Re: Willy's mysterium
- Mr. Jeffrey, were I to create a pseudonym, or handle, controlled by
myself that fits best the pedagogical, it would be one who never gets
it. Why? Because I would always have an excuse to mount the podium and
preach, using the guise of trying to see that another gets it.
Let me, under the guise of helping you get it, take a different tack.
Let's say that the situation up to here is best described by my
showing you what getting it means, and that, despite that showing, you
do not get it.
You can get that picture as a picture, without knowing how it will be
framed, right? This statement tells you that the notion of the frame
is something yet to be shown, right? The frame will be the context,
and to complete the frame I am going to shift from trying to show it
to you to showing you why you don't get it. The why of that not
getting will simply be that you are looking in the wrong place. It is
as if I am pointing at the moon and you, in not looking at where I am
pointing, are looking only at my pointing finger. This analogy I have
borrowed from Buddha.
The next part of that analogy will add the moon to it, but that is
still not looking in the right place. Why? Because there is the
pointing finger as separate from the moon. Well, how can they be made
one? The can't if you look in the wrong place. This defines the 'wrong
place' as anywhere that reason will not allow you to make the pointing
finger and the moon one. The right place will be the gesture itself,
the act in which both the moon and the one pointing at it are
included. So, 'being one' takes on a different meaning, right?
Now, what if the moon were the reflection of oneself, and what if that
separation were taken a duality represented by the subjective and the
objective? What could we do with such a frame? We could put a picture
in it like the following. Ah, the completion of the frame will not
tell you where to look, but only give you the necessary frame through
which to see it. So, there is work yet left to do, after this, sorry.
Also, if you do not take the time to work this out, which is to say,
reason it out, well, I am not responsible for that.
The frame is a process. It begins with the person looking only at the
finger. This is subjectivity enclosed within itself. There is no
objectivity, which is to say that it has no reflection of itself. We
could say that this is the self not yet a self because it has no sense
of being a self. The next step would be the acquisition of itself
through the acquisition of a self to be reflected upon. The moon
shines bright as the objective self as separate from itself as the
observer. With that qualitative leap, desire is born. There is a want
that burns as brightly as that moon to make the two one. Of course,
they never were one. There was only one until it became two in the
act. If the act is not seen, that duality is continually trying to
make itself one in any way possible. Its favorite method is to imagine
what being one would look like and try to fulfill that look.
Oh hell, I got sidetracked and lost the ending. Oh well, I can finish
this at some later date. Sorry about that; forget the whole mess until
I put it together correctly.