Sense Of Chaos And Adding-machine Mentality
There are parasites in the world who apply an anesthetic before piercing the skin or taking over the host organism. Imagine that you are alive to the world around you in the present perpetually, to the point of self-oblivion (which only means you are the "alive-to-it" and not an observer of it), and then one day you wake up with an "observer/experiencer" (also a "voice hallucination" such that any diversity of these beyond the one is called "schizophrenia") in your head which calls itself "me" there inside your head. And no one is allowed to know this "me" is in there, so that it has to invent a person for people to see and hear and reason about.
One day you are alive, and the next day (maybe even the next minute) your organism is hosting this observer/experiencer in your head. Was there an anesthetic? How could the host miss this transfer of power?
Of course it’s the observer/experiencer which has not observed/experienced that it wasn’t there all along. But still, where is the resistance?
Life is alive to life. It is not alive to this parasitic mental diversion. When life is alive to us it captivates us, and we can’t be distracted from the perpetual extrinsic (non-subjective) present. To this new "conscious self" or "conscious observer/experiencer" nothing is alive (unless it makes an effort to pretend to be), and hence the perpetual present is, in its view, so devoid of fascination that it seems to actually not exist; the present becomes a mere line dividing what is recalled (the past) from what is anticipated (the future).
We get "living in time" instead of being perpetually alive to the present so that there is no movement as time except change: evolution and decay.
What are these two things about, the living person (which becomes subconscious once the conscious has taken the organism over) and the observer that collects and processes reward-related memory? The living person is an offense to any conscious observer. Consider how to perpetrate a fraud: you must seem legitimately engaged or employed. So if all of society is fraudulent, then it must convince us to find a way to exclude everything which contradicts appearances.
The conscious observer is incapable of finding anything which contradicts appearances. It is the essence of obedience to fraudulent surreptitiously self-serving authority.
Appearances (seeming) do not live. If one is alive to them they become appearances (rendering them pointless), and the fraud becomes the living activity. Appearances can only seem to be alive to something which assumes the role of entity thus denying the actual entity its role (making it subconscious), and this which assumes (usurps) the role of entity can only see what appears to it to be life. It responds only to the effort to attract it.
(A child, while the perception is still the entity, will imitate the effort to conjure an appearance without meaning to conjure an appearance, because it isn’t aware that anyone is trying to conjure an appearance; it tends to assume that this oddity of behavior is an innocent consequence of progress and will make sense once training is complete. A child assumes no one is irrational, and to not be innocent in the universal view is to be irrational, self-abusive. Subjective innocence, no matter how countenanced by the image conscious holds of God, is an intent to do oneself harm experimentally, without the ability to observe how the experiment is working out because its results are too complex for conscious observation. The results are alive, not trying to get the attention of conscious; aka "instinctive" results.)
So who made this choice? We can be alive, or we can see the efforts to cover vile motivations as the sum of each of the people we submit to. We can be alive or we can accept masks as alive. To be alive is profound and to accept masks as alive is simple. If masks are alive to our observation of them, then everything else is less alive than masks, quite expendable.
There is a choosing-mechanism is trigger: superiority. Consider it: I am a fraud, let’s say, and I have you dancing around calling me a scientist. Every time I see someone dancing around calling me a scientist I can’t help observing how superior I am to someone so easily gulled. So when we are asking who made this choice that we should submit to hosting this observer which thinks masks are the actual people, we are asking who was superior.
The mask is not superior; it’s altruistic, respectable, a "person" anyone could live with and trust. So if I’m a fraud my superiority is hidden as far as observing my mask is concerned, which means it is hidden from your conscious observation. Your conscious self does not experience me as feeling superior. Does this mean the superiority escapes you entirely? Or can you feel that superiority; is there life in the old living entity, the subconscious, still?
Look at this lovely convolution: you feel my superiority, but where you accept the mask as me you are not experiencing the superiority as mine. In other words consciously you are denying that this superiority is mine. Whose is it if you feel it but you have excluded me as the one feeling it? This is the choice-making mechanism! There is only one place this superiority can be stemming from if you have excluded me because you have experienced the mask I am hiding the superiority behind as me. So this becomes your superiority by an omission I intended. You choose to host this observer who can’t see anything more complex in all of evolution and philosophy and science than the masks.
We are raised by effort. The effort to make us hear words as meaningful, to make us believe lies, to make us respond to portrayed rather than felt emotions, to make us keep memory rather than allowing it to flow in and out as instinct requires (mom: "But you have already read/seen that one?" son: "Not any more, I haven’t!"). There is nothing adults do with children that is not this one social ploy: effort. To respond to adults is to respond to effort. So what is this thing, effort?
It is to be decaying! One has to try to decay. Evolution has seen to it that to evolve is a gift, so that effort is its antithesis.
By effort we may have more, but we must feel less. I may have a house made of slabs of solid mahogany, for example, but then I will never feel the tree inside that house. All I will feel is the bloodshed. Then I have to fight that feeling with things I add to the house. Oh, look, a little child! Isn’t he wonderful! Now that he has stopped screaming about the bloodshed. Put some plants in the windows, and they sicken of the effort that has replaced the fates from the four winds. "Ring for Jeeves." but I don’t want to be Jeeves during my off hours. A home for avoiding the present and the real. A distance of mind farther from home than sleeping.
See how the grace of living this gift of evolving and cherishing is the subconscious now. The effort of animating the masks and in turn experiencing this animation as life, entity, is what steers society, what raises children, what exploits the other species, and what knows just enough to seem to have some control where everything is out of control.
Consider a dog-owner. What does he know about the impact of dogs? Open sewers can today be credited with six plagues, but the people who relied on them knew them as good engineering. This canine species is a member of half of the homes in the west, and this proportion is escalating because people are campaigning to stop the euthanasia of excess dogs; and the east is rapidly catching up with the west, idealizing the Never-never-land ideal of keeping a creature so it never has to grow up.
Add this one thing to what the dog-owner knows: touch your soles after having stepped on soil used as doggie-toilet for over a year (just the soil, not the feces or the urine; soil-samples are what are tested, not overt wastes) and you may go blind, or as good as, for the rest of your life. You will absolutely, and every time you do it, acquire microorganisms, and maybe more visible organisms, that were never meant to be so readily available, never meant to live in the soil. How many canines does nature squeeze into ten square kilometers? And do wild canines eat potatoes and sifted wheat flour? You can pick up their feces with your fingers and put them in the breast pocket of a white silk shirt with no fear of dirtying the garment.
Knowing enough to have the delusion of control, and trusting the doctors’ version of where illnesses come from. The fiction of doctors. Doctors whose masks, not their acumen or training, are their authority and reliability.
And this is adding to effort. There was the effort to know just enough to want dogs, which seemed control. Dogs are another variant of the Look, dear, society actually works great! syndrome. Another one is. "Look, dear, there is free building space on the river bank!" Until God flushes again.
Now we add the effort to know that dogs are actually diseased, all of them, and extremely infectious, a gold-mine for the medical professions. This is still not effortless, still not perception. It is still responding to having taken a cursory glance at the ground, not living on it. When we perceive, only then are we beginning to see what masks are. Every horror on Earth is masked (so we are not conscious of the horrors). Every mask on Earth represents hidden horrors. Every knowledge on Earth masks ignorance. There is no one plus two equals three in chaos. In chaos that it equals three is an illusion. Only the subconscious can keep abreast of chaos. Only the subconscious is not susceptible to the illusion that things observed exist in a context of nothing else of consequence.
Consider effort. It looks at a child and sees no response to effort. This, to the conscious self, means the child isn’t there yet. The child is nothing of consequence; then we add response to effort. The response to effort eventually becomes a rule of its own, and there is the illusion of addition. Nothing plus one equals one. One plus one equals two. The rule says that to get this reward I just add this successful effort to that successful effort; then I will have the reward, and nothing adverse to me will be precipitated by the surrounding nothing (which is in fact chaos).
If chaos is nothing it can’t be felt. If feelings are a sense of the chaos, then wherever we see chaos as nothing feelings cease to have real function. This means we can add (dirty word!) function to feelings. We can use feelings with effort. Once a feeling has been exploited (effort) it has become something it never evolved to be.
Why should I not tell lies? If I tell a lie I get a reward I couldn’t get with the truth. But it is the chaos around this simple formula, "get a reward", that determines emotion. When I tell the lie emotion decays, and nothing will bring it back up. Once emotion has decayed I am a social outcast where the emotion of living (in the universal sense) is still intact. I have joined a social outcast or outcast-clique by letting their lies pass as an agreeable relationship because the lower emotional level of the effort was masked; the liar or liars wore the mask of finer emotions.
The effort (dirty word!) to be truthful is not responsive to the chaos. I try not to lie because I have an idea about it. That’s addition again. The truth and the lie are in a context that adds up. "I don’t lie because it’s undignified to allow oneself to be forced into a corner where the option beckons." Where’s the chaos in that? Touch your shoes and you go blind and the doctor says its the avian flu and you hate the rain-forest, which is what there was to see in any case so you’ll get used to it and the seeing-eye dog’s stinking poop. That’s chaos! That’s what you get lost in without the subconscious coming alive to take the helm again.
