“The safest general characterization of the European philosophical tradition is that it consists of a series of footnotes to Plato.”
–Alfred North Whitehead

To TheModernMystic (YouTube)

TheModernMystic @ YouTube.com


the gap has been leaped. 1st person and 3rd person are equally illusory. No “I” and no “it”. There is no single observer just like there is no single observed. In fact, there is no observer or observed at all, they are not two.

Thou art That.

I am It. No, not Matthew is It. “I” mean all “I”s, whatever the gap between Matthew and his experience is, that which every named person alive experiences, is It.

So have I leapt the gap, or has the river between the two sides dried up?

Is it that I walked across the gap which was a mirage, or is it rather that there is no time to go across at all?

What do we mean by “now”? Isn’t it the same thing we mean by “I”? We mean this, right here, right now that “I” experience. But if there is no “I” to experience any “now”,or rather if that stopping to say “now”, or to remember “time”, is itself what creates that experience of “I”, then, well, the gap has no time to be leapt.

Hm. Well strange thing is I now have no idea what has happened to the gap. I can still talk about what it supposedly is all day (and night), but i haven’t been able to pin it down with that technique quite yet. It isn’t one of the two poles that one uses to “make sense” whenever one attempts to describe something they’ve experienced by talking about it. It isn’t “I” or “It” that is really real, it isn’t mind or matter that ultimately decides our fate (or freedom). Those are all figures of speech.

The question I have been poorly trying to articulate up until now is this:

How can there be a describer separate from what is described?

Whenever we open our mouths and start vibrating words into intelligence (into rational sense that others agree with), it is absolutely necessary that “I”s and “It”s exist. Otherwise there is simply nothing to talk about, or at least nothing that would “make sense”.

“Sense,” or consciousness, is the appearance of dualism. The illusion of separateness. Without separateness, there is no one who talks and no one to talk to, there is no world to be sounded or word to be written.

Think about it: If you are not separate from the words you’re reading, you couldn’t possibly be able to understand them. The fact that you do “understand” them is purely an illusion, because WHO could it possibly be that is “understanding” anything? From what perspective does this “recognition” or “representation” occur from? Sure, it could be that we are just unconsciously trained to put phonemes and letters together to form coherent responses to the utterances we take in from outside, “coherence” being judged by the amount of emotional reward we receive from others while chatting.

But surely it doesn’t seem this way. Surely it seems like we really do KNOW what these words mean, we really are SURE (we directly “sense” it) what they are.

This assurance is an illusion. But the illusion is real, it occurs. Separateness exists when we speak, when we attempt to communicate (or think) using language. And language is not just English or French or German or Mandarin. Language is bird song. Language is gestural. Language is genetic. Language is atomic. Language amounts to the only real “difference” even between light and dark. But difference creates “sense”. Without dualism there is no meaning to anything, there is no leverage from which to lift a temporary “perspective of a world” (an “I” experiencing an “It”) out of the original eternal oneness.

But blah blah blah, that is not it either.

The gap is God, or God is in the gaps.

The gap is all there is, maybe that’s it.

The cloud of unknowing, that is where and what and when “we” are.

We exist nowhere as no one in no time.

But you must have understood those words I just used to describe what we are and felt that they had meaning… how does that happen?

Oh, I’m at it again.

The gap is God.

What do you think about this? Or rather, do you agree that you could not possibly think anything about it because YOU ARE IT. you can not move around about it, take a stance from beyond it, view it from outside and pronounce objectively that you’ve discovered the one true description of its essence.

Are you it? Is this all?

“Every now and then when `me thing` is being played with by the brain, `me thing` does something funny, loving or anything positive – it is `seen`, that being, just `me thing`, does not stop the fun and love and other positives.
Slowly one can learn to drop the `me-individual-ego-important-special-ness` and be more of `just a cog in a mega machine`.”

So is it that we shouldn’t think “we” are special, or that there is no “I” or anyone who could possibly be labeled special?

Humility is just as silly as hubris at the end of the day, isn’t it? They are both equally impossible.

They are emotions maybe. But who “has” them?

Is that feeling of there being a “haver” of feelings what goes away when we focus in on them?

Focus in on boredom and it disappears! Or does the focuser disappear?

“Individuals would have to be reprogrammed to see themselves as, not individuals, but as `things`.
It is a hard first step, but it does not need to be jumped up all at once.”

Programming scares me. I think the computer metaphor carries an illogical stowaway, or rather an implicit metaphysic involving a “receiver” of “code”, or an “I” that has “experiences”. Sure, we can describe everything a computer is by listing inputs and outputs (code) but that is not what the computer actually does. It actually transforms the consciousness of the humans who use it. Humans complete the loop that allows computers to be processors of “information”, rather than just empty meaningless digits.

Ah, what’t the point? I’m saying we are not code readers. We can’t be! Because there is no reader of any code! There is “code reading”, that I think I can safely say. But there is no one who reads code, and no code that is read by someone.

So we are not code readers. Does that mean we’re something more special? No. It’s all special. I and It. All of it, including “you” and “me”. It is all unique. Even more unique than one of a kind. It is not a kind among other kinds. It simply is what there is, and there is only one.

But so what? If we can’t reprogram people (because people aren’t people), then what do we do? If we can’t do anything because we don’t exist as free wills inside the body, or as mini-Sisyphuses who push around boulders, then what are we worried about? Or rather, who is it that is worried?

Let’s focus in on the worry.

Hmm… yes there is plenty of worrying going on. But who is worried? And who are they worried about?

If we’re going to talk about reprogramming people, we better start talking about God (ie, the programmer). There is no other voice that could undo human programming and replace it with angel programming.

But I’d rather not get into that discussion. Christianity has already got it wrapped up nice and tight, in knots as a matter of fact.

So I am suggesting that the computer metaphors go the way of the Jesus metaphors. And maybe also that the desire to save the world is impossible. It’s not that it can’t be done. It’s that there is no one to do it, no one to have it done to.

Or its already saved, if you don’t might the weight of the “specialness” this might imply. It’s probably much lighter if we don’t talk about it at all.







What do you think?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: