Post
Experience Project iOS Android Apps | Download EP for your Mobile Device

Subterfuge Seems Consent; Who Closed Your Mind? You?

Look at thought from a perspective that is not the thinker looking at thought: does the thinker think it chooses its isolation from relationship with everyone it can remember? Are you aware that if you see this one little thing you have transcended the human intelligence, taken a step ahead of homo sapiens?” quoted from text below.

Is thought something that adds the past and the future to the present, and tends to exclude the present such that action becomes simple and mechanical, the senses merely checking for errors rather than breathing life into the present moment? From another angle: is it possible to think using the present exclusively, avoiding input from the remembered past and the expected future? Or are living in the present and thinking mutually exclusive, so that living in the present requires a whole other mental orientation: perception?

Hopefully you see that the point we are striving to grasp will not be grasped by thought or the thinker. It will not be added to what the thinker knows, which is imitative, mocking the one who said it. That means that what is written here can only mean something while it is being read, in the present, because it isn't vain, trying to be included in the annals of the known, and it isn't commercial, hoping someone will pay for it, trying to become fashionable. If you miss the meaning now, will you recall the words later and process them better? It is too much to remember.

Even physics is too much to process later, and it is not personal the way this is, not self-critical, threatening to undermine a hard-won optimism/ego (accept me as I am, because I sure do!); it is a mere feather in your cap, unless you are expected to advance physics, to really advance it and not just add another distracting theory to it that any science fiction nerd could cook up, to keep your job. Einstein pointed out that almost everyone who had the job of understanding what he wrote deployed decoys instead.

Every decoy says, “Find the real physicist!”, and there is only the one, but the masses see thousands of them, because the masses also hate physics that is hard to understand. Science is like sacred scripture: if scripture is a flower of wisdom and truth, then every guy in a robe tries to justify his keep by adding more to it until this flower is buried under a mountain of common trivia, like the proverbial needle in the haystack. And after that every common person who reads scripture feels at home, because it is all trivia except for some tiny fragment here and there that seems cryptic and will remain unfathomed forever.

If there is a needle in a haystack, do you want to hear, “Find the needle?”. Most people want to hear, “Find some hay.”. Authority conditions us to expect rewards for obeying, and for obeying to be easy.

Is there thinking where you are working out how to hide who you are and what your motives are by passing yourself off as someone who couldn't be who you are and couldn't have these motives? Is there thinking where you invent a way to leave the other person convinced he has found out who you are, while he has actually utterly failed to do so? And after this thinking, do you ever actually pull it off? Does the other person accept the illusion as the real you?

We are asking this because we want to see an elusive psychological consequence of having accepted the illusion as the real you, as having actually met you. That person is sure he met you, so he is unaware that there is a psychological consequence, a problem of contagion, symptoms he can't account for.

Let's say your conscious is obsessed about the privacy of the thinking self, its thoughts and motivations. Then, if this thinking self tries to read this, all that happens is denial. It is as if another person is asking and you have to keep that person from gaining any insight into you. You make it that I am asking and your part is to answer. Then the science of it becomes completely obscured. So let's be very careful here, about our roles. You read this for you, not for me. There are not two people here; just you. These are your questions. Not mine. These are factors in an equation of psychology, which will make no sense to you if you don't have them. If we were looking at the Terminal Velocity equation, and you wanted to know what mass would result in a TV of c (300,000kps or so) you wouldn't be saying that I said the equation worked. You would know of your own understanding that it works. It would be as much your equation as that of any other person who understands it. The mind of that reasoning would contain only one person: you. These are not social questions, not questions for thought, but questions for reason.

The social product of thinking as outlined above is isolation. We have filled someone's dance-card, and he has danced all night, but that he has had partners all that time is an illusion of his. To see this we must see how very different it is to actually enter into a relationship. If I am as I really am to you, and you are as you really are to me, than we can have a relationship. If I manufacture an illusion for you to relate to, then your relationship with this illusion is not a relationship. This gives us two definitions for relationship, the first being simplistic, transactional, and the second meaning the relationship actually lives, as much as either one of our bodies is living (the younger children do this with each other). The illusion can not come alive, and so relationship with the illusion can not come alive.

Are you starting to get this? Why is there a division in the human mind unlike any other creature's mind? It is because there are two kinds of relationship: simple, like a transaction, and living! And the mind of the simple part, where there is a self that is alone, can't find anything of the mind that enters into relationships. It doesn't exist to it. (It has an alternate explanation for feelings which make them simple enough to become compatible with this self, so that the thinker has the feelings, making them just as private as thought. Without this wrench in the machinery emotions are the sense or perception of relationship; awareness of what the relationship is from moment to moment. But that's another chapter. That's “instinct”, and nothing can make it obedient or programmable.)

And the hardest part of understanding this division is that the self that thinks is in the simplistic relationships, where living relationships are not an option. That self regards every illusion adults have manufactured in their thoughts as real people, and so it defines its isolation from relationship as chosen by it rather than forced upon it by this simple equation: relationship with illusions can't live. No more than Luke Skywalker can.

The illusion is that I, the thinker, want or choose to be a self that is private, insulated, when in fact this insulation is contagion. The other people, authority figures, thought of an illusion to present to you so that you would accept their authority, and you accepted the illusion, filled a space in memory with these illusions, and believed the illusions were actually people you had gotten to know. As soon as you say they are real people you are saying there is a choice: either have a relationship with them, or provide them with an illusion and reserve the right to present your real self until you feel like it.

See this like a math problem. You can have relationship that lives when you have a real other. You can not if the other you have is an illusion or fabrication. So if it is a fabrication and you are convinced it is a real person you are equally convinced that your withdrawal from consummating the relationship is by your choice.

Look at thought from a perspective that is not the thinker looking at thought: does the thinker think it chooses its isolation from relationship with everyone it can remember? Are you aware that if you see this one little thing you have transcended the human intelligence, taken a step ahead of homo sapiens?

PikdFlowr PikdFlowr 61-65, M Oct 11, 2011

Your Response

Cancel