(An extenuation of yesterday’s News).
 
 
 
 

   THE UBIQUITOUS REINFORCEMENT
 
 

             For a man wanting to see-the-wall
    there is a common human habit that more than 
    anything else keeps his eyes filled with smoke:
                   making reference to himself.
 

From the beginning of mortal time, 
ranging in reasons from the religious 
to those simply of, “good manners”
have men been driven to denounce the,
“talking about themselves,”
and while there are usually conditions of degree, 
and circumstances attached thereto,
still a distaste in general persists for a
man talking, (at least, “too much”), about himself.
 
 
 

Disregarding childish notions of deities wishing to save self aggrandizement solely for themselves,
what possible reason is there for life having instilled this inherent distaste in man?
It makes no practical sense save from one perspective: that of a person seeking the understanding
for what “talking-about-yourself” does is
reinforce the binary illusion that you consist of more than a unified whole:
the sensation that there is another of “you”
as subtly evidenced by your speaking of yourself in what amounts to as: the third person, (to wit):
when you say to someone just after exhibiting an
outburst of anger about something: 
“I am not the kind of man who 
normally let’s such as that affect me.”
you are not speaking on behalf of the person you take yourself to be at that moment of speaking;
in your reference to the type of person you are presently claiming to be,
you are in essence identifying the “you” which was just previously angry as some other “you”
than the “you” now making comment there about.
 

This is a most insidious and captivating ploy in
the support of man’s common mental perception of him being composed of two factors, two selves, distinct states of mind & temperament,
which in the lives of ordinary men, plays well,
and obviously, plays-by-collective-necessity.
With routine people, this feature of man goes unnoticed, and is neither 
this-way-or-that with them,
but he who would eventually see-to-the-wall
must thereof take specific note,
for all talk he does about himself is a form of
visual, self-mutilation.
 

Every time you say --  overtly, or to yourself --
that you are “this kind of guy, or, that kind of guy”
you have deeply reinforced the illusion that comes hardwired in human consciousness 
that causes men to accept as, 
“don’t-even-bother-thinking-about-it  fact”
that they are something other than an 
inseparable whole piece of work,
a canard that can ultimately prove to be the
mental-death-by-a-billion-duck-bites.
 

No one is the kind of person they say they are;
no one can be;
the operations of the mind are not arranged
for such a thing to be possible;
the power of the mind is that it does not see things as they are, but --  as they could be.
This instinctive mental proclivity is alone,
responsible for all human progress & technology;
man is able to conceive-of, and then,
manipulate his physical environment to
better suit his needs solely through this
automatic mental posture of always seeing things
as they could be -- 
other than just as they naturally are.
 

No problem for routine men -- only benefit --
but if you say that more than anything in life,
you want to know what is going on for yourself,
then every time you say: “Well, I’m the kind of person who…” or, “I am not the sort to…”
you are lying in one instance or the other:
you either do not really want to get-the-understanding , or else you are lying about the kind of person 
you say you are,
for both of them "into-seeing" --  won’t go.
 

It has nothing at all to do with vanity or humility,
its only significance is in the generally unnoted
fact that every time you tell someone, or yourself,
that you are this or that type of person,
you have truly committed a small, 
but accumulatively meaningful act of mental suicide.
You have artificially torn your mind asunder,
(as per life’s obvious intent with man collectively --  but not necessarily you in particular), 
and forced on yourself again
the feeling of having two different & separate minds.
 

   It is patent nonsense if the right person simply
takes the time to give the matter sufficient notice.
 
 

Historically, what the various mystics have referred to as; “being asleep; unenlightened; captive-of-illusion” 
is nothing other than the
acceptance of this transparent illusion.
But, my god!  is it a subtle snare, 
(for glaring & gut wrenching instance):
a man earnestly seeking the understanding should he be predictably harboring a thought such as this:
”Earlier today I was mostly in my ordinary,
unenlightened mind, 
but I eventually became aware of my condition,
and now for the moment, 
I am in my more  awakened mind”
even though such thinking might seem appropriate for such a person
it is in fact, anything but.
By so going along with the inherently, wired-in
notion that you have two minds extant --
--  even pondering so in the context of --
      --  seeking-the-understanding --
you are by so thinking, barring yourself from it.
 

                    To say that you are unenlightened 
                    is to BE unenlightened:
                   to think to yourself that you were earlier in your
                    ”wrong” state of mind
                    is to BE in a wrong state of mind.
 

  Is there no way out of this infinite seeming 
         house of mental mirrors?  --  Si! --
                     and is it not obvious?!
                           ….sure it is.
              J