The subconscious is: Reality At The Helm! There’s no way to observe reality, except to digest it to something it’s not, so this is actually reality, making it a gift perpetually given as opposed to a processing of an input googolplex of bits of reality. It is not as abstract as it might sound at first, since you are doing it every time you laugh or bl
What’s pleasure? Is music pleasure? Only if you don’t have to work at it. So it’s a pleasure derived from other people’s effort. "Don’t ever own a cello and a gun! One or the other, but not both! Go ahead, Strad, make my day!" Pleasure means we don’t need to preserve or conserve the emotion that unaffected and given (gift granted by chaos) relationships beget. And then we can add up (dirty word!) meanings to decaying emotions. We can invent a "season" for every emotion within our reach. Superior, inferior, and good, evil, and boy, girl, and so on. "No schoolboy deserves my daughter’s affections; I deserve them!"
So what was emotion before we learned/conjured what it adds up to? Let’s say that the highest emotion is the best one, even if it is unvarying, never novel. Can a lower emotion itself tell us how it is failing to be the highest one? Does emotion have content? Is it the complete awareness of how it came to decay and what the consequences or upshot will be?
Keep in mind that all you know about emotion is emotion in emptiness, an absolutely irrational context, as if it were constructed from nothing to something like the conscious itself rather than having evolved and lived without conscious accompaniment. You have not seen emotion as it pertains to chaos. Chaos only exists in the subconscious awareness. Only the subconscious can tell a green turtle where the barrier reef island it came from is, a place thousands of kilometers away which she last saw as an infant a few centimeters in diameter. Of course, to the turtle this awareness isn’t subconscious; it is the turtle herself. She is used to intelligence that is a gift. To be transparent is to receive gifts, to be perpetually blessed and celebrated. Evolution is celebrated biodiversification, species evoking the cry, "Be with us!" from the rest of the species.
If it is impossible to become conscious of chaos and the place emotion has in perceiving how we are stirring or affecting the chaos, are we condemned to the conscious invention of the role and significance of emotion, and to living every incidence of every emotion as if the conscious "grasp" of it were perception of it? We know that we laugh, and that we understand each other’s laughter the way the crows understand each other’s calls, and yet we can never become conscious of what the laughter is confessing to or admitting as our growing authority decays us emotionally. Does this fact that we can’t become conscious of it condemn us to viewing laughter as something binary: don’t laugh at me now; do laugh at me now. Does it condemn us to hearing the crows as cawing for the billionth time this lifetime, where by nature it should arouse celebration in our very bones, and bring a favorable wind to the sails of our Daily Lives? The difference is time spent in the present. Live always in the present (not meaning you can just go there; the present detests you and wishes you would continue to ignore it, as the better of the two available evils) and emotion and the natural evolved sounds and scents take on their true resolution, and their beauty shocks the system, because chaos can be explained that quickly: this is billions of years in the making, and that easily a crow explains it in every exquisite detail. How can anything be more intelligent than that? And when human laughter explains it the crow gets it perfectly. When the rose exudes it the crow gets it.
And getting it is emotion!
Thinking is not an activity of the person. Nothing perceived invites thinking. The facades hiding fraud invite thinking. Think of a facade! Why will you do so? Because to the thinker emotion is a simple addition like "photosynthesis" and the Dalai Lama’s sincerity. Look how the emotion and the facade contradict each other. I look complacent for you, for example, which I am doing because I get angry at the sight of you. Anger testifies to the point in time where a physical injury to oneself became unavoidable, usually also imminent. The body changes gears to the "here it comes!" mode, and it is never wrong about it. Who would be complacent about that? Perception can look past the addition-problem, the problem presented through an effort of will. Perception finds the anger. And the terrible thing about anger as perception is that it is intelligent; the intelligence of it is irrefutable, like the intelligence of a crow or a scent. That person is angry with you because he should be, even according to your perception now that anger is perception! As addition you can ignore the anger, but as perception you have actually done that to the person and to yourself; to the relationship.
If (or where in your mind) you agree to accept the mask, so that I am complacent to you, then the anger must be simple, which makes it your own, and your own to conceal or mask over. Your conscious strives to allow emotion to decay. You are now angry with me for "a very good reason", even if the universe would disagree. The universe never understands; that’s why we must wear the mask!
Now we can add (dirty word again!) that when you feel angry upon seeing me, I am angry but hiding it. But if we simply add that (believe it; or know it because so many experts have begun to agree) we are still denying that emotion itself is the perception that makes chaos beautifully rational.