of my peace-time or leisure emotions; they’re not governed by how I act or function. It seems all the highest authorities have to drink a lot, which means vintage, the less affordable version, is a very lucrative business.

Raising the emotions socially to where it becomes clear that emotion is worth living for in its own right (that love is heaven) is completely outside the conscious frame or box. What is the conscious (obedience/authority)chasing? Einstein had an idea that he could dismiss the instinctual sense of light as something that travels in the ordinary sense, and this actually paid off in new physics. Everyone had to have his papers. What did he gain? Respectability, romance, security, fame, but that’s not a greater emotion. It is just fighting fear obediently, which is trying to push it around like musical chairs. People were homeless, getting locked up, the economy was fluctuating all the time and no one had conceived a politic of distributing the existing demand (for products and services) equally come what may so that the tide of prosperity would be felt by all. Einstein was an icon of intelligence resigned to unhappiness and a frustrating career. How can these things be the same: intelligence plus frustration? Where does the unhappiness and frustration come from? From authority, from being obedient, the puppet of another’s self-interest.

Again, let’s not fall for the idea there is something to do here. There is to find out what the water is like for oneself; not to drink it. If you are disobedient this is still the conscious (obeying what you think I’m trying to get you to do, as if I were a dark horse candidate or something, riding on the ecology ticket). The conscious is obedient and is authority demanding obedience, so it isn’t responsible for understanding but just for figuring out what the authority is trying to get you to do, and when we are done here that will no longer be the sum of your resources in this alien terrain called "society". When you think we are leading up to saying you have a duty or something you are underestimating what can happen if you really read this so that you don’t just know it but have done it. Only something amazing and new brings me to put these words to the pages.

Let’s be more certain of a factor. What does society provide? We have a certain standard we demand of life, but this standard is now subconscious. And when we say self-service we mean the service of the conscious self. It’s a whole new standard. If coffee is legal but not cocaine we are privileged if we can use cocaine. If coffee is impossible to get we are privileged if we can sell our son to the military for a kilo of coffee (the actual price for millions of sons). If heirlooms require tight security to keep around we are privileged if we can safely take some home with us. It is always measure. There is only one Prom Queen. The runner-up is suicidal. Tragedy is relative and not in that there is a passion hiding and decaying in the subconscious. By nature tragedy is an absolute: love diminishing, not evolving. By design, by authority, my rival has sixteen cylinders and I only have twelve. Those four cylinders are gnawing away at me all the time. My life is to get four more. "Who do I have to nuke?"

What can be described by math? The moon swings around the Earth, and the Earth around the sun carrying the moon with it. These are truly influential masses. The math is sort of fun if you have the idle time. But it is just math. Math gives you a meaning that doesn’t qualify as an emotion, even though, when it becomes real to you it is in the same place emotions are (which is why there are so few good mathematicians; no one wants to go there. Everyone wants to imitate the example and get 70% right.). The inference there is that an emotion is a meaning. If your math is the feeling of how the planets behave this is a minor emotion, and man is the only species that likes minor emotions. Even a cow wants to be let out into the sunshine where it will actually dance its delight.

In the subconscious emotions are the meanings. There is a jaunty girl bouncing along the pedestrian way, clearly full of herself. Her purchases have paid off. She has been lusted after everywhere she has gone today. We can feel the wake of her exhibitionist journey, beginning with the shopping and the vanity or mirror-time. But to conscious she is a prospect or she is not a prospect; we should try to conquer her or we should just daydream about it. So there is that she is other, or that she is self-service. The conscious is always self, and the subconscious is always devoid of self, utterly other.

Clearly we can’t raise the emotion of a relationship that is serving ourself. This girl will feel worse if we win. She is like a fish searching for the bounty of shrimp and we are like the fisherman with one puny shrimp on a hook, always trying to put that one little shrimp in her face. We tempt her with freedom that is actually a dungeon. As soon as raising the essence of the relationship, revering her humanity, becomes the thing to be doing we are out of our depth. All our preparations, ordained by society, amount to nothing in the things that actually matter. We avoid relationship, which is to avoid the part of the mind where emotions are real and not read or feigned.

If I smile it means go, and if I frown it means stop. That’s obedience, and it is the fact that I decide to smile or frown that makes it so. These are not emotions, but we are taught to regard them as such. And as such emotions themselves become as vapid. You look at me, and I signal that I am happy. You don’t feel that happiness, but it is a happiness you have to respond to. Look at Adolph Hitler: were there ever more emotional speeches? And yet he was just making a lot of money with every utterance. All he was actually saying was, "Damn it, don’t blow this opportunity for me! My bosses will only love me if you play along! Opportunity like this comes to a lout like me only once in a lifetime.". No one ever felt that passion he was exhibiting, because it wasn’t there. And if that isn’t there, what does any emotion we do actually feel mean? How do real emotions fare in competition with the ones we are told and expected to feel?

