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.
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.
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.