June
7, 2001.
VOICES:
Part
4
(“Everyone hears voices,” continued.)
You not only hear voices in the
plural:
(comments you & others made
in the past;
those you plan to make in the
future;
dialogue from movies,
from books, etc).
but one, particular-voice
which
is of prime significance to the few:
it
is the voice that you think is YOU
listening TO
the voices.
This arrangement in the brain
is the foundation of consciousness;
it is also what misdirects those
investigating the matter.
There is no consciousness without
a subject to BE
conscious -- man,
-- you.
There is no consciousness without
someone to SAY
that they are conscious.
The supreme test for consciousness,
(after an accident, say),
is to ask the victim: “Can you
hear me? Are you conscious?”
and any sort of even semi
affirmative reply is unhesitatingly taken as
proof thereof.
But who -- what --
is it in you that says, Yes to the question:
“Are you conscious?”
Ordinary men will say: “It is
ME
who says it,”
but what proof do we have of
that?
Who can back it up?
Who else will vouch for YOUR
being conscious?
That one particular-voice
in ordinary men would say in their head:
”I MUST
be conscious, or else I would not even understand
the question asked of me about
my being conscious,
much less be able to truthfully
respond thereto.
Plus
-- I act, speak, and apparently think about like
everyone else does --
and they are conscious –
-- so I must be also.”
Sounds impressive, but still:
What proof -- even evidence --
do you have to support this
claim?
There is no question that SOMETHING
is going on in your brain
that is behind your assertion
of being conscious,
but is what it SAYS
it is, an accurate telling of the matter?
For most people the question
is irrelevant & uninteresting,
(which is to say): if
such a question is presented,
that one particular-voice
that
the brain produces in men
which constitutes the basis
of consciousness -- will say that it is.
Consider: why does your brain
-- the supreme example of intelligence
in the entire universe -- show
no direct interest in itself?
Do not get misled again so soon
by the fact that
it displays much IN-direct
interest;
the brain has led man to construct
a multitude of off-balance,
entertaining mental distractions
& vaporous fire walls
to keep itself FROM
a direct looking at itself.
A scientific take on the situation
would be that it is not possible for the brain to study itself, (any more
than could a microscope, itself),
therefore it must be done circuitously,
(the reasoning/explanation of why Psychology went from a study-of-the-mind,
to that of behavior),
and while such a view is valid,
and the brain actually “studying
itself directly,” an impossibility,
it is only MOSTLY
impossible:
impossible for 59 out of every
60 seconds.
And what is this momentary, eye-blink
window of opportunity?
It would be your continual struggle
to constantly shift around inside
and see over the shoulders of
the voice that says on your behalf:
“Yes, I am conscious.”
If to this adventure you-are-born,
you can avail yourself of that
one second exemption from being misled
by relentlessly trying to cut
your eyes to the side SO
QUICKLY
that you actually get a glimpse
of the voice that says: “I am conscious”
as it immediately leaves the
scene, once you are looking at it.
One of the oldest, most used
& revered tools to aid in a man’s awakening-from-the-dream is,
“self-remembering; mindfulness; the awareness-of-awareness” -- none
of which are possible, (save again, for that one second potential
exception).
Pursuit of such a method can
indeed be fascinating, and feel useful,
but few of its practitioners
ever come to recognize the point of it all.
The point of trying to “self
remember” is to finally realize that
you have no self TO
remember
beside the self that is trying
to DO
the remembering.
You cannot be “eternally mindful” -- you only have one mind,
and you and the mind are the same thing.
Men who commonly show interest
in this matter are wont to describe their goal thus: “I want to raise my
level of consciousness” --
-- what grievous mischief
hides in the open in this statement?
The subject, (I),
and the object, (consciousness),
are the same thing.
This is not what the laws of
physics allow, (not to mention,
those of grammar).
The idea is far beyond being
merely: “Technically impossible;
an affront to all reason, and
an
untenable insult to the entire
history of man's intellectual progress" - -
-- NO!
it is much worse than that -- it
is ridiculous;
silly on its face…..and yet
-- what face is there to FACE
this face?
What is there that will confront
this simple & obvious fact?
Who, or -- what
is there in your brain that is quick enough;
alert enough, and anxious enough
to take on the near impossible task of realizing that the voice that says:
"You are conscious;
you have a mind;
you have thoughts"
is the sole same thing AS,
“your”
consciousness, mind, and thoughts.
When ordinary men,
moving at ordinary speed,
try to look into their own minds,
what they believe they find
is “THEM”
in there -- HAVING
thoughts.
You can read, worship, fast,
dance, pray, meditate, and medicate
forever, but the goal is not
achieved until you personally compile
enough eye-blink-realizations
of what your brain is doing
to gradually -- but ultimately
give you a permanent
background-awareness of the
matter.
Anything less than this is unsatisfying;
anything other than this is unnecessary.
Simple, no?!
J
|