Custom Search

Monday, July 28, 2014

Confusion

The Experience of Clarity

1      Confusion



2
Even at the highest level of correspondence, two would know that their understanding lies beneath the symbols used, and preceding their own reaction to words as stimuli.  They must first have been educated by experience.  The symbols would have to be deconstructed with great care to get around their own distinct conditioning to seemingly identical stimuli.  To confirm each other’s view they would alter the stimuli — the words — and thus a third person listening to such a perfect correspondence would himself experience not only confusion but would have the evidence of constant probing, testing, rephrasing, and re-organizing, all of which are typical signs of confusion and a lack of correspondence.  
The difference is that each of the two had begun with — I am — diagramming from there, the behavioral wires that manipulated an illusion of mind and even others’ minds.  Without this first step, the third party does not really Crowd-Think, but each is an isolated bit of crowd, where any lack of conflict is due to poor insight, permitting the illusion. A sensation of accurate correspondence is not the same as being identical, or even being similar.  If the bird and the crocodile represented a symbiotic relationship between two unenlightened members of a group, they would have in their perfect interfunctioning a belief in a perfect correspondence, while each would actually fail to correspond with the other as they encroached deeper and deeper into states wholly circumscribed by their own unique conditions and private experiences: a perfect correspondence is most likely to be experienced in a conversation unobstructed by intelligent inspection. Two are as identical with the same enemy as they would be different without him … confusing the perfect convenience in the circumstance with an inherent similarity.  Each would experience only the sensation of correspondence, by not knowing himself.  Each enlightened conversant on the other hand would manifest the evidence from which to conclude a lack of correspondence, precisely because each knew his own inner secrets so well that he could guess the last steps into what the other himself had discovered within his own necessarily private heretofore ineffable experience. Heretofore!  — a large part of the ineffability of a deeply private recognition is the inability to find a competent conversant.
4
To think that clarity is expansive and all-knowing is proof that one has not reached clarity.  Clarity is a series of corridors, rooms, and secret passageways ... and even more rooms with no doors, but in which we suddenly find ourselves and do not deny.  To know what one cannot know, that is not the smaller part of clarity.

5

When we experience, “Truth,” what we mean is a pool which increases or decreases in volume according to a calm backed by our aerobic capacity, and this should not be confused with the greater number of experiences or facts, which despite their indisputable contribution, are nonetheless irrelevant for their being inaccessible to the natural flow of our expression.  If we are not experiencing “Truth,” it is because petty little reality has interrupted our flowing narrative.