(Even the best reader must need a break at this point. But don't miss the rest of it. The ending is the whole point of an elaborate proof!)

Can logic divide away the self, eliminate it? Here is anger, for example. Now remove self. Does it remove the anger? That’s the conscious effect. Remove self and you remove the emotion. But in logic a relationship, if it exists as itself, is not self. It is other to self. This is fusion: relationship is not you and me but itself. And if self looks at an emotion (which is the sense of this "itself"), this is self looking at relationship, which it can’t bear doing. It can’t bear it just as it can’t bear a disobedient child. It is the same event: don’t see the child, don’t see the relationship, don’t see the emotion as other. The child is tiny and we are big! It can’t win. "I’ve had it with your disobedience!". (Don’t let it arouse blame or guilt; it’s science. We are collecting the bits of a phenomenon.)

And if we can get obedience in the amount we are convinced we are entitled to, how much obedience would it be? In other words, is there ever "rational authority", a limit to how much obedience we want to demand so that we are eventually saying, "Now you are good; now you can stop listening to me."? (My mother tried to get me killed because I liked girls instead of her, and my step-father was helping her because the girls liked me instead of him.) What is "all the obedience I want"? Where is obedience heading? Authority is a God stuck in a treacle of competition: other God’s want some of this obedience, so that we have to relinquish some. No one means "noble authority". "I am telling you this for your own good!", is always a lie.

Isn’t it rather fascinating that conscious is the authority that couldn’t stand a child having a mind, having a right to a relationship with us rather than a boss? "You’ll get run over!" is no excuse. The traffic is the same contempt, and not the justification for it. It’s another form of, "Keep your head down or you’ll catch a bullet.". Here you are, the monster that drove away the child you used to be, the capacity for intelligence you used to have. It’s a monster doing all it ever does in its own service, which is a service of gold over joy, a spurious goal, set for you by the idiots who own the gold-mine as surely as Sherlock Holmes sells tobacco and James Bond sells cars with more power than anyone needs. If I have gold I hate it, but I flaunt it as if I love it; otherwise people will call me a fool-with-his-gold.

Trust man’s ingenuity to save your feelings and he will make you weep every time. You can trust Cannabis, Shrooms, etc., to save your feelings until they kill you. But not man. And trusting vegetables is just admitting that they have it but you don’t; they are living and you can sample living. Yes, those are real molecules of earned joy! What are you going to do with eternity, steal feelings from intelligent species? And if your life is not eternal, so you just have to get through this one lifetime as well as you can, where did emotions come from? You were born with awesome emotions and now they are paltry and you want them to be mortal instead of a challenge to recover living status.

People’s real emotions are in molecular changes. Your subconscious follows the molecules. This gives you emotions. There are two kinds: other people’s emotions, showing us other people’s relationships, and our own emotions showing us our relationships. If I scare you, and later on a dog gets close enough, the dog scares you, which is only that the dog has found those molecules from when I scared you. The dog is not scared. So the fear is in its mind as another relationship. But if you accidentally scare up a pheasant in the weeds you both try to rocket away. This is a relationship between the two of you. You are both guilty: you didn’t announce your presence and the pheasant did not listen closely enough to avoid a predator if you had been one.

The marvel of the mind is, that when you and the pheasant are feeling that same thing, this is direct perception. But when the dog feels the thing, and it is not inside the dog but just in its mind, there is no loss of the emotion. To find an emotion in another relationship is just as complete in every way as to feel the emotion physically.

And if emotion is your whole life, your whole mind, your whole sense, as it is in nature and with the smaller children, you don’t just feel it. It is a puzzle more complex than anything physics and astronomy can piece together out of all we know. It remakes molecules. It is miracles happening. One emotion is someone’s entire history. Someone looks at you with scorn, the subconscious traces the scorn back over all the scorn he had actually aroused and inspired throughout his life, and beyond that to his parents’ scorn, the congenital scorn, the DNA of the scorn. It is obedience to ignore the meaning! It is obedience to let authority falsify history, to give words meaning when they are not felt.

You can probably do this from your own memory. How often does someone look down at us, show us how lowly we are in comparison with their authority. This is the history-effect. They have told us "all about themselves", either individually or as a generation, and so we are young and guilty and they are old and pure. If so, where did they learn this scorn? We can’t do it! What’s the trick? How do you learn scorn? By accumulating it! It’s like showing a back full of bruises where everyone has thrown stones after you, trying to hasten your departure. And it is as real and available as a path through the bush. You can put your awareness on the scorn and there is nothing the person can do about you unveiling his history while he feels you doing it, just as you feel the dog doing it. Just taking an interest in you.

Watch the ants touching each other, touching the tracks where the molecules of passage are still fresh. What are they learning? Everything! Not something. To learn something is conceivable, David Attenborough (the BBC naturist) tell us they are learning something. He can imagine that. The conscious can learn something. He has no way to see into a hungry mind!


PikdFlowr PikdFlowr 61-65, M Dec 25, 2011

Your Response