July 19, 2024

Thoughts appear to us. "Hearing" internally happens.

There comes a point when the "line of thought" dissolves into being. For those harboring fear, it is followed by emptiness and a despair of what is not there. For those harboring love, it is followed by trusting the natural deliverance of Being's faculties. 

Can the goal of human thinking truly be to see out the "line of thought" to its end? Can the goal of the intellectual really be to follow the thought through all of his being's temporality? Or is this only a pre-emptive for-itself action which primes the individual so as to avoid that feeling of "missing" which is terrifying to those in fear? 

We do not choose, or will, the thought into existence. The thought arrives to us after a period of some preparation. If we came up with our thoughts as singular entities exerting their own will, then it would follow logically that the thoughts would be like products which we could then hold onto and clearly see. However, in human interactions, when a human being declares a thought as a packaged thing, it is clearly materialized as something which owns the person, and not the other way around. One sees in these types of declarations the striving for an ideal; the ideality of the reflected, packaged thought. But, when the human being grasps at the thought which once came to them, there is an essence of sincerity which comes into play. Through these observations, it is not proven that thought comes through some other vehicle, but this hypothesis is greatly supported by evidence and has not been proved wrong. Whereas, the thesis that thought is willed through our own free will, is contradictory to experience. It requires a retrospective jump through time to say that that which wasn't had yet was already had in some way. 

Thus, if our internal power does not rest in our ability to produce the fabric of thoughts themselves, then where does our agency lie? Do we not have agency have human beings? Can we not feel this agency coursing through us in our daily lives and tough decisions? 

There is not a final conclusion sourced, but there is a suggestion which puts things in order. This suggestion which puts things in order has been sourced from numerous sources, including but not limited to, the practice of yoga, the practice of acting, the practice of hermeneutics, the practice of daily and humble living, the practice of ascetism, the practice of exploration and failure, the practice of gymnastics and sport, and the practice of honing the individual senses through aware direction.  This suggestion which explains this felt "power" can be understood in terms of the power and free will of the attention.

[As an aside: humanity is not defined by how often we are in an aware state, but what we do when we enter one, and how we transition from this aware state into the rest of our lives. To put it biblically, the Jews are not constantly being liberated by God from their oppressors, but it is in how they exit the state of oppression, how they handle their newfound freedom, and how they enter into the next phase of their being which fuels God's attitude towards them.]

When thoughts swim through my head, what is that force within myself which seems to coarse up to my mindspace and directs my attention to some other thing? Where does it come from? It feels as though it is from the invisible back of my head, where neither thought nor sensation nor awareness lives? It disappears as soon as it is experienced, and it has no weight to its existence. If thought takes on its form in the front of my head, then it ceases to be the force it once one and simply is reflected as a parody of itself. What is this? 

Let us call this "power of turning one's attention." 

Observation: When one is in dependent state, the attention is scattered throughout the multiplicity of the world. The attention is dispersed in a state of chaos. The few guiding forces might be those of basic, survivalist or animalistic needs.   What can also happen is that the attention is "captured" by a unique, solitary network of stimuli. This is what occurs when one finds themselves in routines of media that zap their energy rather than strengthen it. It is a cycle of news source to movie to social media to website to etc. etc. in which the attention is never substantially invested in any one element for it to evolve out of itself, but the attention is constantly "just interrupted" before it can reach further conclusions.

Observation: There comes a development out of this stage, in which the individual finds within themselves the power within the human spirit that is turning the attention. 

Observation: Let us conceive of three eyes. The first eye is the physical eye which allows me to see the coffee mug on this table. It is a sensory organism. It is something I cannot fully understand, and in some ways, something "higher" than my conscious, because it escapes my conscious no matter how much the consciousness is directed towards it. When unrestrained, it often flutters about in some primordial fashion. This is the most immediate eye. 

The next eye we'll define is the third eye. The third eye is deeply related to the theory of "External Forms" which had been addressed in my The Supra-Spring of Man. The External Forms are the structure of reality which allows for a subjective experience to occur. They are what imbue subjectivity with its inalienable truth of existence. It is akin to having a model over an indifferent logical language.  The third eye is something transcendent above the conscience, just out of reach. But, it is in communication with the conscience. It does not define the conscience. It shapes the conscience from "the beyond," it leaves room for the first eye to do its own shaping from "below," and it allows for the conscience itself to develop naturally in a self-contained fashion. 

The second eye is this "attention-turning" Being. Turning attention is the function, the Being is the eye. When in a state of dependency, the mechanism of attention-turning is chaotic, like a sea with no order other than the conatus, or, as to continue being a sea, the instinct to carry out what its function has been. However, at a certain point in the development of the existent being, the second eye develops, and the "attention-turning" can be set into order with this second eye. The second eye is like the human parallel to the miraculous hand of God waved over the sea which says, "Calm," or, "Start up." This second eye is a faculty of the human mind. It is minutae; it is indeterminate; it is translucent; it dissolves into its own being, immediately upon being recognized as being.

How does this second eye come into being? How does it issue itself into an existent who once did not have it? A logical supposition is that it is given to the human existent from the human existent which does have it.  This seems to be the assessment that is closest to the way of things. In a being in a state where the second eye is not developed or being utilized, the second eye is present in the surroundings of them because of others who are exercising it. The second eye is not passed on with absolute authority. the child may not receive the second eye. It may be rejected in their system.  The second eye is not a product or thing; it is an essence which can be honed and demonstrated to others; if open, they will study it, or, if closed-off, they will deem it un-understandable and spurn it. The second eye does not belong to the human being; it is passed down through generations of Man. To put it theologically, in a Christian sense, it is the Covenant. However, this covenant can be understood in non-theological terms. It is the covenant of evolved humanity. The Covenant is not gone from the Earth, because it is being lived out everyday through this second eye, and as long as humanity will exist this second eye will be in its essence; it will be materializing and de-materializing; and it will be passed on.  

A hypothesis is reached which is very grave: is our unique freedom as human beings this second eye, this "attention-turning" force within our immaterial mindspace? I posit yes, while referring to experience as the evidence. Is the second eye the most power that humanity can gleam from this world? There is evidence to suggest this. I do not have power over this cup, or this person, no matter how much I would like to lead myself into believing I do through appearances and rituals. Let us address an apparent, seeming, contradiction: what about slavery? Is not slavery more powerful than this second eye? Perhaps, we can understand slavery through this second eye, and from it, we can understand tyranny and other forms of oppression. The "master," if he is operates as a master in his life and not as a subversive implant, must structure his time around the limitations that have been placed on him as a "master" (i.e. playing the role of master). He does not have to direct his attention to the particulars of the task which the "slave" is expected to do. In the old South, this equates to: the master does not have to pay attention to the particulars of picking cotton--the feeling on the hands, the posture of the back, etc. The attention for this ideal and elusive "master" is turned to the slave in a particular manner. At times, the realization comes to the master, "perhaps, you might turn your attention to that man over there as someone who needs to a nice place to sleep." This brief interlude is a tsunami from the "attention-turning" sea. By exerting tyrannical power over the second eye, the individual then forcefully presses this realization into the basin of the master's soul, fueled by the rage which the master experiences. His subconscious cannot be tricked into believing anything about "for-itself" conclusions that he is the master, so for this reason the subconscious must be silenced. This applies to sexual situations as well. For those in a deviant "master-slave" relationship, or, even, for those in a relationship which is not objectively master-slave, but both parties experience as one being more master and one being more slavish, there is the conundrum for the master and the slave. The attention-turning is a chaotic sea and will always possibly and spontaneously upheave the possibilities what is not the master-slave relationship. The master will come across internal attentions which see the slave as in need of something greater than what they have received; the slave will come across internal attentions which view the master as pathetic and as having kept something higher from them. These random attentions come from the metaphorical sea which has been discussed, and it is the second eye which either institutes them or suppresses them, allows them or denies them, etc.. However, the second eye of humanity can never suppress the sea, only inform it and direct its own path through it. So, the master-slave relationship exists to be dissolved, either through death, or once either party removes the barrier which they have placed in front of their second eye to fully consider and actualize the possible. 

Thus, it is possible that humanity's greatest power is that of turning attention towards. Furthermore, this is a power not over others, but a power in-and-of-itself. It is possible that, once the master directs the second-eye to view the slave as something in need of something higher than what the master has given them, that nothing physically changes in the world right away. There is no instantaneous freedom here. It is only over time, through allowance of human reason and the free and solitary removal of planks from the second eye, that the world materially changes to reflect these second-eye changes. This is related to Confucius's The Great Learning, which might suggest that the freeing of internal capacities then frees the family, then the community, then the State.  

Ritual is the routine act of sending one's attention to something. Ritual is a parallel to Sartre's "bad faith." In bad faith, attention is paid to that which wants to be, that which isn't, and that which sends the individual into despair. With ritual, attention is paid to that which was experienced, that which was integral to that experience, and that which can be applied to the current changing moment from that experience. 

Let us take the example of the new coffee machine. When it is first purchased, say that the owners wonder at it. How does it work? How is it designed? How does it function? Through these questions, there is a "coming-to-know" the coffee machine, and through this initial encounter, there is something "introduced" to the possessors of the machine. Now, let us say that the possessors of the machine come to use this machine everyday. Then, there is ritual. Then there some level of attention, even if minimal, paid to the coffee machine. A nihilist may look to this and say, "aren't they in bad faith? They are drinking coffee over and over again and their lives aren't changing? They are lying to themselves about the benefits of coffee, the value of the coffee machine, and they need to confront their own despair before drinking coffee!" This is, of course, the voice of disgruntled entitlement. This type of reasoning is usually offered from the position of one who is not secure in their own attachments, however relegated those attachments may be in the world. The flipside to this is ritual. One can easily say, "Something ethereal was encountered when first being introduced to the coffee machine. They use it, they pay attention to it everyday, to foster the Sublime energy which needs space, time, and attention to grow. It is a form of connecting with one's roots in the ground." The nihilism is one of the weeds that get in the way of perceiving this Sublime energy. There are some other "weeds." Let us root out some weeds. The people appearing to engage in ritual are not doing it to re-experience the original experience of that first cup of coffee from the machine. If this were the case, then the only thing which would follow using the machine would be disappointment, for no event can re-occur. This would lead to the giving-up of the endeavor, and no more using the machine. But, in this example, the people do keep using the machine, so they have not given up, so they have not experienced that crippling disappointment, or not in a way that means that it is central to their experience of the coffee. That is one weed down. There are other weeds, such that these people are using the machine because they have to now that they have the machine, or that they are using it because they do not know what else there is to do. The first can be weeded out by observing that there is no "have to" with regards to human behavior. Try living only by have-to's for a day for long enough and you will start to notice the unexpectedness and necessary self-surprise which is required to live a properly adjusted life. The next weed can be weeded out by observing that these people once existed without the coffee machine and thus have bodily remembrance of how to exist without using it. The suggestion which I am attempting to profess here, and a suggestion that is very close to the ethereal truth which these people have come to know through using their second eye, is that, what was introduced to them through the coffee machine was not just the coffee or the coffee machine. There was an energy that was created in the space. This involves the counter, the standing room in front of it, the protrusion from the counter that is the machine, the moving of arms to the buttons, the smells, the textures of the metal, etc. Like many sparks in the air spontaneously and simultaneously shooting forth and colliding with one another, there is a collision of senses and thought which occurs. This energy in this space introduces the user to something which plays a singular part in their existence, so that they may go forth, become, share, and develop. Perhaps it fills in something missing, or renders onto them what was lost. Perhaps it alerted them to a serious discovery or a deep emotion. By paying ritualistic attention to this energy, the energy is prolonged and given a home. It is, to say, taken in. It is allowed in the space. It is welcomed and let be. It doesn't matter if the cup of coffee from the machine is not as good on one day as it is on another. It doesn't matter that the machine cost money. It doesn't matter that one day the machine and the user will have to part ways. It doesn't matter if the machine requires maintenance on certain days, etc. What matters to the people in this writing experiment is that the energy--the wonder--the essence which was once introduced is allowed to continue fizzling in the nothing-ness of the world, like a child who is allowed to stay and develop over time. [Note: this written experiment is not just an experiment. It is an observation of real people, who are abstracted here for the sake respecting privacy and dealing with the human form of things.] Through the second-eye, the realm of chaos is overseen by order, and attention is paid to the unique Spirits which make themselves present to humanity. 

To round out these reflections, it is important to note that people do not exert power over people. If Person A says, "do this," And Person B does this, then this does not mean that Person A exerts power over Person B. What this means is that between the time when Person A says, "do this," and the time of Person B "doing this," Person B has aligned themselves in such a way, for whatever reason, most likely something to do not with Person A, to "do this." They could have not done so. They could have done so for a completely different reason. They could have totally forgot about Person A's request. To assume that Person B was under the power of Person A is to assume that human beings have no free will and that decisions are made in a linear fashion. The power-hungry will cry, "But Person A clearly said 'do this,' Person A clearly has the power!" They say this because they want, at a coming moment in their lives, to assume power, and they wish achieve this power in the lazy way of issuing the easiest form of rhetorical mandates and directions. The most humble lesson to take from this set-up is that Person B, faced with Person A's words, eventually does "this" on his own accord. For example. If a mother says to their child, "clean your room." And three days later, the child, "cleans their room," then who's to say that the child was under the power of their mother? Who's to say the child did not come to this on their own accord? If a mother says to their child, "clean your room by nine. We have company," and the child cleans their room, who's to say that the child did not come to the same conclusion as his mother, who was simply the one who voiced it aloud, as a reminder? Who's to say that the child also did think about the company coming over at nine, and also did know that cleaning his room was going to be a necessity? Thus, in direction, there is no power. And we do not exert power over people. One can say, "but what if someone threatens to torture me, rape me, and kill me!" To this, I say, there have been people burned at the stake and brutally murdered, and who never gave up their will. The saints, the martyrs, the outspoken, the Salem witch trials, the Red Scare, etc. are all testaments to the fact: the self finds freedom in itself; it is only the self which can oppress the self; and the else simply provides reasons for doing so. When the enemy threatens to torture me, that is only a bullet point on the "pro's" list of "why I should give up my power." Depending on how I've aligned my faculties, if I put too much weight on the immediate, this single bullet point on the list might be enough to drive me to despair and submission. However, if my faculties are aligned such that I am diligent and faithful and true to my experience, then my attention will be paid to the infinitely more valuable bullet points on the list for "why I should remain loyal to freedom." 

The worst we can do is allow others to fall into oppression within themselves. This is the cardinal sin of the human will.